10 ms·

This is a discussion about the Overton Window moving in ways that one disagrees with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

This is a discussion about the Overton Window moving in ways that one disagrees with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window There was always an Overton Window and it has always been moving around. And often people (usually older people) do not like when they have opinions which are being excluded from the Overton Window when previously they were acceptable. I find that it is best to be specific about what should be in and what should not be in the Overton Window rather than being general. Why? Discussions of "cancel culture" seems to me to pretend to be meta discussions on whether the Overton Window should exist, but usually they are actually about whether certain topics should be within it. I find that this is a bit of a deception and used to disavow that you are unhappy with the current position of the Overton Window with regards to very specific issues, usually because if they discussed the specifics of their concern, it would actually fall outside of most people's Overton Window - thus the need to argue the meta route.

krona 6y ago
> There was always an Overton Window and it has always been moving around. Has it always been getting narrower, though? That seems to be what's changed more than anything. What happens when nothing can be discussed?
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Has it been getting narrower, or do you feel as if it does as you slide closer to the edge, relatively? I don't know, both are possible. But there are a lot of people that claim it's getting smaller but really it's that they're failing to cover up ideas that were always unacceptable.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Considering left-wing cancellation only, I'm guessing the enforced views are favored by less than 30% of the population. I don't think virtually any conservatives or many moderate liberals agree with the enforced viewpoint. Surely that means the Overton Window is narrowing. When have the views of 70+% of the population ever fell outside the OW? If it excludes the views of 70+%, is it even an "Overton Window" by definition? What's the difference between enforcing an extremely narrow window on the whole population and cultural authoritarianism (or perhaps just "authoritarianism"--I'm not exactly sure on the terminology?)? The other question is that, while rarer, right-wing cancellation is a thing. Notable examples are Dixie Chicks and Colin Kaepernick. While I could believe that the Dixie Chicks were a matter of an OW shift a few years in the making, and while I can believe that the window shifted gradually leftward from there, I can't believe that it shifted to the extreme left, then abruptly back to the right in just a week's time for the Kaepernick cancellation, and then a week later back to the far left for various left-wing cancellations. Even if it is the Overton Window, is it eminently desirable that people's livelihoods and healthcare should be subject to expressing views within the OW? EDIT: Downvoters, I would be very interested in your feedback, genuinely; where am I wrong?
- mattnewton 6y ago
  It may seem narrower to people who's views are sliding out of the window, but I see no evidence that the overton window in the US is any narrower now than say, the 1950's. If anything it feels like it has effectively widened, or at least fundamentally changed to lose some of it's bite, since there is no longer truly national media and everyone can quickly find a bubble with a window that fits their views.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    You may be able to find a bubble, but can you find a job?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - yanderekko 6y ago
    >It may seem narrower to people who's views are sliding out of the window, but I see no evidence that the overton window in the US is any narrower now than say, the 1950's. I can probably think of several views supported by the median American in 2021 (or at least 30% of Americans) that would get you summarily dismissed from most high-visibility jobs if publicly expressed. You probably could too. What views in the 1950s do you think were similar? Again, there was undoubtedly an Overton Window in the 1950s. What's peculiar about 2020s cancel culture imo, however, is how zealously it goes after people who hold views that are extremely common among the broader population.
    - lapetitejort 6y ago
      A view in the 1950's that could get you dismissed from a high-visibility job? How about being a communist? Have people forgotten about the McCarthy Era?
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        You'd probably still get dismissed from a high visibility job for being a communist, actually. IIRC in California being a communist bars you from holding office still today.
- samlevine 6y ago
  > What happens when nothing can be discussed? At that point, not discussing anything clearly means that you're a witch.
- bhouston 6y ago
  If the old Overton window (A) and new Overton window (B) are like circles in a Venn diagram and you are determined to stick in the old one, you will find that the intersection between it and the new Overton window is shrinking (A intersects B). This phenomenon explains why old people who do not want to change with the times will find that their Overton window is shrinking.
yanderekko 6y ago
>I find that this is a bit of a deception and used to disavow that you are unhappy with the current position of the Overton Window with regards to very specific issues, usually because if they discussed the specifics of their concern, it would actually fall outside of most people's Overton Window - thus the need to argue the meta route. I think a lot of the concerns about "cancel culture" in particular is that there's an unusually large (and growing) chasm between the Overton Window that exists in certain elite "captured" institutions and the Overton Window that exists in broader American society - and that the enforcers of this "vocal minority" Overton Window are unusually zealous about trying to punish heresy in their captured spaces. Also, there's an amusing critique that is increasingly forceful in my view that this is all a way to create a new sort of social class divide. I went to school for a long time and although I do not adhere to the scriptures of wokism I am accultured to its mores and can adopt the requisite Taqiya-style practices to survive in a culturally-hostile environment. Many cannot do the same and are excluded from opportunities accordingly - look at how many cancellations are predicated on "it's not what they said but how they said it" to see this sort of shibboleth-like status filter in action.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jtbayly 6y ago
