6 ms·

Exactly. Insisting on politeness about guilt-free homosexuality or abortion isn't going to get you very far in many particularly conservative Presbyterian chur

Exactly. Insisting on politeness about guilt-free homosexuality or abortion isn't going to get you very far in many particularly conservative Presbyterian churches or Baptist colleges. Note well: those institutions explicitly instruct people to "love thy neighbor" and to "not cast stones". Those calls are just empirically only so effective and there will always be a significant percentage of people for whom those commandments don't work. I therefore believe that politeness is probably a similarly ineffective solution to newer forms of orthodoxy (e.g., cancel culture). Consider conservative college campuses. Not because I don't believe cancel culture exists at Harvard or wherever, but because it's a point of reference that is much more numerous and carries similar culture power within certain geographies/communities. In many of these institutions: 1. being an openly gay student can result in being expelled (or at least suspended and bullied into leaving by admin) 2. faculty need to submit statements of faith in their job applications. These statements of faith are not aptly named, since they're also political ideology litmus tests. E.g., supporting abortion publicly would definitely be cause for dismissal. None of this is to dismiss or deny that maybe Harvard has its own orthodoxy, but I just have zero percent trust in someone like Jerry Falwell waxing poetic about free speech or cancel culture. His university cancels gay people. The orthodoxy of silicon valley and elite college campuses exist in only a few relatively small parts of the country that are over-represented in places like HN. I'm pointing this out for a specific reason: stifling social norms are nothing new. If you leave those places where implicit restriction on speech is a relatively new phenomenon and go to places where unspoken norms about what can/cannot be said has been the de facto norm for hundreds of years, you see why "simply giving it a name" and calls to "being polite" aren't going to help. Try going to a conservative christian university and pointing out that "abortion is murder" is "orthodoxy" and that people who believe it are exercising an "orthodox privilege" not available to people who believe "abortion is a human right". It an _NOT_ saying that cancel culture isn't a problem. It's more that it's _always_ been a problem, for hundreds of years, just not from the left in the USA until recently, and _history is a good tutor_. The proposed solution probably isn't going to work.

