33 ms·

Some bright spots I've noticed in the past month or so in this area, for those who care both about justice and open debate: - John Carmack signal boosting[1] S

Some bright spots I've noticed in the past month or so in this area, for those who care both about justice and open debate: - John Carmack signal boosting[1] Sarah Downey's article "This PC witch-hunt is killing free speech, and we have to fight it"[2] - The critical comments on the obligatory "BLM" post in r/askscience[3] - Glenn Loury's response[4] to Brown University's letter to faculty/alumni about racial justice. - The failure[5] of a group of folks to cancel Steven Pinker over accusations of racial insensitivity. [1] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1279105937404579841 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1279105937404579841 [2] https://medium.com/@sarahadowney/this-politically-correct-witch-hunt-is-killing-free-speech-and-we-have-to-fight-it-7ced038d33ae https://medium.com/@sarahadowney/this-politically-correct-wi... [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gvc7k9/black_lives_matter/ https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gvc7k9/black_li... [4] https://www.city-journal.org/brown-university-letter-racism https://www.city-journal.org/brown-university-letter-racism [5] https://mobile.twitter.com/sapinker/status/1279936590236790784 https://mobile.twitter.com/sapinker/status/12799365902367907...

GoodJokes 6y ago
So I didn't read all the links, but Glenn's letter is just absolute projection on his part. He claims the letter sent out to staff and students treated unestablished facts as established and then does nothing to say how they are unestablished. It might be cringey to post the requisite BLM statement, but its not inaccurate. I see a lot of comments on this thread claiming censorship with no evidence or introspection of why certain things are being called out. J.K. Rowling is a terf through and through. I am sorry, but claiming that a letter talks too much about race is one of the most fragile things I have ever seen. This is an uncomfortable moment for lots of white people, but we need to live with it instead of instantly buck against it and hide in "intellectual rigor."
justin66 6y ago
Carmack's comment on the Cultural Revolution was strange. The greatest problem with the Cultural Revolution, its defining characteristic in most people's minds, was all the mass murder. McCarthyism or something might have been a better historical analog to what is happening, but it would have been pretty tricky to jujitsu that example into a slam against the left, or the kids today, or whatever was being attempted there. The article he linked to was a little peculiar. As someone who's inclined to agree with the author about the First Amendment, the poorly thought out paragraph about racism - using a link to hate crime statistics to demonstrate the low numbers of "actual racists," but then making a remark like The statement “black lives matter” is easy to agree with if you’re a decent human being, which raises some questions about why we all have so many not-decent people (just indecent, not actual racists?) in our social media feeds - distracted from the overall message.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  The article in question also linked to Scott Adams who recently said and I quote "If Biden is elected, there's a good chance you will be dead within the year. Republicans will be hunted." [1] So it seems rather ironic to write an article about 'political witchhunts' using someone who is claiming that Republicans are going to be systematically hunted down and murdered. I don't think the article was written in good faith at all. [1] https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1278309835453284357?s=20 https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/127830983545328435...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Animats 6y ago
    Is this the Scott Adams behind Dilbert? I doubt it.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Yes, hence the verified check mark, dilbert.com link in profile, Dilbert cartoon profile banner, etc.
    - justin66 6y ago
      He has come unwrapped in recent years.
- m0zg 6y ago
  > The statement “black lives matter” is easy to agree with if you’re a decent human being That's not what they are _actually_ selling though. Go read their actual mission statement on their website. It's decidedly Marxist - destroy capitalism, destroy nuclear family (yes, for real). "Black lives matter" is just the honey to sweeten the rest of the deal most people don't realize they've signed up for. Same with Antifa. Heck, Patrisse Cullors (one of the founders of BLM) is on the record saying they are "trained Marxists" (which I doubt BTW, if they actually understood what Marx was suggesting, with the benefit of hindsight of what happened in half a dozen countries, they wouldn't be preaching it). They're just using racial strife as a vehicle to advance their views (same as e.g. Lenin used class strife). Which is why they don't advocate for realistic proposals like comprehensive police reform. They aren't interested in solving the problem, they're interested in keeping people angry enough to advance their underlying agenda.
claudiawerner 6y ago
>- John Carmack signal boosting[1] Sarah Downey's article "This PC witch-hunt is killing free speech, and we have to fight it"[2] Is this really a "bright spot"? Expressing a fear (without any reasoning or evidence shown as the basis for that fear) that one's opponents approve of an atrocious campaign orchestrated by a totalitarian regime? There's a lot of room to criticize "cancel culture" and deplatforming. Comparisons with mass killings and state-orchestrated oppression is an odd choice, and (to take the other side of the fence here) with about the same amount of merit as saying that people critical of BLM have similar opinions of the Nazi regime.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  There is a direct line of descent between Maoist agitation in Western countries throughout the late-1960s and 1970s and the current radical left. They have explicitly approved of the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" in the past - often enthusiastically so - and for all we know, they continue to do so. The M.O. is certainly comparable.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    That's the kind of sweeping claim that really needs to be sourced.