8 ms·

I first saw this as potentially a great possibility. Like, awesome, someone is actually sitting down and researching how to undivided the red/blue divided Ameri

I first saw this as potentially a great possibility. Like, awesome, someone is actually sitting down and researching how to undivided the red/blue divided America? But then... > The fledgling academy now occupies a position within America’s tumultuous culture wars as advocates for free speech and the values of the “open society” and against political correctness and the millennial fervor of social justice activism. "Political correctness" is so thoroughly abused as an alt-right general accusation as to be meaningless. All it does here is make me question the institution as just another alt-right organization hiding their beliefs behind the shield of "rationality" and "free speech." > Of course, the researchers will be labeled white supremacists by those who fear that more knowledge might interfere with their ideologically pure claim that American racism is the root cause of every social problem. Sure, it's annoying to be called a white supremacist by verified Twitter trolls, but we've got equally, if not more so, absurd accusations of anti-Semitism flying all over the fucking place right now, and the correct solution is to leave Twitter to the Twitter trolls.

lliamander 7y ago
> "Political correctness" is so thoroughly abused as an alt-right general accusation as to be meaningless. All it does here is make me question the institution as just another alt-right organization hiding their beliefs behind the shield of "rationality" and "free speech." "Racism", "bigotry", etc. are so thoroughly abused as left-wing general accusation as to be meaningless. All it does is make me question the institution as just another Marxist organization hiding their beliefs behind the shield of "compassion" and "fairness". Btw, what makes someone alt-right? Just curious.
- b_tterc_p 7y ago
  Alt right is broadly a split faction from traditional conservatives towards ethno-centric populism and anti-liberal values.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    Thank you for answering the question. If I may probe further, what is the distinction between traditional conservatism and ethno-centric populism? Do traditional conservatives also hold anti-liberal values, or is there a substrate of liberal values shared by both traditional conservatives and progressives that does not include the alt-right?
    - lukifer 7y ago
      Obviously these are fuzzy terms, with different definitions based on who you ask. I would say left and right are two different approaches to the project of small-l liberalism; left wants to move rapidly and make high-risk/high-reward changes, while right wants to move more cautiously and not risk eroding previous wins of stability and liberty. (That's setting aside personality and "moral matrix" differences somewhat, as described by Haidt and Lakoff, and focusing instead on the historical tension between the two political cultures in the context of 20th/21st-century American democracy.) The actual alt-right (exemplified by Richard Spenser, Jared Taylor, etc) are those who stand in opposition to classical liberal principles, even if it's more measured and nuanced than historical ethno-nationalism ("race realism", etc). (As an aside, I've always enjoyed Noam Chomsky's assertion that he's "one of the few real conservatives out there", in his staunch defense of Enlightenment principles, civil liberties, opposition to state violence, etc.) That said, left and right have been drifting apart for the last 20-40 years, and having a harder and harder time finding common ground, as political party identity becomes more salient than American identity. On paper, we agree on certain shared values; yet when one tribe is asked what the other thinks, they're often convinced that the opposing tribe does not share those values whatsoever.
    - b_tterc_p 7y ago
      I would say the difference is between holding the status quo versus forcing it down a certain avenue, often subverting established norms and rules of the government. But it’s all subjective so do what you do
whatshisface 7y ago
One part of calming down the political situation is probably going to be becoming less sensitive to the possibility that evil alt-right/antifa sleeper agents are lurking everywhere. There's a certain fear that behind every Twitter account or public persona is a revolutionary waiting to exterminate somebody or eat the rich, but in reality they are so rare that it's worth waiting for them to express their crazy views directly. Nobody will listen to them when they do, and there is nothing to gain by identifying a Twitter account as belonging to the evil side a month or two earlier than otherwise.
- komali2 7y ago
  Calm, that's a good word to use. On Twitter I see statements made that are offensively absurd and rhetorically dishonest. I suspect 80% of them are some sort of malactor fomenting division. I honestly believe the world would be a better place if Twitter strictly enforces a HN style set of rules (argue in good faith) or just went away entirely.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    How can you honestly claim that you want to support arguing in good faith, and yet sincerely speculate whether Jonathan Haidt is some sort of alt-right goon? If you wanted good faith, you didn't start off the conversation well.
    - komali2 7y ago
      It's a fair accusation, though I bristle at the use of the phrase "alt-right goon." If that's the impression I gave in my writing, it's not what I meant, so I appreciate you giving me the space here to clarify. Basically, I yearn for a rational approach to bringing together the ridiculously divided country, and at first glance Jonathan Haidt seemed to be the guy for it. But, experience has taught me that people that come to the table of this discussion and start using phrases like "political correctness" are just another conservative hiding behind a moderate, disaffected mask.
      - 7y ago
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
So it turns out that being in favor of allowing multiple points of view to coexist puts you in conflict with people who only want to allow one point of view to be heard. That's... rather unsurprising. It is my perception that the left is doing better at shutting down opposing speech than the right, and has been since the 90s. If you're going to address the problem that it's happening at all, you have to address the side that's doing it more and better.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- BryantD 7y ago
  So how do you personally test that perception?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    With statistical validity? To p = 0.05? I don't. But picking one form of "silencing" (people whose invitations to speak on university campuses were withdrawn, blocked, or cancelled due to threats of violence), and measuring it by how much I read about it in the press, it appears that the right is blocked more than the left. And the press is not currently disposed present things in a way that makes the right look more sympathetic.
    - neaden 7y ago
      Honest question, do you think liberal speakers are getting invited to places like Liberty University in the first place?
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Probably not. Honest question back: Why do you think Liberty University is the yardstick, rather than public universities?
        7y ago
lliamander 7y ago
If you want a serious definition of political correctness: The censure or suppression of speech which is deemed to offend the dignity of select classes of people, regardless of whether the speech is in fact true. That is where political correctness differs from defamation, which is inherently deceitful.
- Pils 7y ago
  Did you just make up that definition? The only result on Google is your comment.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    Is the wording my own? Yes. However, I don't think I am by any means equivocating or redefining the term here. When people criticize political correctness, their complaint is generally that they are prohibited or reprimanded for saying things that are true (or might be true) but may be offensive to particular classes of people. The goal is generally not to actually offend people, but to preserve a society in which truth, even uncomfortable truth, can be discussed. EDIT: If you look at Wikipedia[1] you'll find that my definition matches almost precisely in meaning to the definition listed there. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
    - Pils 7y ago
      Okay, just clarifying. You are in fact redefining the term. Which isn't an issue, it has been redefined many times before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness (Which I see you've edited to be included in your response). My problem with your definition is that it obscures the fact that "political correctness" is almost always used as a pejorative, whereas your definition gives it a more neutral, clinical meaning. If we were discussing religious dogmatism, it would be the difference between "devout" and "puritanical." Your definition obscures the normative usage of the phrase, and can lead to people talking past each other.
lukifer 7y ago
It's worth bearing in mind that when Haidt refers to problems of "political correctness", he's not talking about polite society, or political rhetoric, or what's allowed on television; he's talking about universities specifically, based on his own experiences (and Bret Weinstein, and Nicholas Christakis, etc). In his latest book, Haidt clarifies that there are legitimate roles for activism, solidarity, and taboos; his argument is that the activist telos is at fundamental odds with the telos of universities as truth-finding institutions.

