4 ms·

> But they have taken over certain institutions, like the university (and increasingly big-tech) And the media, which is increasingly opposed to free speech.

> But they have taken over certain institutions, like the university (and increasingly big-tech) And the media, which is increasingly opposed to free speech. Today we're seeing journalists talk about how other journalists should be banned from the public square by powerful corporations. They seemingly aren't bright enough to pause and wonder if this will ever be used against them. And this is being done under the banner of progressivism. There are so many layers of irony here.

nemo44x 6y ago
> And this is being done under the banner of progressivism I think it's a very confusing time. A lot of people want to be "good people". They don't understand how the definitions of words have changed and what they're really signing up for. "Anti-racisim" sounds great - what reasonable, moral person wants to be racist? But you begin to read the text and you start to see it isn't what you think it is. That it isn't anything like what we've been working towards in terms of civil rights and equality. I don't think "Progressivism" is the right word. There's not a good name for this philosophy yet other than derogative terms like "woke". Social Justice maybe but I find it unjust. I've seen "therapeutic totalitarianism" as one candidate.
- themgt 6y ago
  Bari Weiss wrote in Tablet yesterday (before this current hullaballoo had begun) about this[1]. I think "successor ideology" is an apt if awkward stand-in term, because it focuses on the project as an attempt to ideologically present "the next stage" or replacement for liberalism: No one has yet decided on the name for the force that has come to unseat liberalism. Some say it’s “Social Justice.” The author Rod Dreher has called it “therapeutic totalitarianism.” The writer Wesley Yang refers to it as “the successor ideology” — as in, the successor to liberalism. At some point, it will have a formal name, one that properly describes its mixture of postmodernism, postcolonialism, identity politics, neo-Marxism, critical race theory, intersectionality, and the therapeutic mentality. Until then, it is up to each of us to see it plainly. We need to look past the hashtags and slogans and the jargon to assess it honestly — and then to explain it to others. The new creed’s premise goes something like this: We are in a war in which the forces of justice and progress are arrayed against the forces of backwardness and oppression. And in a war, the normal rules of the game — due process; political compromise; the presumption of innocence; free speech; even reason itself — must be suspended. Indeed, those rules themselves were corrupt to begin with — designed, as they were, by dead white males in order to uphold their own power. [1] https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stop-being-shocked https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stop-being-...
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    Good read and I agree. She is so right and it’s sad she was chased out of the NYT.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      Chased out through this very same mechanism even.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Weiss is, if anything, less genuine than Twitter execs on this issue. https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/ https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
- OCASM 6y ago
  Leftist totalitarianism.
  - sidlls 6y ago
    There isn't anything remotely "leftist" about this sort of thing. It's done in service of some left-ish movements. Or, rather, I'd argue that "progressive" and "left" have been (mis)appropriated.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  There's still a lot of actual racist violence by the police in this country. And there's a situation where municipal governments essentially have no power to actually stop out of control cops. But there are lots of people who want to do something but aren't going to dive full tilt into actually challenging the serious problematics of a violent police force. So there's a huge market for "do something small" which involves challenging fairly petty expressions of racism. Basically, on "the left" and "the right" you have experts taking people's real grievances and turning them into "feel good" symbology. The idiocy of the social signaling is annoying but the way the actual grievances go unaddressed is a considerably worse problem.
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  Its authoritarianism. One thing that frustrates me so much as an independent, is the refusal of even very intelligent people to acknowledge the y-axis of the political spectrum. People accuse the left of going right while the right goes far right, but that's not it! They are both going "up"!
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
>Today we're seeing journalists talk about how other journalists should be banned from the public square by powerful corporations. They seemingly aren't bright enough to pause and wonder if this will ever be used against them. One of the issues is calling media personalities who read from teleprompters, "journalists". Call them actors, call them media spokespeople, but they aren't engaging in anything that can be construed as, "journalism". Further, it isn't in the interest of corporate media outlets to hire people who are smart. They want people who sound articulate, look good on camera and repeat the talking points that they are told to repeat. What we see on cable outlets these days shouldn't be considered, "news" so much as infotainment. By now, most people, regardless of their political affiliation (if any) understand that society has largely gone off the rails, and in their desperation they are left with an appeal to authority to make things better and restore a patina of "normality". It is dangerously seductive to suggest to people who are desperate to end the chaos that if we just silenced the "bad" people things would be okay (leaving unsaid who determines who is bad and what we are allowed to think and say).
- nostromo 6y ago
  I'm not talking about cable news anchors, I'm talking about the New York Times, which is defending Twitter and Facebook censoring the Post.
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    It's really kind of mind boggling really. Does the Times not think they will ever fall afoul of the goodthink, and this weapon will never be used against them?

