6 ms·

The USA is purging intellectuals as well through outrage culture, online mobs, and the weaponization of political correctness. Both the far right and far left d

The USA is purging intellectuals as well through outrage culture, online mobs, and the weaponization of political correctness. Both the far right and far left do it routinely to their advantage, they both seem to think the ends justify the means. Whoever has the loudest megaphone and can effectively stir up a sufficiently large outrage mob is the winner. Facts do not matter, evidence can be deemed "offensive" and is immediately discarded, there is no room for nuance, opinions must conform to group-think, and attempts at humor is often the worst offense of all. Anything can and will be taken out of context. Their intention is to harm, destroy, cleanse the culture and ideology into acceptable thought. Careers are ruined, achievements are discarded, lives are destroyed, names are slandered. That this type of behavior has been recently normalized, encouraged, and incentivized by both the far right and far left in the USA is a very disturbing trend. Historically this has never worked out well, so let's hope it all stops sooner than later.

ap3 7y ago
Do you have any sources for this purge of US intelectuals?
- CorruptedArc 7y ago
  A Harvard Law Professor was forced to step down due students feeling "Unsafe" over clients he was representing in court. There are many similar examples like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/opinion/harvard-ronald-sullivan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/opinion/harvard-ronald-su...
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    You're misunderstanding the story. He was made to step down from a particular post he held, and I'm not saying that's okay, but he's still a Harvard Law professor and there was never any prospect he wouldn't be.
  - ryanobjc 7y ago
    To be absolutely clear, this professor did not lose his job, he lost his post as dean of a residential house. This is a role whereby he lives in close proximity to students, acts as an mentor and helps students with all sorts of things, like for example if a student was sexually assaulted - their dean is supposed to be on their side. Students are right to question if he takes sexual assault seriously if he represents Weinstein. There are many other fine lawyers, and this was a totally voluntary job he took on. His real job, which it certainly appears like he shirked, is to be the best advocate for his students, to help them navigate college, which is often a difficult time. It's easy to say that his voluntary role in the defense of Weinstein has no merit or conflict with his job. But is that really true? You can say "students should grow up" or toughen up or something, but is that the kind of advice you'd offer to your own child? I think not. The appearance of conflict of interest is enough. That his students express discomfort and feelings of unsafe _in their own home_ was easily dismissed by this professor is additional evidence that he doesn't treat his job of dean to a residence seriously enough. "You should reason yourself so my volunteer role and job are not in conflict" is not good enough - he's putting all the effort on the weak and less powerful. And that's not right. Ultimately the story he spins in that article is that Harvard "capitulated to a mob", but my spin is this: Harvard did the right thing by protecting the less powerful from the more powerful. And there is no disputing a tenured Harvard law professor, with tons of connections, a guaranteed for life salary, etc, is the more powerful person.
- MrLeap 7y ago
  The subservience of intellectualism to politics seems obvious to me. Typical public online discourse is shackled. Goodhart's law is a big mechanic purging intellectual discussion. If you're in a right leaning, 'non political' forum and you post about potential impacts of climate change, you'll almost certainly be put on blast. If you're in a left leaning, 'non political' forum and someone posts 'climate change is going to turn Earth to Venus and we're all going to die choking' and you respond "that seems like unrealistic histrionics" you will almost certainly be put on blast. There is verdant field of potential discussion between those two posts and it's very difficult to play there. You can, in certain sanctuaries.. but in public, 90% of the gradient causes someone to foam at the mouth if they suspect your political alignment is opposite theirs.
  - bediger4000 7y ago
    So you don't have sources or citations for your viewpoint, just handwaving about "obvious to me", "Typical". You should just come right out and say it, I think.
    - MrLeap 7y ago
      Sometimes your requests for rigor on a freeform discussion board don't carry the weight of law, sometimes people just respond with what they're thinking instead of doing what they're told. I stand by my handwaving as relevant, common experience that indicates an erosion of intellectual discourse. It should be patently obvious that I didn't have any sources for what I said specifically. There's no parenthetical or APA formatted links anywhere! Edit: Okay, I'll go run an experiment and come back with the data. Maybe that's a compromise.
      - enraged_camel 7y ago
        >>Sometimes your requests for rigor on a freeform discussion board don't carry the weight of law, sometimes people just respond with what they're thinking instead of doing what they're told. Well, you made a claim, and people asked you to prove that claim. I think it is quite reasonable to expect you to carry that burden regardless of medium. Otherwise, you should retract the original claim. Incidentally, what you said about "people just [stating] what they are thinking" and then not backing that up with evidence is a huge problem in today's public discourse. If we don't hold those people accountable, then what we have is not a discourse, but a cacophony of random voices.
- notadoc 7y ago
  Are you genuinely unfamiliar with the weaponization of online mob activity, organized bullying, shaming, doxing, revenge porn, outrage culture, review spamming, mass harassment of peoples employers/schools, etc? I thought this stuff was all well known in the tech community.
CorruptedArc 7y ago
In the intellectual field it's a far more of a left-wing based issue than right-wing. Universities in the US have skewed left for a longtime. Which has meant they are hit the hardest when it comes to the eat-your-own outrage culture engulfing the American left.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>The USA is purging intellectuals as well through outrage culture, online mobs, and the weaponization of political correctness. While there is some silencing of people and view points, I don't think it is not fair to those in Turkey to consider it on the same level as their purge. Outside of a few areas dealing with the social sciences, the worst an expert in their field is going to have to deal with is government funding cuts. I can point out some problems with the way we currently do science, including funding issues, replication issues, unfair amounts of criticism based on how socially agreeable a finding is, and in very rare cases people's employment being at risk for 'wrongthink', but even the worst cases of these barely even compare and no one is ending up being imprisoned over it.
sjg007 7y ago
I think this is a slight over exaggeration. Trump is an example where he seems to gain strength the more outrageous he is. Cops don’t have careers ruined by protests. Sarah Sanders lied repeatedly as does Kelly Anne Conway. Some celebrities have criminal complaints etc... the only real issue is that the left like to fall on their swords.. this is probably to set an example of doing the right thing but it’s probably short sighted.. so history will see how that plays out...

ap3 7y ago

Do you have any sources for this purge of US intelectuals?

