7 ms·

What's interesting is that heretical liberals have the most to fear in this environment. MAGA people can't be cancelled, and it's a badge of honor if attempted

What's interesting is that heretical liberals have the most to fear in this environment. MAGA people can't be cancelled, and it's a badge of honor if attempted. But well-meaning unorthodox liberals really have to watch themselves.

solosoyokaze 6y ago
Leftists get canceled all the time (by liberals). Look at the censoring/smearing of Bernie Sanders and his supporters during the primary. Twitter bans leftist accounts all the time as well. Take a look at every VC in our industry and they espouse staunchly establishment neo-liberal policies. Calling Biden into question (which anyone on the left would do) is risking your career. The focus is often on censoring those on the right (which does happen too), but those on the left may be the most censored.
- the_only_law 6y ago
  In fairness, leftists get cancelled by leftists. insert joke about leftist infighting here
  - entropicdrifter 6y ago
    Gestures vaguely towards the life and works of Orwell This guy gets it
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    No they don't. They get canceled by neo-liberals.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Insert joke along the lines of "every leftist is just a radlib except me"
      - solosoyokaze 6y ago
        Leftist actually does have meaning. Neo-liberalism is a right wing ideology built on imperialism and capitalism. To conflate the two is dishonest.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        I agree with you. But there is a lot of leftist infighting, especially between MLs, Anarchists, LibSocs, DemSocs, AnComs, etc... And there is also of neoliberals that pretend to be leftist, yes, so called "Radlibs". Then there are leftists that accuse other leftists that aren't of their same brand of being liberals, for example MLs calling anarchists liberals because they admit markets, or anarchists calling MLs capitalists/liberals because of state capitalism and the DotP, and then MLs calling DemSocs liberals because they want to operate at least partiallty within "bourgeois democracy", etc... It's a very North America thing, though.
        solosoyokaze 6y ago
        I don't totally disagree with you, but the leftist infighting is of a very different nature than left vs. the establishment. For one, those on the left don't actually have the power to cancel each other. The platforms are owned by the neo-liberals, which direct the canceling through who they allow to speak their mind and who they don't. > And there is also of neoliberals that pretend to be leftist, yes, so called "Radlibs". These are the people doing the canceling (both to the left and the right of them). It's worth nothing the distinction as it's this group with the power.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Agreed. Leftists don't actually have the power over the media to cancel anyone these days, it's overwhelmingly done by radlibs.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        No one (on the Left, obviously the Right does this), including people who critique Leninists (who I assume you are referring to as MLs) for supporting “state capitalism”, calls Leninists “liberals”. Or, at least, approximately nobody; you can find examples of anything, but it's not like a significant thing.
- refenestrator 6y ago
  I was including Sanders and any Biden skeptic as "heretical liberals" -- no disagreement from me there.
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    I don't think Sanders people would consider themselves "liberal". I know I don't.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    It's important to understand that while the Right in America uses “liberal” to encompass everything to their left, the American Left (in line with much of the world outside the US, which did so longer) tends to use it specifically for a center-to-center-right pro-capitalist position roughly coextensive with neoliberalism; the (decreasingly, but still) dominant centrist wing of the Democratic Party is “liberal”, but not, in that view, most of the rest of the Party.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Indeed. Liberalism is the ideology according to which negative rights prime over everything, the rights to property are the most important, and freedom of association is paramount. Leftism emerged as sociology critiqued the idealist liberal notions for their ignorance of real-word effects due to material reality on the actual freedom and oppressive social structures that strict classical liberalism creates.