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    >There is a direct line of descent between Maoist agitation in Western countries throughout the late-1960s and 1970s and the current radical left. Do you have any sources I can read on this? If anything, it seems the radical left actually left Badiou and his ilk behind for the Frankfurt School, and even then, I'm doubtful as to what that intellectual heritage means to your average "radical leftist" today. This is all beside the point, however - is there a recent (from the past 20 years) poll or anything similar surveying the "radical left" (which, mind you, includes anti-statists and anarcho-Communists) on their opinion of the Cultural Revolution? One of the largest "radical leftist" groups in the West is Antifa, but from what I know, it's hard to see any Maoism (or Maoist ideas) present in its members[0]. The Sino-Soviet split and the ascension of Deng liberalizing China has practically deadened Maoist ideology in the West. You'd have a better (but still somewhat shaky) case to say the radical left today draws from Stalinism instead (as opposed to Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, etc.). >They have approved of the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" in the past To what degree? In what numbers? For example, I can't name a single leftist journal which the majority of contributors could be aligned with Maoist views, never mind views supporting the Cultural Revolution. Even the Maoists I know of with some influence (e.g. Badiou) are critical of the cultural revolution. >and for all we know, they continue to do so So it's a superstition? >The M.O. is certainly similar. Which mainstream leftist organizations (mainstream enough to guide the course of the modern "radical left") approve of state-sanctioned murder and imprisonment of intellectuals? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)#Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)#Ideolog...
tsimionescu 6y ago
The Sarah Downey article you mention is of really low quality. She parrots tired cliches (you couldn't make Blazing Saddles today!) in a world where we're realizing that many beloved comedians are sexual predators as well. She thinks JK Rowling did nothing wrong, she only followed the science! (no mention that she explicitly accuses transwomen of being a danger to ciswomen, she thinks trans rights are brainwashing teenagers into wanting to change their gender, and has a few other obviously transphobic and harmful calls to action). She accuses the people calling for lockdowns and isolation for Covid19 of not caring about poor people, when the highest voices on this were also calling for relief funds and rent freezes. She then accuses the BLM protesters of violence and looting, with not one word about the police escalation of violence, nor of white supremacist provocateurs. And of course, she thinks wanting to join protests for social justice is hypocrisy if yesterday you were encouraging people not to go to clubs and restaurants to avoid the pandemic. And finally, of course she will defend the right of Holocaust deniers to be heard, but calls for the most powerful celebrities to shut up or change their ways are harrasement and a sign that free speach is dead. The whole article is a collection of these reactionary hot takes, peppered with self-defenses of how progressive the author is (she is Jewish! And has gay friends! And enjoys RuPaul's drag race!), meant to make it sound like she is one of the people who would support the causes she is actually attacking.
Jun8 6y ago
To follow up on [4], here's Ain terries with Glenn Loury in Vox from 2016: https://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12915036/race-criminal-justice-inequality-glenn-loury-ta-nehisi-coates https://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12915036/race-criminal-justice.... Also an interview done with him a few weeks ago: https://www.city-journal.org/racism-is-an-empty-thesis https://www.city-journal.org/racism-is-an-empty-thesis
tptacek 6y ago
The broadening circle of people willing to exercise their free speech to condemn Pinker's recurrent and insidious appeals to race-informed genetic determinism is a bright spot, as are the numerous people dunking on Pinker for cosigning an open letter that decries "ostracism and public shaming" as injuries to our culture of free expression, rather than expressions of that culture. Ken White had some smart things to say about this today, with respect to "the problem of the preferred first speaker". Worth tracking down. That's not to say there aren't dark spots; David Shor's firing certainly appears to be one of them. But I don't think any of those dark spots put Pinker, the T-1000 version of Charles Murray, above criticism. Which is, of course, what an open letter against "public shaming" purports to do.
- dnissley 6y ago
  I guess I don't see the problem of the preferred first speaker in practice. Let's take the examples in question: I've never seen either Murray or Pinker come out of the gates swinging with poorly framed appeals to genetic determinism (if they make reference to such things at all it's almost always in response to criticism, and it never seems to be more than very light handed considered speculation). I've also never seen them lob insults, outright support mob justice, or make a targeted cherry-picked attempt to discredit a particular individual (admittedly I'm only so plugged in so it's possible I'm missing something). Yet their critics seem frequently guilty of this. In other words, I don't think I'm holding them to a lower standard for having spoken first. Am I misunderstanding the argument? Or am I actually doing this and I'm just not aware of it? Edit: Perhaps it's also worth stating that I do hold these two people in high regard which definitely lowers my defenses when it comes to quickly evaluating their various claims. Mainly based on how they have engaged in good faith. That said, I disagree with both of them a lot. Recently I've put a lot of effort into identifying a group of folks that I disagree with but respect, since it seems like almost nobody does that and it seems like a big problem that people only respect those they agree with.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    You are as free to stick up for Pinker (and Murray) as I am to condemn them, which is the beauty of the system. Nobody is, or should be, immune to "public shaming". But those are the plain words the letter uses! It's a bit rich, coming as it does from people like JK Rowling, who have threatened to sue strangers for their Twitter opinions. (I strongly disagree with your take on Pinker and Murray! But that's neither here nor there as far as my argument goes.)