andreilys 6y ago
Except it spills over into other elite institutions like the NYT, so it’s not exactly self contained.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rukittenme 6y ago
I suppose its worthwhile to make a distinction between "small, private, Christian, conservative, seminary" and "large, public, secular, liberal, university". I think its appropriate to advocate for gay students at these private schools. But I do question its significance to the economy, society, and public life relative to the university system. And constraining this problem to universities or silicon valley does it a disservice. This is becoming a general, corporate problem.
pjc50 6y ago
It's disappointing that this is being downvoted, because it's absolutely correct.
- luckylion 6y ago
  It's kind of like saying that corruption in the president's office isn't really that big of a deal because there are plenty of small town mayors that are also corrupt. That's absolutely true, but the influence on society and the country of both aren't really the same.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    No, that's not the point at all. The point is that if you say "X is how you address corruption" and "X" doesn't work even for mayors of small towns, then there's a good reason to think "X" also won't work in the president's office.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      I'm not sure, I believe that it's pretty obvious how you do it: transparency, rules, enforcement. However, that's often costly, so you try to do it where matters. Corruption in the middle of nowhere is annoying when you live there, but the damage is limited. Corruption at the center of global power is quite different in the damage potential. I believe the same is true for educational institutions. The one that will be visited by next account manager of the local branch of a national bank has less damage potential than the one that will be visited by the next CEO of that bank, the next President and the judges on the Supreme Court.
      - throwawaygh 6y ago
        You under-estimate the amount of power held by conservatives and/or don't pay attention to where they do speaking gigs.
amadeuspagel 6y ago
Nobody cares about private christian colleges. The fact that you have to speak of "private christian colleges", rather then naming any, is revealing. No one even knows their names. Harvard is the most powerful institution on earth. Try to name a more powerful one, and ask yourself where the people running it come from.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  Harvard is not the most powerful institution on earth, nor do people from Harvard run all the more powerful institutions, nor, even if that were true would it mean Harvard itself is necessarily powerful. To pick a random and specific example of an institution I consider more powerful than Harvard, how about... the Spanish Army?
  - panzagl 6y ago
    Really, the Spanish Army? Harvard's endowment is like 3 times it's budget. The Spanish Army is ~120,000 people, There are 2-3 times as many Harvard alumni. After Harvard those alumni have become presidents, founders, etc. Soldiers who leave the Spanish Army get... a pension, I guess?
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      > Harvard's endowment is like 3 times it's budget. That's like comparing GDP to net worth. It's not completely useless, but caveat emptor when comparing a first derivative to a zeroth derivative. But yeah. The Spanish Military a strange example because a) it really depends on the community and b) we're talking about different types of power. In terms of soft/cultural power, the Spanish Army might well be more influential than Harvard in Spain. But, again, only in a weird apples-and-oranges way. I think maybe parent might have meant in terms of hard power. In a complete vacuum, the Spanish Army could probably topple the statue of John Harvard. But, again, it's completely unclear to me why that would be a useful/interesting/anything-other-than-amusing comparison. The example I used in another thread, which I think actually works: In Utah, BYU is almost certainly more prestigious and powerful than Harvard.
zozbot234 6y ago
Harvard was established as a christian college, a "church in the wilderness" to train strict Puritan clergy. Maybe both Harvard and the later christian colleges you mention can be orthodoxies.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > Maybe both Harvard and the later christian colleges you mention can be orthodoxies. I literally said that _three different times_ in my post: >> None of this is to dismiss or deny that maybe Harvard has its own orthodoxy >> The orthodoxy of silicon valley and elite college campuses >> Not because I don't believe this happens at Harvard or wherever That's not the point. That point is that the proposed solution -- calling out an "orthodox privilege" and insisting on politeness -- is not going to work. How do I know? Because "cancel culture" is not even close to new. It's existed on college campuses, in media, etc. for hundreds of years on the right. History is a tutor for what will/won't work.
gadders 6y ago
I think the difference is that "Private Christian Colleges" say up front that they are Christian colleges. The obvious implication is that you have to be a Christian, or agree with Christian principles to attend. If UC Berkeley (say) was called "UC Berkeley Marxist College" then perhaps people would have a better idea of what to expect.
- xxpor 6y ago
  Ah yes, the college that employs John Yoo, and runs one of the primary labs that develops nuclear weapons. Total Marxists.
  - gadders 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests
    - xxpor 6y ago
      Which was organized by a subset of campus, in response to Milo giving a talk. Doesn't really support the notion of the institution of Berkeley being Marxist.
Spooky23 6y ago
Alot of the "liberal suppression of free speech" stuff is ginned up grievance fodder for talk show hosts and attention seekers. Universities are always little labs for weird behavior and disputes, it's part of their nature. There's always something that puts conservative farmers or whatever in a twist. In the Nixon era it was anti-war protestors. In the 90s it was affirmative action. Today, it's the various gender/sexuality issues. The politics of universities is such that these movements grow and succeed, then become the power brokers. A family member was a leader in LGBT causes on campus in the 90s -- very much fighting an uphill battle for attention, respect and resources. Today, that org is very powerful and alumni of the 90s version are all middle aged folks in positions of real power.

andreilys 6y ago

Except it spills over into other elite institutions like the NYT, so it’s not exactly self contained.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rukittenme 6y ago

I suppose its worthwhile to make a distinction between "small, private, Christian, conservative, seminary" and "large, public, secular, liberal, university". I think its appropriate to advocate for gay students at these private schools. But I do question its significance to the economy, society, and public life relative to the university system. And constraining this problem to universities or silicon valley does it a disservice. This is becoming a general, corporate problem.

pjc50 6y ago

It's disappointing that this is being downvoted, because it's absolutely correct.

