6 ms·

Identity politics and outrage culture has jumped the shark, but for some reason it does not recognize this fact. Here is in summary his "crime" a letter his wi

Identity politics and outrage culture has jumped the shark, but for some reason it does not recognize this fact. Here is in summary his "crime" a letter his wife wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-email-led-to-a-campus-firestorm--and-a-troubling-lesson-about-self-censorship/2016/10/28/70e55732-9b97-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.26db09f08fd7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-email-l... https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing-yourselves-email-to-silliman-college-yale-students-on-halloween-costumes/ https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing... "Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society." They are both right. People who opposed them are wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Aloha 8y ago
The greatest risk to free society in my opinion is the overwhelming response of the Outrage Army, and the accompanying chilling effects on free speech and civility. Consider for a moment that the rise of the right wing political movements are in my opinion, an irrational response to the growth of tribalism and outrage culture on the left.
- inertiatic 8y ago
  In Europe the culture you're describing is pretty much non-existent, yet far-right parties are on the rise everywhere. I don't think there's a causal relationship, perhaps it exacerbates the issue yes, but it's not the cause of it. I think far-right rhetoric is just too easy to digest, a clear group of enemies is identified for you (just like it is for the people on the left you described). And digging deeper and analyzing an increasingly complex socioeconomical situation, where things interconnect on a global level, is becoming harder and harder, so the inherent tribalism in us drives us to adopt those easy answers.
  - nzjrs 8y ago
    I've noticed the Europe where I am living for a long time successfully import outrage culture from the USA. The internet has truly brought us closer together - and not in positive ways.
  - mastazi 8y ago
    > In Europe Where? That type of culture definitely exists in at least some places (e.g. Italy which is where I grew up, I've seen examples in UK too).
  - rdtsc 8y ago
    > far-right parties are on the rise everywhere. Wonder what is the cause then. The economy is stagnant and people are reaching for the extremes?
  - growlist 8y ago
    > In Europe the culture you're describing is pretty much non-existent It's all over the media in the UK
- vkou 8y ago
  What about the tribalism and outrage culture on the right, that various civil rights movements has been fighting for decades, now? The right's been outraged over all sorts of things, most of which having no effect on it (Gay rights, for one - the amount of outrage that people opposed to them have voice over the years is staggering), has engaged in decades of tone policing, and is incredibly tribal. Does your theory explain why having to put up with decades of this sort of thing hasn't galvanized a Trump-of-the-left into power?
  - mirimir 8y ago
    I don't like framing it as "Trump-of-the-left". I also hate the "right-wing" vs "left-wing" dichotomy. Because it jambs many dimensions into one. But whatever. There have been a few shots at electing candidates who promised to address various sorts of "left-wing" concerns. Most recently, in their own ways, Hillary Clinton (feminism) and Bernie Sanders (humanism). And Barach Obama (anti-racism). Back in the day, there were Eugene McCarthy (pacifism) and Jessie Jackson (anti-racism). Even Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Although Clinton was a right-wing Democratic con, in my opinion. But in my cynical moments, I suspect the same of Barach Obama. Anyway, there's really nothing unique about Trump, in this regard.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
geofft 8y ago
It is absolutely possible to disagree with that letter and the quoted sentence in good faith.
- devoply 8y ago
  Going after someone's career for a perfectly legitimate voiced opinion is not good faith regardless of disagreement. Also in general this whole idea of empowerment through silencing is what nasty religions have done in the past, shunning people for speaking their truth. It's a disgusting tactic and people using it to silence legitimate discourse should instead be shunned.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Yes, and yes. But I don't believe that anyone should be shunned. Maybe thrown in jail, if they hurt others, but not shunned.
  - krastanov 8y ago
    You are missing a couple of facts, namely, they were not simply faculty, they were also in very particular and prestigious mentorship positions at the college. How can you be a mentor if you dismis the concerns of your students? This whole debacle was not over just some stupid letter, rather it was over the complete lack of empathy in the conversation that followed.
    - ALittleLight 8y ago
      How can you be a mentor for college students if you indulge them in childish delusions?
    - imgabe 8y ago
      You are confusing "disagree" with "dismiss". I don't think they dismissed the concerns of their students, I think they disagreed with the students' proposed solution and explained their reasoning. What kind of mentor would they be if they acquiesced to every demand a student makes, even when they believed it to be incorrect? Is not the purpose of having a mentor to learn from them, not to have them simply confirm everything you already want to believe?
mirimir 8y ago
Yeah, I am so glad that I left academia in the 90s. I can't imagine the bullshit that professors must deal with now. There's also the fact that I earned lots more money as a consultant, but whatever.
growlist 8y ago
What worries me is that we are in a period of relative peace in the developed world, and yet there seems to be an attempt to create instability in society via this culture. I don't believe that it has just organically emerged from nowhere nor that it would persist unless it served the interests of power in some way, yet the useful idiots that support it are unable to recognise themselves as such.

