7 ms·

> We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from. The irony is

> We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from. The irony is that in America this is considered "liberal." It is not -- liberalism is the opposite of much of what it's come to mean in America. When I was growing up in the US it was conservatives that were trying to control speech and expression. They wanted burning flags to be illegal. They wanted limits on "offensive" speech, including erotic imagery on tv and in art, violent music and video games. They wanted to control what ideas could be expressed in school. Now it has flipped. The "you can't say that" banner has been taken over by the Left in the US. I don't know what we should call Democrats now, but they're not liberal. (Maybe Democratic Socialists is a more fitting term.)

maerF0x0 10y ago
Agreed. Its always funny to hear a "liberal" say to someone "you're so close minded" just because the chastised doesnt believe with them.
harveywi 10y ago
It's like there are two principal eigenfrequencies competing for dominance and inducing high-energy instability. Would separating the components reduce the free energy of the system and allow a better equilibrium to occur?
- voidz 10y ago
  You got it right as I see it, and I'm not even an American citizen. Thing is, separating the components is sounding like an external entity will have to do this. I don't see it happening; not by the citizens who decide to take a new direction en masse, and also not by govt oversight or so on. Was wondering if you had thoughts related to this which you can elaborate on. To me it feels like a stalemate: no real democracy, just status quo maintenance. (Tangential: I'm really bummed out with how the Dutch govt has chosen to entirely ignore the outcome of the last Dutch referendum held on the 13th of April, 2016, which was about the EU's association treaty with Ukraine. Significantly voted against by citizens, Dutch govt and all other eu member states, all chose to entirely ignore the outcome - while to this day they choose words extremely careful to make it seem differently. Democracy, over here, has died to protect the status quo.)
kauffj 10y ago
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
- david-given 10y ago
  I can't recommend the essay the parent is linking to enough. If you possibly can, read it; it's long, but worth your time.
- tomp 10y ago
  This is such an amazing article. Scott really has a way of deconstructing ideas and boiling them down to the most basic principles.
- shawndumas 10y ago
  ^ wow; good read
- _audakel 10y ago
  good, but long >And my hypothesis, stated plainly, is that if you’re part of the Blue Tribe, then your outgroup isn’t al-Qaeda, or Muslims, or blacks, or gays, or transpeople, or Jews, or atheists – it’s the Red Tribe.
bilbo0s 10y ago
It hasn't flipped. Both liberals and conservatives have deeply held beliefs that they do not want challenged. Eroticism is every bit as anathema to conservatism as anti-undocumented immigrant rhetoric is to liberals. Pretty much everyone is in the "you can't say/do that" camp.
- lobotryas 10y ago
  Yes, everyone has "deeply held beliefs that they do not want challenged". The difference is in how we treat people who do challenge or disagree with our beliefs AND which beliefs it's currently acceptable to challenge and which are not. Imagine someone speaking out against a popular left-leaning causes like something that Obama would support. Now, imagine someone railing against a popular right-leaning cause, like something Ted Cruz would support. Do you think they'll get the same amount or type of counter-artuments, vitriol, or push-back?
  - dasil003 10y ago
    Depends where it's happening?
    - ams6110 10y ago
      Implication is it's happening in a "general public" forum, or so I infered.
      - unprepare 10y ago
        general public in rural alabama or general public in downtown san francisco?
  - lbebber 10y ago
    Different ideas affect different people in different ways. For example, not having affordable healthcare affects people directly and might very well be a death sentence to some. Often, popular left-leaning causes are like that - causes where people are left vulnerable if they lose: Equal rights for LGBT people, gender, race, and immigration issues, etc. So of course, people are going to react very strongly to someone who is against that, because they are deeply and directly impacted.
jccalhoun 10y ago
I don't know when you grew up but it certainly hasn't been the case for at least 30 years that conservatives had a monopoly on wanting to regulate media. in the 80s the PMRC was headed by wives of some republican politicians but also by Tipper Gore - wife of Al Gore. Throughout the 90s and up until 2011's Brown vs EMA there were several Democrats who either sponsored bills or called from them. Some of the one's I remember were California's Joe Baca (who was a Democrat but has since switched to Republican) and the now incarcerated Leland Yee, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (also now incarcerated...) and national politicians Joe Lieberman (whose witch hunt led to the creation of the ESRB) and Hillary Clinton.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Many many democrats also were on the "defense of marriage" bandwagon until recently. Including Obama, the Clintons, etc.
Frondo 10y ago
I'm not aware of laws being passed--or any leftists pushing for them--that prevent you from saying anything. I am aware of law being made around not refusing service to various groups of people when you open and operate a business, but hey, business is something we as a society regulate, and saying "you have to serve everyone" has been working pretty well for a long time already. But please, if you know of any leftist actually trying to ban speech with laws--and not just make it unfashionable or socially unacceptable--then please let me know.
- Tiksi 10y ago
  Saying "But it's not a law" is a weak argument. If someone is holding a gun to my head and threatening to shoot if I say X, telling me "But there's no law that says you can't say X, see, no censorship" isn't going to be very comforting and if I follow that advice, probably won't end too well for me. Just because it's not the government pulling the trigger doesn't mean there's no gun.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    I'm curious if you can point to leftists using weapons to threaten people. Again, what I see from leftists is the desire to make a wide swath of speech (like casually sexist or racist stuff) unfashionable or unacceptable to use--and I see them using the only tool they have, which is their own speech. Not guns, not laws, but speech.
    - CM30 10y ago
      Is this close enough? http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-rensin http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-ren... Or maybe: http://archive.is/HpiQb http://archive.is/HpiQb Both refer to removed posts, but one has someone encouraging riots if a Trump rally comes to town, and one wants violent left wing extremism.
    - Tiksi 10y ago
      I never said or implied anyone was using weapons to threaten people. Maybe they are, I have no idea. But that's irrelevant as my point was that appealing to the lack of a law is a weak argument if your intent is to show a lack of censorship. I intentionally left my own views out of the last comment as I try to stay away from these kinds of discussions since they're rarely productive and my views are pretty all over the place and change frequently(other than free speech, it's pretty much the only thing I'm an absolutist on), but I've seen your last point stated more and more frequently lately and it rubs me the wrong way. One group is saying "You can't say X/you shouldn't be able to say X", while the other group is saying "Stop telling me what I can and can't say". The first group is trying to suppress opposing views directly, while the second is trying to suppress the attempted suppression of speech, not the opposing views themselves. They are not equivalent.
Turing_Machine 10y ago
"When I was growing up in the US it was conservatives that were trying to control speech and expression...They wanted limits on "offensive" speech, including erotic imagery in art, violent music and video games." True, as far as it goes. However, it wasn't just "conservatives" who wanted this. Extreme leftists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon were right there with them. Statists gonna state. It doesn't really matter that much whether they call themselves "leftist" or "rightist". What really matters is whether, and how much, they want to control other people.