GoodJokes 6y ago

So I didn't read all the links, but Glenn's letter is just absolute projection on his part. He claims the letter sent out to staff and students treated unestablished facts as established and then does nothing to say how they are unestablished. It might be cringey to post the requisite BLM statement, but its not inaccurate. I see a lot of comments on this thread claiming censorship with no evidence or introspection of why certain things are being called out. J.K. Rowling is a terf through and through. I am sorry, but claiming that a letter talks too much about race is one of the most fragile things I have ever seen. This is an uncomfortable moment for lots of white people, but we need to live with it instead of instantly buck against it and hide in "intellectual rigor."

justin66 6y ago

Carmack's comment on the Cultural Revolution was strange. The greatest problem with the Cultural Revolution, its defining characteristic in most people's minds, was all the mass murder. McCarthyism or something might have been a better historical analog to what is happening, but it would have been pretty tricky to jujitsu that example into a slam against the left, or the kids today, or whatever was being attempted there. The article he linked to was a little peculiar. As someone who's inclined to agree with the author about the First Amendment, the poorly thought out paragraph about racism - using a link to hate crime statistics to demonstrate the low numbers of "actual racists," but then making a remark like The statement “black lives matter” is easy to agree with if you’re a decent human being, which raises some questions about why we all have so many not-decent people (just indecent, not actual racists?) in our social media feeds - distracted from the overall message.