      - solosoyokaze 6y ago
        That seems accurate. Also, neo-liberalism emerged from economics with an imperialism backdrop. It's the philosophy of globalism.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > Calling Biden into question (which anyone on the left would do) is risking your career. Who has ever been fired for supporting Sanders over Biden? > Twitter bans leftist accounts all the time as well. Probably not because they were leftist, but rather because they violated some rule (and at that, probably only a small fraction of Tweets which violate their rules). Twitter is pretty happy to fill my timeline with the craziest left-wing stuff including a lot of things that violate their own rules. > Take a look at every VC in our industry and they espouse staunchly establishment neo-liberal policies. What? You're surprised that VC support capitalist policies? You know what "VC" stands for, right? Anyway, "supporting capitalist policies" is not the same thing as "canceling leftists". This is a poorly reasoned post.
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    We live in a capitalist system, so yes the capitalists have a massive amount of power over our lives. People self-censor all the time, it's not just about getting fired.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      It’s not “just” about getting fired, but termination is the minimum required evidence to support the claim that criticizing Biden (for being insufficiently leftist) would put one’s career in jeopardy.
      - solosoyokaze 6y ago
        Did you not read the original article? There's a million and one ways your career can suffer without being fired. Passed up for promotion, not getting funding, not hired in the first place...
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        You're moving goal posts (and accusing me of not reading the article on top of that--that's an impressive feat of self-confidence!). You claimed that it would put your career at risk. Being passed up for a promotion isn't putting your career at risk. You still have a career after being passed up for a promotion. There are actually people whose careers are at risk--who get fired even--because leftists pressure their employers into firing them (I'm less interested in painting leftists in a bad light or otherwise risk a flame war; I only mention it because it's relevant). But anyway, accepting the new position of the goal posts, can you demonstrate examples of people who were passed up for promotion. Of course it's harder to prove these things causally, but if it happens often enough to have a chilling effect it should surely be trivial to identify one-or-two cut and dry cases?
jerf 6y ago
Yes, one of the worst and most dangerous places to be is just outside the orthodoxy. This is not a comment about 2021; it is a historical pattern. Whether or not it's worse than being directly opposed to the orthodoxy is something I'd say changes between times and places, but there have definitely been times where its more dangerous to be just outside then full-on opposed. Those who are neither directly opposed, nor just outside, in the vast space remaining outside of those two particular points, quite often do just fine. This is also a fractal observation, relative to the perspective of "orthodoxy" you are taking at the moment; within the directly opposed group, there is another dangerous place of just outside the opposed group's orthodoxy. I'd contrast this with the common intuitive belief that by indicating your agreement with the orthodoxy in most other ways, you've somehow built up "credit" with which you can "afford" a deviation. I would observe that model does not match reality very often. There's a few relatively idealistic communities where that may work, but in general that is not how people work.
- _0ffh 6y ago
  >>Freud spoke of the narcissism of small differences, saying that “it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other”.<< https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  This is so old it's in the bible, or at least 1 Timothy 5:8 has been taken out of context to say it. "He has denied the faith, and is worse than the unbeliever."
  - nobodyandproud 6y ago
    Also, Socrates.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