luckylion 6y ago
It's kind of like saying that corruption in the president's office isn't really that big of a deal because there are plenty of small town mayors that are also corrupt. That's absolutely true, but the influence on society and the country of both aren't really the same.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  No, that's not the point at all. The point is that if you say "X is how you address corruption" and "X" doesn't work even for mayors of small towns, then there's a good reason to think "X" also won't work in the president's office.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    I'm not sure, I believe that it's pretty obvious how you do it: transparency, rules, enforcement. However, that's often costly, so you try to do it where matters. Corruption in the middle of nowhere is annoying when you live there, but the damage is limited. Corruption at the center of global power is quite different in the damage potential. I believe the same is true for educational institutions. The one that will be visited by next account manager of the local branch of a national bank has less damage potential than the one that will be visited by the next CEO of that bank, the next President and the judges on the Supreme Court.
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      You under-estimate the amount of power held by conservatives and/or don't pay attention to where they do speaking gigs.

amadeuspagel 6y ago

Nobody cares about private christian colleges. The fact that you have to speak of "private christian colleges", rather then naming any, is revealing. No one even knows their names. Harvard is the most powerful institution on earth. Try to name a more powerful one, and ask yourself where the people running it come from.

JoeSmithson 6y ago
Harvard is not the most powerful institution on earth, nor do people from Harvard run all the more powerful institutions, nor, even if that were true would it mean Harvard itself is necessarily powerful. To pick a random and specific example of an institution I consider more powerful than Harvard, how about... the Spanish Army?
- panzagl 6y ago
  Really, the Spanish Army? Harvard's endowment is like 3 times it's budget. The Spanish Army is ~120,000 people, There are 2-3 times as many Harvard alumni. After Harvard those alumni have become presidents, founders, etc. Soldiers who leave the Spanish Army get... a pension, I guess?
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    > Harvard's endowment is like 3 times it's budget. That's like comparing GDP to net worth. It's not completely useless, but caveat emptor when comparing a first derivative to a zeroth derivative. But yeah. The Spanish Military a strange example because a) it really depends on the community and b) we're talking about different types of power. In terms of soft/cultural power, the Spanish Army might well be more influential than Harvard in Spain. But, again, only in a weird apples-and-oranges way. I think maybe parent might have meant in terms of hard power. In a complete vacuum, the Spanish Army could probably topple the statue of John Harvard. But, again, it's completely unclear to me why that would be a useful/interesting/anything-other-than-amusing comparison. The example I used in another thread, which I think actually works: In Utah, BYU is almost certainly more prestigious and powerful than Harvard.

zozbot234 6y ago

Harvard was established as a christian college, a "church in the wilderness" to train strict Puritan clergy. Maybe both Harvard and the later christian colleges you mention can be orthodoxies.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> Maybe both Harvard and the later christian colleges you mention can be orthodoxies. I literally said that _three different times_ in my post: >> None of this is to dismiss or deny that maybe Harvard has its own orthodoxy >> The orthodoxy of silicon valley and elite college campuses >> Not because I don't believe this happens at Harvard or wherever That's not the point. That point is that the proposed solution -- calling out an "orthodox privilege" and insisting on politeness -- is not going to work. How do I know? Because "cancel culture" is not even close to new. It's existed on college campuses, in media, etc. for hundreds of years on the right. History is a tutor for what will/won't work.

gadders 6y ago

I think the difference is that "Private Christian Colleges" say up front that they are Christian colleges. The obvious implication is that you have to be a Christian, or agree with Christian principles to attend. If UC Berkeley (say) was called "UC Berkeley Marxist College" then perhaps people would have a better idea of what to expect.

xxpor 6y ago
Ah yes, the college that employs John Yoo, and runs one of the primary labs that develops nuclear weapons. Total Marxists.
- gadders 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests
  - xxpor 6y ago
    Which was organized by a subset of campus, in response to Milo giving a talk. Doesn't really support the notion of the institution of Berkeley being Marxist.

Spooky23 6y ago

Alot of the "liberal suppression of free speech" stuff is ginned up grievance fodder for talk show hosts and attention seekers. Universities are always little labs for weird behavior and disputes, it's part of their nature. There's always something that puts conservative farmers or whatever in a twist. In the Nixon era it was anti-war protestors. In the 90s it was affirmative action. Today, it's the various gender/sexuality issues. The politics of universities is such that these movements grow and succeed, then become the power brokers. A family member was a leader in LGBT causes on campus in the 90s -- very much fighting an uphill battle for attention, respect and resources. Today, that org is very powerful and alumni of the 90s version are all middle aged folks in positions of real power.