nemo44x 6y ago

> And this is being done under the banner of progressivism I think it's a very confusing time. A lot of people want to be "good people". They don't understand how the definitions of words have changed and what they're really signing up for. "Anti-racisim" sounds great - what reasonable, moral person wants to be racist? But you begin to read the text and you start to see it isn't what you think it is. That it isn't anything like what we've been working towards in terms of civil rights and equality. I don't think "Progressivism" is the right word. There's not a good name for this philosophy yet other than derogative terms like "woke". Social Justice maybe but I find it unjust. I've seen "therapeutic totalitarianism" as one candidate.

themgt 6y ago
Bari Weiss wrote in Tablet yesterday (before this current hullaballoo had begun) about this[1]. I think "successor ideology" is an apt if awkward stand-in term, because it focuses on the project as an attempt to ideologically present "the next stage" or replacement for liberalism: No one has yet decided on the name for the force that has come to unseat liberalism. Some say it’s “Social Justice.” The author Rod Dreher has called it “therapeutic totalitarianism.” The writer Wesley Yang refers to it as “the successor ideology” — as in, the successor to liberalism. At some point, it will have a formal name, one that properly describes its mixture of postmodernism, postcolonialism, identity politics, neo-Marxism, critical race theory, intersectionality, and the therapeutic mentality. Until then, it is up to each of us to see it plainly. We need to look past the hashtags and slogans and the jargon to assess it honestly — and then to explain it to others. The new creed’s premise goes something like this: We are in a war in which the forces of justice and progress are arrayed against the forces of backwardness and oppression. And in a war, the normal rules of the game — due process; political compromise; the presumption of innocence; free speech; even reason itself — must be suspended. Indeed, those rules themselves were corrupt to begin with — designed, as they were, by dead white males in order to uphold their own power. [1] https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stop-being-shocked https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stop-being-...
- nemo44x 6y ago
  Good read and I agree. She is so right and it’s sad she was chased out of the NYT.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Chased out through this very same mechanism even.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Weiss is, if anything, less genuine than Twitter execs on this issue. https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/ https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
OCASM 6y ago
Leftist totalitarianism.
- sidlls 6y ago
  There isn't anything remotely "leftist" about this sort of thing. It's done in service of some left-ish movements. Or, rather, I'd argue that "progressive" and "left" have been (mis)appropriated.
joe_the_user 6y ago
There's still a lot of actual racist violence by the police in this country. And there's a situation where municipal governments essentially have no power to actually stop out of control cops. But there are lots of people who want to do something but aren't going to dive full tilt into actually challenging the serious problematics of a violent police force. So there's a huge market for "do something small" which involves challenging fairly petty expressions of racism. Basically, on "the left" and "the right" you have experts taking people's real grievances and turning them into "feel good" symbology. The idiocy of the social signaling is annoying but the way the actual grievances go unaddressed is a considerably worse problem.
arminiusreturns 6y ago
Its authoritarianism. One thing that frustrates me so much as an independent, is the refusal of even very intelligent people to acknowledge the y-axis of the political spectrum. People accuse the left of going right while the right goes far right, but that's not it! They are both going "up"!

StanislavPetrov 6y ago

>Today we're seeing journalists talk about how other journalists should be banned from the public square by powerful corporations. They seemingly aren't bright enough to pause and wonder if this will ever be used against them. One of the issues is calling media personalities who read from teleprompters, "journalists". Call them actors, call them media spokespeople, but they aren't engaging in anything that can be construed as, "journalism". Further, it isn't in the interest of corporate media outlets to hire people who are smart. They want people who sound articulate, look good on camera and repeat the talking points that they are told to repeat. What we see on cable outlets these days shouldn't be considered, "news" so much as infotainment. By now, most people, regardless of their political affiliation (if any) understand that society has largely gone off the rails, and in their desperation they are left with an appeal to authority to make things better and restore a patina of "normality". It is dangerously seductive to suggest to people who are desperate to end the chaos that if we just silenced the "bad" people things would be okay (leaving unsaid who determines who is bad and what we are allowed to think and say).

nostromo 6y ago
I'm not talking about cable news anchors, I'm talking about the New York Times, which is defending Twitter and Facebook censoring the Post.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  It's really kind of mind boggling really. Does the Times not think they will ever fall afoul of the goodthink, and this weapon will never be used against them?