fzeroracer 6y ago
The article in question also linked to Scott Adams who recently said and I quote "If Biden is elected, there's a good chance you will be dead within the year. Republicans will be hunted." [1] So it seems rather ironic to write an article about 'political witchhunts' using someone who is claiming that Republicans are going to be systematically hunted down and murdered. I don't think the article was written in good faith at all. [1] https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1278309835453284357?s=20 https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/127830983545328435...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Animats 6y ago
  Is this the Scott Adams behind Dilbert? I doubt it.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Yes, hence the verified check mark, dilbert.com link in profile, Dilbert cartoon profile banner, etc.
  - justin66 6y ago
    He has come unwrapped in recent years.
m0zg 6y ago
> The statement “black lives matter” is easy to agree with if you’re a decent human being That's not what they are _actually_ selling though. Go read their actual mission statement on their website. It's decidedly Marxist - destroy capitalism, destroy nuclear family (yes, for real). "Black lives matter" is just the honey to sweeten the rest of the deal most people don't realize they've signed up for. Same with Antifa. Heck, Patrisse Cullors (one of the founders of BLM) is on the record saying they are "trained Marxists" (which I doubt BTW, if they actually understood what Marx was suggesting, with the benefit of hindsight of what happened in half a dozen countries, they wouldn't be preaching it). They're just using racial strife as a vehicle to advance their views (same as e.g. Lenin used class strife). Which is why they don't advocate for realistic proposals like comprehensive police reform. They aren't interested in solving the problem, they're interested in keeping people angry enough to advance their underlying agenda.

claudiawerner 6y ago

>- John Carmack signal boosting[1] Sarah Downey's article "This PC witch-hunt is killing free speech, and we have to fight it"[2] Is this really a "bright spot"? Expressing a fear (without any reasoning or evidence shown as the basis for that fear) that one's opponents approve of an atrocious campaign orchestrated by a totalitarian regime? There's a lot of room to criticize "cancel culture" and deplatforming. Comparisons with mass killings and state-orchestrated oppression is an odd choice, and (to take the other side of the fence here) with about the same amount of merit as saying that people critical of BLM have similar opinions of the Nazi regime.

zozbot234 6y ago
There is a direct line of descent between Maoist agitation in Western countries throughout the late-1960s and 1970s and the current radical left. They have explicitly approved of the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" in the past - often enthusiastically so - and for all we know, they continue to do so. The M.O. is certainly comparable.
- throwanem 6y ago
  That's the kind of sweeping claim that really needs to be sourced.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >There is a direct line of descent between Maoist agitation in Western countries throughout the late-1960s and 1970s and the current radical left. Do you have any sources I can read on this? If anything, it seems the radical left actually left Badiou and his ilk behind for the Frankfurt School, and even then, I'm doubtful as to what that intellectual heritage means to your average "radical leftist" today. This is all beside the point, however - is there a recent (from the past 20 years) poll or anything similar surveying the "radical left" (which, mind you, includes anti-statists and anarcho-Communists) on their opinion of the Cultural Revolution? One of the largest "radical leftist" groups in the West is Antifa, but from what I know, it's hard to see any Maoism (or Maoist ideas) present in its members[0]. The Sino-Soviet split and the ascension of Deng liberalizing China has practically deadened Maoist ideology in the West. You'd have a better (but still somewhat shaky) case to say the radical left today draws from Stalinism instead (as opposed to Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, etc.). >They have approved of the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" in the past To what degree? In what numbers? For example, I can't name a single leftist journal which the majority of contributors could be aligned with Maoist views, never mind views supporting the Cultural Revolution. Even the Maoists I know of with some influence (e.g. Badiou) are critical of the cultural revolution. >and for all we know, they continue to do so So it's a superstition? >The M.O. is certainly similar. Which mainstream leftist organizations (mainstream enough to guide the course of the modern "radical left") approve of state-sanctioned murder and imprisonment of intellectuals? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)#Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)#Ideolog...