CorruptedArc 7y ago
A Harvard Law Professor was forced to step down due students feeling "Unsafe" over clients he was representing in court. There are many similar examples like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/opinion/harvard-ronald-sullivan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/opinion/harvard-ronald-su...
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  You're misunderstanding the story. He was made to step down from a particular post he held, and I'm not saying that's okay, but he's still a Harvard Law professor and there was never any prospect he wouldn't be.
- ryanobjc 7y ago
  To be absolutely clear, this professor did not lose his job, he lost his post as dean of a residential house. This is a role whereby he lives in close proximity to students, acts as an mentor and helps students with all sorts of things, like for example if a student was sexually assaulted - their dean is supposed to be on their side. Students are right to question if he takes sexual assault seriously if he represents Weinstein. There are many other fine lawyers, and this was a totally voluntary job he took on. His real job, which it certainly appears like he shirked, is to be the best advocate for his students, to help them navigate college, which is often a difficult time. It's easy to say that his voluntary role in the defense of Weinstein has no merit or conflict with his job. But is that really true? You can say "students should grow up" or toughen up or something, but is that the kind of advice you'd offer to your own child? I think not. The appearance of conflict of interest is enough. That his students express discomfort and feelings of unsafe _in their own home_ was easily dismissed by this professor is additional evidence that he doesn't treat his job of dean to a residence seriously enough. "You should reason yourself so my volunteer role and job are not in conflict" is not good enough - he's putting all the effort on the weak and less powerful. And that's not right. Ultimately the story he spins in that article is that Harvard "capitulated to a mob", but my spin is this: Harvard did the right thing by protecting the less powerful from the more powerful. And there is no disputing a tenured Harvard law professor, with tons of connections, a guaranteed for life salary, etc, is the more powerful person.
MrLeap 7y ago
The subservience of intellectualism to politics seems obvious to me. Typical public online discourse is shackled. Goodhart's law is a big mechanic purging intellectual discussion. If you're in a right leaning, 'non political' forum and you post about potential impacts of climate change, you'll almost certainly be put on blast. If you're in a left leaning, 'non political' forum and someone posts 'climate change is going to turn Earth to Venus and we're all going to die choking' and you respond "that seems like unrealistic histrionics" you will almost certainly be put on blast. There is verdant field of potential discussion between those two posts and it's very difficult to play there. You can, in certain sanctuaries.. but in public, 90% of the gradient causes someone to foam at the mouth if they suspect your political alignment is opposite theirs.
- bediger4000 7y ago
  So you don't have sources or citations for your viewpoint, just handwaving about "obvious to me", "Typical". You should just come right out and say it, I think.
  - MrLeap 7y ago
    Sometimes your requests for rigor on a freeform discussion board don't carry the weight of law, sometimes people just respond with what they're thinking instead of doing what they're told. I stand by my handwaving as relevant, common experience that indicates an erosion of intellectual discourse. It should be patently obvious that I didn't have any sources for what I said specifically. There's no parenthetical or APA formatted links anywhere! Edit: Okay, I'll go run an experiment and come back with the data. Maybe that's a compromise.
    - enraged_camel 7y ago
      >>Sometimes your requests for rigor on a freeform discussion board don't carry the weight of law, sometimes people just respond with what they're thinking instead of doing what they're told. Well, you made a claim, and people asked you to prove that claim. I think it is quite reasonable to expect you to carry that burden regardless of medium. Otherwise, you should retract the original claim. Incidentally, what you said about "people just [stating] what they are thinking" and then not backing that up with evidence is a huge problem in today's public discourse. If we don't hold those people accountable, then what we have is not a discourse, but a cacophony of random voices.
notadoc 7y ago
Are you genuinely unfamiliar with the weaponization of online mob activity, organized bullying, shaming, doxing, revenge porn, outrage culture, review spamming, mass harassment of peoples employers/schools, etc? I thought this stuff was all well known in the tech community.

CorruptedArc 7y ago

In the intellectual field it's a far more of a left-wing based issue than right-wing. Universities in the US have skewed left for a longtime. Which has meant they are hit the hardest when it comes to the eat-your-own outrage culture engulfing the American left.

SkyBelow 7y ago

>The USA is purging intellectuals as well through outrage culture, online mobs, and the weaponization of political correctness. While there is some silencing of people and view points, I don't think it is not fair to those in Turkey to consider it on the same level as their purge. Outside of a few areas dealing with the social sciences, the worst an expert in their field is going to have to deal with is government funding cuts. I can point out some problems with the way we currently do science, including funding issues, replication issues, unfair amounts of criticism based on how socially agreeable a finding is, and in very rare cases people's employment being at risk for 'wrongthink', but even the worst cases of these barely even compare and no one is ending up being imprisoned over it.

sjg007 7y ago

I think this is a slight over exaggeration. Trump is an example where he seems to gain strength the more outrageous he is. Cops don’t have careers ruined by protests. Sarah Sanders lied repeatedly as does Kelly Anne Conway. Some celebrities have criminal complaints etc... the only real issue is that the left like to fall on their swords.. this is probably to set an example of doing the right thing but it’s probably short sighted.. so history will see how that plays out...