Aloha 8y ago

The greatest risk to free society in my opinion is the overwhelming response of the Outrage Army, and the accompanying chilling effects on free speech and civility. Consider for a moment that the rise of the right wing political movements are in my opinion, an irrational response to the growth of tribalism and outrage culture on the left.

inertiatic 8y ago
In Europe the culture you're describing is pretty much non-existent, yet far-right parties are on the rise everywhere. I don't think there's a causal relationship, perhaps it exacerbates the issue yes, but it's not the cause of it. I think far-right rhetoric is just too easy to digest, a clear group of enemies is identified for you (just like it is for the people on the left you described). And digging deeper and analyzing an increasingly complex socioeconomical situation, where things interconnect on a global level, is becoming harder and harder, so the inherent tribalism in us drives us to adopt those easy answers.
- nzjrs 8y ago
  I've noticed the Europe where I am living for a long time successfully import outrage culture from the USA. The internet has truly brought us closer together - and not in positive ways.
- mastazi 8y ago
  > In Europe Where? That type of culture definitely exists in at least some places (e.g. Italy which is where I grew up, I've seen examples in UK too).
- rdtsc 8y ago
  > far-right parties are on the rise everywhere. Wonder what is the cause then. The economy is stagnant and people are reaching for the extremes?
- growlist 8y ago
  > In Europe the culture you're describing is pretty much non-existent It's all over the media in the UK
vkou 8y ago
What about the tribalism and outrage culture on the right, that various civil rights movements has been fighting for decades, now? The right's been outraged over all sorts of things, most of which having no effect on it (Gay rights, for one - the amount of outrage that people opposed to them have voice over the years is staggering), has engaged in decades of tone policing, and is incredibly tribal. Does your theory explain why having to put up with decades of this sort of thing hasn't galvanized a Trump-of-the-left into power?
- mirimir 8y ago
  I don't like framing it as "Trump-of-the-left". I also hate the "right-wing" vs "left-wing" dichotomy. Because it jambs many dimensions into one. But whatever. There have been a few shots at electing candidates who promised to address various sorts of "left-wing" concerns. Most recently, in their own ways, Hillary Clinton (feminism) and Bernie Sanders (humanism). And Barach Obama (anti-racism). Back in the day, there were Eugene McCarthy (pacifism) and Jessie Jackson (anti-racism). Even Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Although Clinton was a right-wing Democratic con, in my opinion. But in my cynical moments, I suspect the same of Barach Obama. Anyway, there's really nothing unique about Trump, in this regard.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

geofft 8y ago

It is absolutely possible to disagree with that letter and the quoted sentence in good faith.

devoply 8y ago
Going after someone's career for a perfectly legitimate voiced opinion is not good faith regardless of disagreement. Also in general this whole idea of empowerment through silencing is what nasty religions have done in the past, shunning people for speaking their truth. It's a disgusting tactic and people using it to silence legitimate discourse should instead be shunned.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Yes, and yes. But I don't believe that anyone should be shunned. Maybe thrown in jail, if they hurt others, but not shunned.
- krastanov 8y ago
  You are missing a couple of facts, namely, they were not simply faculty, they were also in very particular and prestigious mentorship positions at the college. How can you be a mentor if you dismis the concerns of your students? This whole debacle was not over just some stupid letter, rather it was over the complete lack of empathy in the conversation that followed.
  - ALittleLight 8y ago
    How can you be a mentor for college students if you indulge them in childish delusions?
  - imgabe 8y ago
    You are confusing "disagree" with "dismiss". I don't think they dismissed the concerns of their students, I think they disagreed with the students' proposed solution and explained their reasoning. What kind of mentor would they be if they acquiesced to every demand a student makes, even when they believed it to be incorrect? Is not the purpose of having a mentor to learn from them, not to have them simply confirm everything you already want to believe?

mirimir 8y ago

Yeah, I am so glad that I left academia in the 90s. I can't imagine the bullshit that professors must deal with now. There's also the fact that I earned lots more money as a consultant, but whatever.

growlist 8y ago

What worries me is that we are in a period of relative peace in the developed world, and yet there seems to be an attempt to create instability in society via this culture. I don't believe that it has just organically emerged from nowhere nor that it would persist unless it served the interests of power in some way, yet the useful idiots that support it are unable to recognise themselves as such.