tsimionescu 6y ago

The Sarah Downey article you mention is of really low quality. She parrots tired cliches (you couldn't make Blazing Saddles today!) in a world where we're realizing that many beloved comedians are sexual predators as well. She thinks JK Rowling did nothing wrong, she only followed the science! (no mention that she explicitly accuses transwomen of being a danger to ciswomen, she thinks trans rights are brainwashing teenagers into wanting to change their gender, and has a few other obviously transphobic and harmful calls to action). She accuses the people calling for lockdowns and isolation for Covid19 of not caring about poor people, when the highest voices on this were also calling for relief funds and rent freezes. She then accuses the BLM protesters of violence and looting, with not one word about the police escalation of violence, nor of white supremacist provocateurs. And of course, she thinks wanting to join protests for social justice is hypocrisy if yesterday you were encouraging people not to go to clubs and restaurants to avoid the pandemic. And finally, of course she will defend the right of Holocaust deniers to be heard, but calls for the most powerful celebrities to shut up or change their ways are harrasement and a sign that free speach is dead. The whole article is a collection of these reactionary hot takes, peppered with self-defenses of how progressive the author is (she is Jewish! And has gay friends! And enjoys RuPaul's drag race!), meant to make it sound like she is one of the people who would support the causes she is actually attacking.

Jun8 6y ago

To follow up on [4], here's Ain terries with Glenn Loury in Vox from 2016: https://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12915036/race-criminal-justice-inequality-glenn-loury-ta-nehisi-coates https://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12915036/race-criminal-justice.... Also an interview done with him a few weeks ago: https://www.city-journal.org/racism-is-an-empty-thesis https://www.city-journal.org/racism-is-an-empty-thesis

tptacek 6y ago

The broadening circle of people willing to exercise their free speech to condemn Pinker's recurrent and insidious appeals to race-informed genetic determinism is a bright spot, as are the numerous people dunking on Pinker for cosigning an open letter that decries "ostracism and public shaming" as injuries to our culture of free expression, rather than expressions of that culture. Ken White had some smart things to say about this today, with respect to "the problem of the preferred first speaker". Worth tracking down. That's not to say there aren't dark spots; David Shor's firing certainly appears to be one of them. But I don't think any of those dark spots put Pinker, the T-1000 version of Charles Murray, above criticism. Which is, of course, what an open letter against "public shaming" purports to do.

dnissley 6y ago
I guess I don't see the problem of the preferred first speaker in practice. Let's take the examples in question: I've never seen either Murray or Pinker come out of the gates swinging with poorly framed appeals to genetic determinism (if they make reference to such things at all it's almost always in response to criticism, and it never seems to be more than very light handed considered speculation). I've also never seen them lob insults, outright support mob justice, or make a targeted cherry-picked attempt to discredit a particular individual (admittedly I'm only so plugged in so it's possible I'm missing something). Yet their critics seem frequently guilty of this. In other words, I don't think I'm holding them to a lower standard for having spoken first. Am I misunderstanding the argument? Or am I actually doing this and I'm just not aware of it? Edit: Perhaps it's also worth stating that I do hold these two people in high regard which definitely lowers my defenses when it comes to quickly evaluating their various claims. Mainly based on how they have engaged in good faith. That said, I disagree with both of them a lot. Recently I've put a lot of effort into identifying a group of folks that I disagree with but respect, since it seems like almost nobody does that and it seems like a big problem that people only respect those they agree with.
- tptacek 6y ago
  You are as free to stick up for Pinker (and Murray) as I am to condemn them, which is the beauty of the system. Nobody is, or should be, immune to "public shaming". But those are the plain words the letter uses! It's a bit rich, coming as it does from people like JK Rowling, who have threatened to sue strangers for their Twitter opinions. (I strongly disagree with your take on Pinker and Murray! But that's neither here nor there as far as my argument goes.)