solosoyokaze 6y ago

Leftists get canceled all the time (by liberals). Look at the censoring/smearing of Bernie Sanders and his supporters during the primary. Twitter bans leftist accounts all the time as well. Take a look at every VC in our industry and they espouse staunchly establishment neo-liberal policies. Calling Biden into question (which anyone on the left would do) is risking your career. The focus is often on censoring those on the right (which does happen too), but those on the left may be the most censored.

the_only_law 6y ago
In fairness, leftists get cancelled by leftists. insert joke about leftist infighting here
- entropicdrifter 6y ago
  Gestures vaguely towards the life and works of Orwell This guy gets it
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  No they don't. They get canceled by neo-liberals.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Insert joke along the lines of "every leftist is just a radlib except me"
    - solosoyokaze 6y ago
      Leftist actually does have meaning. Neo-liberalism is a right wing ideology built on imperialism and capitalism. To conflate the two is dishonest.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        I agree with you. But there is a lot of leftist infighting, especially between MLs, Anarchists, LibSocs, DemSocs, AnComs, etc... And there is also of neoliberals that pretend to be leftist, yes, so called "Radlibs". Then there are leftists that accuse other leftists that aren't of their same brand of being liberals, for example MLs calling anarchists liberals because they admit markets, or anarchists calling MLs capitalists/liberals because of state capitalism and the DotP, and then MLs calling DemSocs liberals because they want to operate at least partiallty within "bourgeois democracy", etc... It's a very North America thing, though.
        solosoyokaze 6y ago
        I don't totally disagree with you, but the leftist infighting is of a very different nature than left vs. the establishment. For one, those on the left don't actually have the power to cancel each other. The platforms are owned by the neo-liberals, which direct the canceling through who they allow to speak their mind and who they don't. > And there is also of neoliberals that pretend to be leftist, yes, so called "Radlibs". These are the people doing the canceling (both to the left and the right of them). It's worth nothing the distinction as it's this group with the power.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Agreed. Leftists don't actually have the power over the media to cancel anyone these days, it's overwhelmingly done by radlibs.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        No one (on the Left, obviously the Right does this), including people who critique Leninists (who I assume you are referring to as MLs) for supporting “state capitalism”, calls Leninists “liberals”. Or, at least, approximately nobody; you can find examples of anything, but it's not like a significant thing.
refenestrator 6y ago
I was including Sanders and any Biden skeptic as "heretical liberals" -- no disagreement from me there.
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  I don't think Sanders people would consider themselves "liberal". I know I don't.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  It's important to understand that while the Right in America uses “liberal” to encompass everything to their left, the American Left (in line with much of the world outside the US, which did so longer) tends to use it specifically for a center-to-center-right pro-capitalist position roughly coextensive with neoliberalism; the (decreasingly, but still) dominant centrist wing of the Democratic Party is “liberal”, but not, in that view, most of the rest of the Party.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Indeed. Liberalism is the ideology according to which negative rights prime over everything, the rights to property are the most important, and freedom of association is paramount. Leftism emerged as sociology critiqued the idealist liberal notions for their ignorance of real-word effects due to material reality on the actual freedom and oppressive social structures that strict classical liberalism creates.
    - solosoyokaze 6y ago
      That seems accurate. Also, neo-liberalism emerged from economics with an imperialism backdrop. It's the philosophy of globalism.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway894345 6y ago
> Calling Biden into question (which anyone on the left would do) is risking your career. Who has ever been fired for supporting Sanders over Biden? > Twitter bans leftist accounts all the time as well. Probably not because they were leftist, but rather because they violated some rule (and at that, probably only a small fraction of Tweets which violate their rules). Twitter is pretty happy to fill my timeline with the craziest left-wing stuff including a lot of things that violate their own rules. > Take a look at every VC in our industry and they espouse staunchly establishment neo-liberal policies. What? You're surprised that VC support capitalist policies? You know what "VC" stands for, right? Anyway, "supporting capitalist policies" is not the same thing as "canceling leftists". This is a poorly reasoned post.
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  We live in a capitalist system, so yes the capitalists have a massive amount of power over our lives. People self-censor all the time, it's not just about getting fired.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    It’s not “just” about getting fired, but termination is the minimum required evidence to support the claim that criticizing Biden (for being insufficiently leftist) would put one’s career in jeopardy.
    - solosoyokaze 6y ago
      Did you not read the original article? There's a million and one ways your career can suffer without being fired. Passed up for promotion, not getting funding, not hired in the first place...
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        You're moving goal posts (and accusing me of not reading the article on top of that--that's an impressive feat of self-confidence!). You claimed that it would put your career at risk. Being passed up for a promotion isn't putting your career at risk. You still have a career after being passed up for a promotion. There are actually people whose careers are at risk--who get fired even--because leftists pressure their employers into firing them (I'm less interested in painting leftists in a bad light or otherwise risk a flame war; I only mention it because it's relevant). But anyway, accepting the new position of the goal posts, can you demonstrate examples of people who were passed up for promotion. Of course it's harder to prove these things causally, but if it happens often enough to have a chilling effect it should surely be trivial to identify one-or-two cut and dry cases?

jerf 6y ago

Yes, one of the worst and most dangerous places to be is just outside the orthodoxy. This is not a comment about 2021; it is a historical pattern. Whether or not it's worse than being directly opposed to the orthodoxy is something I'd say changes between times and places, but there have definitely been times where its more dangerous to be just outside then full-on opposed. Those who are neither directly opposed, nor just outside, in the vast space remaining outside of those two particular points, quite often do just fine. This is also a fractal observation, relative to the perspective of "orthodoxy" you are taking at the moment; within the directly opposed group, there is another dangerous place of just outside the opposed group's orthodoxy. I'd contrast this with the common intuitive belief that by indicating your agreement with the orthodoxy in most other ways, you've somehow built up "credit" with which you can "afford" a deviation. I would observe that model does not match reality very often. There's a few relatively idealistic communities where that may work, but in general that is not how people work.

_0ffh 6y ago
>>Freud spoke of the narcissism of small differences, saying that “it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other”.<< https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
bryanlarsen 6y ago
This is so old it's in the bible, or at least 1 Timothy 5:8 has been taken out of context to say it. "He has denied the faith, and is worse than the unbeliever."
- nobodyandproud 6y ago
  Also, Socrates.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]