15 ms·
On Being Blacklisted
- naringas 6y agoThere's also an ongoing 'cultural revolution' in which older artistic creations are being reassesed by modern political correctness. (see the recent ebay and Dr. Seuss news for a most recent example) I find this "revisionism" frightening. I fear it'll continue to get worse. I hope it does not.
- BitwiseFool 6y agoThere's even a movement to replace the term "Blacklist" with a less problematic words such as denylist or blocklist. Of course, "Whitelist" is just as problematic - if not moreso! - and should be replaced with allowlist or safelist. Edit: The etymology of these words have nothing to do with skincolor, Blackness or Whiteness.
- WalterGR 6y agoPeople talking about this want both terms to be replaced at the same time. To believe otherwise is a willful victimhood fantasy.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- loopz 6y agoYet they will support an extreme swing of the pendulum. We need more than one simultaneous thought to guide us.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- afutd 6y agoAlthough I agree with the thrust of your edit, I’d actually be okay with making the swap if a black person from an underprivileged background told me that terms made him uncomfortable. But somehow it’s always a white woman from a privileged background that’s insisting we say allowlist or Latinx.
- adolph 6y agoThe white savior industrial complex is an important brand influencer segment. This is significant emotional labor they perform for “the is it Poles?” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_savior https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_savior https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47245/the-cambridge-ladies-who-live-in-furnished-souls https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47245/the-cambridge-l...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 6y agoNo joke. I had a very Caucasian woman tell me why she was too “exhausted” to explain to me why America’s treatment of Muslims was abhorrent and damaging. I, an immigrant from a Muslim country who went to college in the south after 9/11, had possessed the temerity to say America had handled 9/11 with far more grace towards its Muslim population than Muslim countries would have done had the shoe been on the other foot, and praised George W. Bush’s handling of the issue. That was the wrong answer apparently.
- pseudalopex 6y agoSaying Y would be worse than X doesn't justify X. Are you Muslim or just from a mostly Muslim country? Many Muslims have said America's treatment of Muslims is abhorrent and damaging. Why should she listen to you over them?
- DoreenMichele 6y agoBut somehow it’s always a white woman from a privileged background It's a pattern in part because of the way white women get socialized and the role they get assigned. I'm not excusing it or saying it's okay. I'm just saying widespread patterns tend to be driven by larger forces. I'm not going to say more than that because it tends to be a shit show to try to say anything about the whys and wherefores. Yes, it needs to stop. Helping white women escape the role society assigns them would be a more effective means to address this than just pointing fingers and being blamey.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoMy company actually got into doing this. The only reason it eventually stopped is because it cost actual money to complete that change in one of the systems. All of a sudden, it was harder to justify that change. So it didn't happen. I get it though. We recently got inclusivity executive something or other. You gotta show you are doing something. Incidentally, how do you even get those types of jobs?
- dragonwriter 6y agoI wholly support “blacklist” being replaced with ”blocklist”, “denylist”, “exclusion list”, or anything else that is both more direct about the function and isn't a lazy use of a metaphorical reference to a centuries-long history of elite political and anti-labor (often both simultaneously) repression. (Ditto with “whitelist” which is itself a second-order reference to blacklisting.) Just because something isn't specifically connected to race doesn't mean it is innocuous.
- throwawaygulf 6y ago>Just because something isn't specifically connected to race doesn't mean it is innocuous. No one said otherwise. Luckily, "blacklist" is innocuous, and the only ones calling for its replacement and removal are neurotic leftists. Dragons breathe fire, and my family burned to death. For my safety, please change your username to something that won't trigger me, your username is not innocuous. I see your username and all I can think about is my family burning. Just because something isn't specifically connected to race doesn't mean it is innocuous.
- kstrauser 6y agoThe Dr. Seuss estate decided not to publish some of his works anymore because they believed they were no longer appropriate. I stand by the right of a work's owner to say, "you know, I wish this hadn't been released and I've decided not to sell it."
- ttt0 6y agoIt's closer to "you know, I wish this hadn't been released and I've decided that no one should be able to sell their copies of it." According to wsj: > Online marketplace eBay Inc. said it is working to prevent the resale of six Dr. Seuss books that were pulled earlier this week by the company in charge of the late author’s works because they contain offensive imagery.