maerF0x0 10y ago

Agreed. Its always funny to hear a "liberal" say to someone "you're so close minded" just because the chastised doesnt believe with them.

harveywi 10y ago

It's like there are two principal eigenfrequencies competing for dominance and inducing high-energy instability. Would separating the components reduce the free energy of the system and allow a better equilibrium to occur?

voidz 10y ago
You got it right as I see it, and I'm not even an American citizen. Thing is, separating the components is sounding like an external entity will have to do this. I don't see it happening; not by the citizens who decide to take a new direction en masse, and also not by govt oversight or so on. Was wondering if you had thoughts related to this which you can elaborate on. To me it feels like a stalemate: no real democracy, just status quo maintenance. (Tangential: I'm really bummed out with how the Dutch govt has chosen to entirely ignore the outcome of the last Dutch referendum held on the 13th of April, 2016, which was about the EU's association treaty with Ukraine. Significantly voted against by citizens, Dutch govt and all other eu member states, all chose to entirely ignore the outcome - while to this day they choose words extremely careful to make it seem differently. Democracy, over here, has died to protect the status quo.)

kauffj 10y ago

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

david-given 10y ago
I can't recommend the essay the parent is linking to enough. If you possibly can, read it; it's long, but worth your time.
tomp 10y ago
This is such an amazing article. Scott really has a way of deconstructing ideas and boiling them down to the most basic principles.
shawndumas 10y ago
^ wow; good read
_audakel 10y ago
good, but long >And my hypothesis, stated plainly, is that if you’re part of the Blue Tribe, then your outgroup isn’t al-Qaeda, or Muslims, or blacks, or gays, or transpeople, or Jews, or atheists – it’s the Red Tribe.

bilbo0s 10y ago

It hasn't flipped. Both liberals and conservatives have deeply held beliefs that they do not want challenged. Eroticism is every bit as anathema to conservatism as anti-undocumented immigrant rhetoric is to liberals. Pretty much everyone is in the "you can't say/do that" camp.