lliamander 7y ago

> "Political correctness" is so thoroughly abused as an alt-right general accusation as to be meaningless. All it does here is make me question the institution as just another alt-right organization hiding their beliefs behind the shield of "rationality" and "free speech." "Racism", "bigotry", etc. are so thoroughly abused as left-wing general accusation as to be meaningless. All it does is make me question the institution as just another Marxist organization hiding their beliefs behind the shield of "compassion" and "fairness". Btw, what makes someone alt-right? Just curious.

b_tterc_p 7y ago
Alt right is broadly a split faction from traditional conservatives towards ethno-centric populism and anti-liberal values.
- lliamander 7y ago
  Thank you for answering the question. If I may probe further, what is the distinction between traditional conservatism and ethno-centric populism? Do traditional conservatives also hold anti-liberal values, or is there a substrate of liberal values shared by both traditional conservatives and progressives that does not include the alt-right?
  - lukifer 7y ago
    Obviously these are fuzzy terms, with different definitions based on who you ask. I would say left and right are two different approaches to the project of small-l liberalism; left wants to move rapidly and make high-risk/high-reward changes, while right wants to move more cautiously and not risk eroding previous wins of stability and liberty. (That's setting aside personality and "moral matrix" differences somewhat, as described by Haidt and Lakoff, and focusing instead on the historical tension between the two political cultures in the context of 20th/21st-century American democracy.) The actual alt-right (exemplified by Richard Spenser, Jared Taylor, etc) are those who stand in opposition to classical liberal principles, even if it's more measured and nuanced than historical ethno-nationalism ("race realism", etc). (As an aside, I've always enjoyed Noam Chomsky's assertion that he's "one of the few real conservatives out there", in his staunch defense of Enlightenment principles, civil liberties, opposition to state violence, etc.) That said, left and right have been drifting apart for the last 20-40 years, and having a harder and harder time finding common ground, as political party identity becomes more salient than American identity. On paper, we agree on certain shared values; yet when one tribe is asked what the other thinks, they're often convinced that the opposing tribe does not share those values whatsoever.
  - b_tterc_p 7y ago
    I would say the difference is between holding the status quo versus forcing it down a certain avenue, often subverting established norms and rules of the government. But it’s all subjective so do what you do