- santoshalper 6y agoThat's weird, I don't remember the book burning. I guess I must have missed it. I am sure it is totally impossible to get a copy of any of those books now that the publisher has decided to stop publishing them after 80 years.
- sneak 6y agoeBay decided themselves they didn't want to be associated with it; the author's estate didn't dictate to them that nobody is allowed to trade in it. They're still on Amazon, of course, as are a bunch of racist bumper stickers and a billion other SKUs.
- poopoopeepee 6y agoPerson trading on reputation learns what pen names are for
- alentist 6y ago[deleted]
- poopoopeepee 6y agoYou die on the hill you fight on > Blacklisting is an evil in itself, corrosive to the ideal of an open society, and to professional relationships in the small world of literary publishing in which this story takes place Author wants to take one for their team. Everyone will let them. If it's about the ideas, then you can always get those out there. If it has to be attached to your name, well, you're in the realm of egos
- alentist 6y agoI should've been clearer: Your comment implies the author "just learned" what pen names are. What makes you think that?
- poopoopeepee 6y ago> What makes you think that? Nothing, it was exaggeration
- jariel 6y agoJust the opposite, if what you were saying were even remotely true, we wouldn't attach names to anything, including scientific papers. To suggest that people should hide behind pen-names to discuss the most important ideas of any given era is to accept and promote the vicious kind of black listing that is apparently happening all to frequently. Names also provided a basis for reputation, we don't just publish any old bloggers words, that's not enough filter. Bloggers can blog, other institutions can publish. The sane thing to do here is probably to publish his work if it meets basic editorial standards and that's it.
- leephillips 6y agoI'd never heard of this guy, but this is some good writing. The editors who blacklisted him display such abject cowardice when they say they are cancelling him because of the “reception” of his previous article in a different journal. Not because of what the article says, but because of its “reception.” This is the moral and intellectual equal of the 14 year old girl who won’t sit with Suzy in the cafeteria because some of the other 14 year old girls think that Suzy is weird.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- konjin 6y agoIf you ever had to deal with the literati you'd know that they never got past the level of 14 year olds. I'm convinced that they are lgbt friendly because it lets them have twice the drama since they aren't limited to sleeping with only half their acquaintances. Edit: in case you're too stupid to realize: I'm not attacking lgbt's I'm attacking the vapid vampires that are sucking the life out of the movement.
- hirundo 6y agoIs there anyone that wants to defend this blacklisting of the author by the Chicago Review for writing this article [0]? That is, not to reconfirm that they do indeed have the right to do so, but to argue that they are right to do so? Maybe some of us can avoid this fate if we understand the grounds for it, since they decline to make it explicit. What did he say that was not just wrong, but so wrong that he should not be associated with? [0] https://arcdigital.media/self-censorship-in-the-academy-524186bacafd https://arcdigital.media/self-censorship-in-the-academy-5241...
- yew 6y agoYes? I've just read the article. It's a collection of crypto-fascist dog whistles about race; it barely merits being called an opinion. (It is an example of why the academic personnel pool needs the thorough cleaning it's currently getting.) Anyone who declined to associate with the author would be right to do so. There aren't many people who don't understand what this kind of article is really about. The Chicago Review staff understand. The author understands. I would bet that you understand. Empty appeals to principle won't oblige society to give anyone a platform.
- leephillips 6y agoI just read it, too. I find your take, frankly, bizarre. Everything he said there makes perfect sense. He is defending the idea that the reason to study a work of literature is because it is good literature. Shocking.
- santoshalper 6y agoDid we read the same article?
- yew 6y agoThe one in which the author objects to disciplining professors for racist conduct and refuses to update his curriculum to include a diversity of viewpoints because "the only good reason to study a work of literature is that literature itself has value?"
- rsj_hn 6y ago"“we believe the essay does not align with Chicago Review’s editorial and political agenda.”" It's interesting that some academic literary magazines are now being forced to admit they have political agendas, which is a step in the right direction. People like Kunin are the conscience of our generation, daring to stand up to the mobs and tell the truth - a political act that conflicts with the Chicago Review's agenda. But it is the truth tellers, not the political enforcers, who will be acknowledged as heroes, as the future belongs to the truth, not to the political lie.