lobotryas 10y ago
Yes, everyone has "deeply held beliefs that they do not want challenged". The difference is in how we treat people who do challenge or disagree with our beliefs AND which beliefs it's currently acceptable to challenge and which are not. Imagine someone speaking out against a popular left-leaning causes like something that Obama would support. Now, imagine someone railing against a popular right-leaning cause, like something Ted Cruz would support. Do you think they'll get the same amount or type of counter-artuments, vitriol, or push-back?
- dasil003 10y ago
  Depends where it's happening?
  - ams6110 10y ago
    Implication is it's happening in a "general public" forum, or so I infered.
    - unprepare 10y ago
      general public in rural alabama or general public in downtown san francisco?
- lbebber 10y ago
  Different ideas affect different people in different ways. For example, not having affordable healthcare affects people directly and might very well be a death sentence to some. Often, popular left-leaning causes are like that - causes where people are left vulnerable if they lose: Equal rights for LGBT people, gender, race, and immigration issues, etc. So of course, people are going to react very strongly to someone who is against that, because they are deeply and directly impacted.

jccalhoun 10y ago

I don't know when you grew up but it certainly hasn't been the case for at least 30 years that conservatives had a monopoly on wanting to regulate media. in the 80s the PMRC was headed by wives of some republican politicians but also by Tipper Gore - wife of Al Gore. Throughout the 90s and up until 2011's Brown vs EMA there were several Democrats who either sponsored bills or called from them. Some of the one's I remember were California's Joe Baca (who was a Democrat but has since switched to Republican) and the now incarcerated Leland Yee, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (also now incarcerated...) and national politicians Joe Lieberman (whose witch hunt led to the creation of the ESRB) and Hillary Clinton.

ams6110 10y ago
Many many democrats also were on the "defense of marriage" bandwagon until recently. Including Obama, the Clintons, etc.

Frondo 10y ago

I'm not aware of laws being passed--or any leftists pushing for them--that prevent you from saying anything. I am aware of law being made around not refusing service to various groups of people when you open and operate a business, but hey, business is something we as a society regulate, and saying "you have to serve everyone" has been working pretty well for a long time already. But please, if you know of any leftist actually trying to ban speech with laws--and not just make it unfashionable or socially unacceptable--then please let me know.

Tiksi 10y ago
Saying "But it's not a law" is a weak argument. If someone is holding a gun to my head and threatening to shoot if I say X, telling me "But there's no law that says you can't say X, see, no censorship" isn't going to be very comforting and if I follow that advice, probably won't end too well for me. Just because it's not the government pulling the trigger doesn't mean there's no gun.
- Frondo 10y ago
  I'm curious if you can point to leftists using weapons to threaten people. Again, what I see from leftists is the desire to make a wide swath of speech (like casually sexist or racist stuff) unfashionable or unacceptable to use--and I see them using the only tool they have, which is their own speech. Not guns, not laws, but speech.
  - CM30 10y ago
    Is this close enough? http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-rensin http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-ren... Or maybe: http://archive.is/HpiQb http://archive.is/HpiQb Both refer to removed posts, but one has someone encouraging riots if a Trump rally comes to town, and one wants violent left wing extremism.
  - Tiksi 10y ago
    I never said or implied anyone was using weapons to threaten people. Maybe they are, I have no idea. But that's irrelevant as my point was that appealing to the lack of a law is a weak argument if your intent is to show a lack of censorship. I intentionally left my own views out of the last comment as I try to stay away from these kinds of discussions since they're rarely productive and my views are pretty all over the place and change frequently(other than free speech, it's pretty much the only thing I'm an absolutist on), but I've seen your last point stated more and more frequently lately and it rubs me the wrong way. One group is saying "You can't say X/you shouldn't be able to say X", while the other group is saying "Stop telling me what I can and can't say". The first group is trying to suppress opposing views directly, while the second is trying to suppress the attempted suppression of speech, not the opposing views themselves. They are not equivalent.

Turing_Machine 10y ago

"When I was growing up in the US it was conservatives that were trying to control speech and expression...They wanted limits on "offensive" speech, including erotic imagery in art, violent music and video games." True, as far as it goes. However, it wasn't just "conservatives" who wanted this. Extreme leftists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon were right there with them. Statists gonna state. It doesn't really matter that much whether they call themselves "leftist" or "rightist". What really matters is whether, and how much, they want to control other people.