4 ms·
> Heck it's getting to the point that an institution that doesn't go out of its way to join the public shame game will probably themselves get shamed! That is
by internaut 10y ago
> Heck it's getting to the point that an institution that doesn't go out of its way to join the public shame game will probably themselves get shamed!
That is how most totalitarian societies punish their dissenters.
Scott Alexander explains it well:
"No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition, Especially Not In 21st Century America
People in ancient societies thought their societies were obviously great. The imperial Chinese thought nothing could beat imperial China, the medieval Spaniards thought medieval Spain was a singularly impressive example of perfection, and Communist Soviets were pretty big on Soviet Communism. Meanwhile, we think 21st-century Western civilization, with its democracy, secularism, and ethnic tolerance is pretty neat. Since the first three examples now seem laughably wrong, we should be suspicious of the hypothesis that we finally live in the one era whose claim to have gotten political philosophy right is totally justified.
But it seems like we have an advantage they don’t. Speak out against the Chinese Empire and you lose your head. Speak out against the King of Spain and you face the Inquisition. Speak out against Comrade Stalin and you get sent to Siberia. The great thing about western liberal democracy is that it has a free marketplace of ideas. Everybody criticizes some aspect of our society. Noam Chomsky made a career of criticizing our society and became rich and famous and got a cushy professorship. So our advantage is that we admit our society’s imperfections, reward those who point them out, and so keep inching closer and closer to this ideal of perfect government.
Okay, back up. Suppose you went back to Stalinist Russia and you said “You know, people just don’t respect Comrade Stalin enough. There isn’t enough Stalinism in this country! I say we need two Stalins! No, fifty Stalins!”
Congratulations. You have found a way to criticize the government in Stalinist Russia and totally get away with it. Who knows, you might even get that cushy professorship.
If you “criticize” society by telling it to keep doing exactly what it’s doing only much much more so, society recognizes you as an ally and rewards you for being a “bold iconoclast” or “having brave and revolutionary new ideas” or whatever. It’s only when you tell them something they actually don’t want to hear that you get in trouble.
Western society has been moving gradually further to the left for the past several hundred years at least. It went from divine right of kings to constutitional monarchy to libertarian democracy to federal democracy to New Deal democracy through the civil rights movement to social democracy to ???. If you catch up to society as it’s pushing leftward and say “Hey guys, I think we should go leftward even faster! Two times faster! No, fifty times faster!”, society will call you a bold revolutionary iconoclast and give you a professorship.
If you start suggesting maybe it should switch directions and move the direction opposite the one the engine is pointed, then you might have a bad time.
Try it. Mention that you think we should undo something that’s been done over the past century or two. Maybe reverse women’s right to vote. Go back to sterilizing the disabled and feeble-minded. If you really need convincing, suggest re-implementing segregation, or how about slavery? See how far freedom of speech gets you.
In America, it will get you fired from your job and ostracized by nearly everyone. Depending on how loudly you do it, people may picket your house, or throw things at you, or commit violence against you which is then excused by the judiciary because obviously they were provoked. Despite the iconic image of the dissident sent to Siberia, this is how the Soviets dealt with most of their iconoclasts too."
- koolba 10y agoThat was beautifully written. Kudos.
- majewsky 10y agoYes, that's how it is, and I find it completely reasonable that people will hate you for wanting to reimplement segregation or slavery. I don't know about US law, but the German constitution defines a clear hierarchy of basic rights, starting with: 1. dignity of mankind 2. right to live and and freedom from physical harm 3. equality of every person before the law 4. freedom of religion 5. free speech So there are a lot of things that our law considers more important than free speech. This setup is a result of the German experiences with a certain kind of demagogues. I will not argue that this is the perfect law system, but I stand by it nonetheless.
- internaut 10y agoNo disrespect but I don't think you understand what is being said. What you said was orthogonal. Read the essay, it is not mine, I was partially quoting it. Then if you want to comment or have thoughts we can talk about it. http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-...
- eutropia 10y agoI know it misses the point: but Noam Chomsky didn't get his professorship by being a social critic, I think it's more of a hobby for him. I believe MIT thinks him worthy of tenure due to his expertise and innovation in the field of linguistics...
- internaut 10y agoI think you're right initially but then I think also that over time his position as 'provocateur-in-chief' or 'ideas-man' becomes more important to the prestige of the institution. That is fine but our society does not appear to recognize 'social critic' as a formal job. I'm not sure that says anything positive about society and the power of credentialism. He could leave the university but in some way he kind of can't either. I think Julian Assange had a similar problem only more dire. He must be called journalist or he loses a protective mantle even though he has long become more important than a mere journalist. Maybe one day we'll recognize 'leaker' as a formal title and a Wikileaks as an institution.