- leephillips 6y agoSo well said.
- eli 6y agoHow could one possibly publish poetry in a non political way?
- monoideism 6y agoIn fact, he discusses this very cogently in the essay. Perhaps give it a read?
- threevox 6y agoIf your poetry is political, you're doing it wrong
- richardwhiuk 6y agoLots of the best (by a number of standards) poetry ever written is deeply political.
- DoreenMichele 6y agoLots of art of all sorts is deeply political.
- adolph 6y ago
- williesleg 6y agoThat's some fucking racism right there pal. Hacker news is triggering too, implying a male of russian or Chinese descent. When will you learn?
- walrus01 6y agoNobody owes you a free publishing platform. He expects that by calling the publishers of some journal "craven" and "scared", that he's going to elicit a reversal of their decision, and positive response from them, something to the effect of "oh, how dare we deny your article, woe unto us, we were so dreadfully wrong"... Really? The biggest takeaway that I got from his December essay, and this one? A sense of self righteous entitlement, that whatever he writes must be of such great import and merit that of course publishers should be falling all over themselves to print it. Has he taken the time to sit back and consider that maybe he's not as critically important to the English language literature scene as he believes himself to be? In general, insulting your potential publishing platform only serves to burn bridges. So, good luck with that, guy.
- sneak 6y agoIndeed, and similarly we are permitted to discuss publishing platforms' editorial decisions and merits thereof.
- ttt0 6y agoI guess, but that's a weird point to make in the context of (self-)censorship in the academic world. Just saying.
- josephg 6y ago> He expects that by calling the publishers of some journal "craven" and "scared", that he's going to elicit a reversal of their decision Thats not my read of the situation. I agree that if his goal was to convince the authors, it would make sense for him to be more accomodating. And it wouldn't make sense to call them out in public. But thats not his goal here. To my eyes, this piece takes a shot at the culture which produced their editorial decision. He's calling cancel culture (and its adherents) craven and scared, using this situation as an example.
- walrus01 6y agoWhat I find amusing is that the same center-right and right-wing mouthpieces that complain the loudest about 'cancel culture' have themselves been deeply involved in attempting to 'cancel' things for the past 40 years, anything they dislike or find distasteful, a random assortment of which includes. rap music and any music with "vulgar" lyrics (PARENTAL WARNING labels on CDs) harry potter (satanic magic messages offending the christian right) construction of neighborhood mosques (we can't have a foreign religion in our white christian suburb, can we???) french fries (remember freedom fries???) lgbtq rights womens' reproductive rights frank discussion of endemic police brutality just about anything new, foreign, liberal, confusing or ethnically diverse else that would upset the sensibilities of a deep red state bible belt voter.
- dkdk8283 6y agoLet’s please collectively agree to abolish cancel culture. Opposing ideas cause growth. Singular ideologies do not lead to growth or change.
- richardwhiuk 6y agoNot really. You are basically arguing that anyone who provides a platform for viewpoints, must provide a platform for any viewpoint, no matter how abhorent they (and their readers) might find it.
- john_moscow 6y agoWell, it gets interesting if you actually look into it. Somewhat simplifying it, but there are 4 types of actors: 1. Content creators. People that share viewpoints. They are motivated by influencing others who read their pieces. 2. Content consumers. People that read what is published by creators. You can split these in 2 groups: 2a. Non-activist consumers. They don't have much free time and generally just skip over something they don't like. They are the majority. 2b. Activist consumers. They have lots of free time and want their share of influence. By influencing what content creators can write they feel an influence over what non-activist consumers can consume. 3. Providers. They provide platforms connecting content creators and consumers. They generally just care about making money and rely on partnerships with other providers (banks, payment processors, hosting companies, domain registries, etc). They would gladly cut off business that brings negative PR to them. So what is happening recently is a very small vocal minority of activist consumers is getting increased control over what content creators (1) can share to regular consumers (2a). They do it by forcing big providers (banks, cloud providers, etc) to cut ties with smaller providers that are not aligned with the activist consumers' viewpoints. Hence, many other providers are forced to self-censor in fear of losing access to banking and other vital services. It's a rather weird negative selection process powered by the social media. Instead of encouraging the unhappy unproductive people to learn from their more successful peers and knock off what worked for them, we are giving them increasing control over the media space, so they can make their views (that lead to unhappiness) more mainstream, resulting in more unhappiness and more social tension.