whatshisface 7y ago

One part of calming down the political situation is probably going to be becoming less sensitive to the possibility that evil alt-right/antifa sleeper agents are lurking everywhere. There's a certain fear that behind every Twitter account or public persona is a revolutionary waiting to exterminate somebody or eat the rich, but in reality they are so rare that it's worth waiting for them to express their crazy views directly. Nobody will listen to them when they do, and there is nothing to gain by identifying a Twitter account as belonging to the evil side a month or two earlier than otherwise.

komali2 7y ago
Calm, that's a good word to use. On Twitter I see statements made that are offensively absurd and rhetorically dishonest. I suspect 80% of them are some sort of malactor fomenting division. I honestly believe the world would be a better place if Twitter strictly enforces a HN style set of rules (argue in good faith) or just went away entirely.
- lliamander 7y ago
  How can you honestly claim that you want to support arguing in good faith, and yet sincerely speculate whether Jonathan Haidt is some sort of alt-right goon? If you wanted good faith, you didn't start off the conversation well.
  - komali2 7y ago
    It's a fair accusation, though I bristle at the use of the phrase "alt-right goon." If that's the impression I gave in my writing, it's not what I meant, so I appreciate you giving me the space here to clarify. Basically, I yearn for a rational approach to bringing together the ridiculously divided country, and at first glance Jonathan Haidt seemed to be the guy for it. But, experience has taught me that people that come to the table of this discussion and start using phrases like "political correctness" are just another conservative hiding behind a moderate, disaffected mask.
    - 7y ago

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

So it turns out that being in favor of allowing multiple points of view to coexist puts you in conflict with people who only want to allow one point of view to be heard. That's... rather unsurprising. It is my perception that the left is doing better at shutting down opposing speech than the right, and has been since the 90s. If you're going to address the problem that it's happening at all, you have to address the side that's doing it more and better.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
BryantD 7y ago
So how do you personally test that perception?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  With statistical validity? To p = 0.05? I don't. But picking one form of "silencing" (people whose invitations to speak on university campuses were withdrawn, blocked, or cancelled due to threats of violence), and measuring it by how much I read about it in the press, it appears that the right is blocked more than the left. And the press is not currently disposed present things in a way that makes the right look more sympathetic.
  - neaden 7y ago
    Honest question, do you think liberal speakers are getting invited to places like Liberty University in the first place?
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Probably not. Honest question back: Why do you think Liberty University is the yardstick, rather than public universities?
      - 7y ago

lliamander 7y ago

If you want a serious definition of political correctness: The censure or suppression of speech which is deemed to offend the dignity of select classes of people, regardless of whether the speech is in fact true. That is where political correctness differs from defamation, which is inherently deceitful.

Pils 7y ago
Did you just make up that definition? The only result on Google is your comment.
- lliamander 7y ago
  Is the wording my own? Yes. However, I don't think I am by any means equivocating or redefining the term here. When people criticize political correctness, their complaint is generally that they are prohibited or reprimanded for saying things that are true (or might be true) but may be offensive to particular classes of people. The goal is generally not to actually offend people, but to preserve a society in which truth, even uncomfortable truth, can be discussed. EDIT: If you look at Wikipedia[1] you'll find that my definition matches almost precisely in meaning to the definition listed there. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
  - Pils 7y ago
    Okay, just clarifying. You are in fact redefining the term. Which isn't an issue, it has been redefined many times before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness (Which I see you've edited to be included in your response). My problem with your definition is that it obscures the fact that "political correctness" is almost always used as a pejorative, whereas your definition gives it a more neutral, clinical meaning. If we were discussing religious dogmatism, it would be the difference between "devout" and "puritanical." Your definition obscures the normative usage of the phrase, and can lead to people talking past each other.

lukifer 7y ago

It's worth bearing in mind that when Haidt refers to problems of "political correctness", he's not talking about polite society, or political rhetoric, or what's allowed on television; he's talking about universities specifically, based on his own experiences (and Bret Weinstein, and Nicholas Christakis, etc). In his latest book, Haidt clarifies that there are legitimate roles for activism, solidarity, and taboos; his argument is that the activist telos is at fundamental odds with the telos of universities as truth-finding institutions.