- 6y ago
- rayiner 6y agoKunin writes: “Look. I’m a weirdo. I have worshipped strange gods. I have strange opinions about various subjects, and I have published some of these opinions in books, essays, and poems. My sexual preferences are unusual, and I have written about them extensively. There are lots of statements in my published writing for people to take issue with. However, I must admit with some embarrassment that the views expressed in ‘Self-Censorship in the Academy’ are completely unoriginal and vanilla. It’s just liberalism.” There are parallels to what’s happening on the right: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/05/return-of-the-strong-gods https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/05/return-of-the-st.... This essay posits that the milquetoast nature of late 20th century liberal causes people (in that case in the right) to pine for the return of “strong gods.” It describes the status quo ante as follows: “All of this is summed up in his catchphrase the ‘weakening of Being,’ which he sees as a happy unburdening of the West, for weakening promotes tolerance, peace, and freedom. If there are no strong truths, nobody will judge others or limit their freedom. If nothing is worth fighting for, nobody will fight. Vattimo looks forward to a disenchanted world that encourages us to adopt a ‘moderate and generous’ approach to life.” The essay argues that this absence of hard moral truths is unsatisfying to many, and is giving rise to thinking in the right wing that seeks a return to moral clarity. Kunin’ experience suggests similar things may be happening on the left as well.
- cpr 6y agoYou think First Things represents the far right? Maybe in some fevered hard left dreams...
- rayiner 6y agoI didn’t say that. The article touches on things that are happening in the far right, addition to the point being made.
- schoen 6y ago> "All of this is summed up in his catchphrase the ‘weakening of Being,’ which he sees as a happy unburdening of the West, for weakening promotes tolerance, peace, and freedom. [...]" That sort of reminds me of Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (although I read it when I was much younger and felt that I didn't full understand it, so maybe the connection isn't as strong as I imagine), or Singer's Unsanctifying Human Life (though maybe I'm reminded of the latter just because of the "disenchanted world"). Or, in another rather different direction, Haidt's moral foundations theory. In my recollection Rorty and Singer (both writing from academic philosophical backgrounds and mostly associating themselves with the secular left) feel that, as we've lost touch with certainties and transcendent values, we've gained an opportunity to be nicer and more thoughtful, as well as less apt to fight each other. A rival view, which I think has been expressed on the right for generations, is that losing touch with certainties and transcendent values will mainly leave people casting around for other certainties and other transcendent values that will let them rediscover something to fight for!
- murrayh 6y agoThis is the paradox of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Each of Chicago Review's two choices (to publish, or not to publish) will generate disapproval. My personal view is that deplatforming intolerance is ok -- that the Chicago Review are right to deplatform intolerance. Was Kunin's article intolerant and who decides? I have no idea, an uninformed opinion at best.
- baggy_trough 6y agoOf course it isn’t; it’s the exact opposite.
- bad_username 6y ago"I do not imply that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. We should claim the right to suppress them if ... they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument." - Karl Popper. People advocating "deplatforming intolerance", a.k.a. applying censorship, should ponder this quote.
- brigandish 6y agoI’d be willing to bet that those who cite the paradox as support for censorship have only ever read the stupid meme cartoon about it that gets passed around on Facebook and Twitter, they always seem surprised into silence when someone posts quotes back from the actual text that show their argument is as strong as their research.
- Bakary 6y agoThe looming elephant in the room here is that the marketplace of ideas is extremely crowded. Universities becoming job training centers and/or finishing schools is one thing, but even if that were not the case you'd still have to deal with the simple phenomenon of your voice getting drowned out in the unending torrent of societal criticisms in various forms of media. Ironically, getting censored in this way is probably quite helpful for that professor to broaden their reach.
- gnicholas 6y agoI wonder if Professor Kunin would have felt comfortable writing this essay before he was tenured?