I disagree. Many of those concerned about this do not hold any view that is currently suddenly outside the window. For you to claim that this is the case with is just a form of ad hominem. Rather, what is going on is a slippery slope (in reality, not in fallacy) being recognized for what it is. People see that their friends, parents, neighbors, children, coworkers, and eventually themselves are quite possibly going to be labeled with a scarlet letter for holding any view whatsoever except what was decided at yesterday's HR meeting, which nobody has been notified of yet. In other words, this is not a question of the Overton Window moving. This is a question of whether the Overton Window should become the Overton Pinhole.
qsort 6y ago
The strongest objections to "cancel culture" (it's a bad term, but I'm not arguing semantics, let's just go along with it) are procedural. Because the public often lacks the entire picture, "cancel mobs" are effectively operating a form of vigilante justice with imperfect information. While strictly speaking people do have a right to do so, when "cancelled" people suffer real-world consequences (pressure on employers to fire them, etc.), the entire thing starts getting scary, regardless of the merit of the accusation. I'd also argue that, for a well-intentioned person, it's tactically stupid to engage in such behavior, because this circus allows truly bad actors to credibly claim they're being unjustly accused.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Confusingly, cancellation proponents argue that they aren't enforcing justice, but only exercising their "freedom of association" which, they argue, includes depriving dissidents of income and healthcare. "Social Consequences" (TM).
throwaway894345 6y ago
I don't think this is a very good characterization of the debate. Most importantly, the debate as far as I can tell centers around whether or not it is appropriate for your livelihood and access to healthcare to be at the mercy of a Twitter mob, specifically about whether or not threatening someone's livelihood, etc (namely by way of harassment campaign against one's employer) constitutes 'free speech'--more abstractly, the debate is about whether or not threats and harassment constitute free speech. Further, I don't think the cancel culture debate is about the Overton Window as much as rank partisanship. For example, I don't think progressives would argue that nonviolent protest falls afoul of their OW, but they canceled (and defend the canceling of) a data scientist who so transgressed. Similarly, do progressives really think it's so offensive to publish a quote from a black man in the context of BLM in which he wished for more attention to other problems his community faces--is that actually outside of their OW, or is it more likely that the journalist's crime was publishing a viewpoint that failed to toe the ideological line? Similarly, the Hispanic utility worker who accidentally and absent-mindedly made the "OK" gesture from his truck--whose Overton window is that out-of-bounds of? Or the professor who said a Chinese word in appropriate context which sounded sort of like the N-word? Are these really outside of people's Overton window, or is this just overt bullying? In the other direction, the sitting Prime Minister of Canada has dressed in blackface so often that he's admittedly lost track, but he was somehow not cancelled? Is blackface really within the left-wing Overton Window, or are we observing ideological partisanship? EDIT: Downvoters, I'm really interested in hearing your opinions!
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  > EDIT: Downvoters, I'm really interested in hearing your opinions! Best guess is that they just very strongly disagree with your points but have no rebuttal. So a downvote has to do.
rayiner 6y ago
I agree there's always been an Overton Window, but I think you're leaving out important context. When conservatives controlled culture, championing free expression was a way to expand the Overton Window to make it okay to say liberal things. To older liberals like Pinker, the change in tack comes across as hypocritical. (Of course, it's not actually hypocritical, insofar as we're talking about different individuals.)

krona 6y ago

> There was always an Overton Window and it has always been moving around. Has it always been getting narrower, though? That seems to be what's changed more than anything. What happens when nothing can be discussed?

sudosysgen 6y ago
Has it been getting narrower, or do you feel as if it does as you slide closer to the edge, relatively? I don't know, both are possible. But there are a lot of people that claim it's getting smaller but really it's that they're failing to cover up ideas that were always unacceptable.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Considering left-wing cancellation only, I'm guessing the enforced views are favored by less than 30% of the population. I don't think virtually any conservatives or many moderate liberals agree with the enforced viewpoint. Surely that means the Overton Window is narrowing. When have the views of 70+% of the population ever fell outside the OW? If it excludes the views of 70+%, is it even an "Overton Window" by definition? What's the difference between enforcing an extremely narrow window on the whole population and cultural authoritarianism (or perhaps just "authoritarianism"--I'm not exactly sure on the terminology?)? The other question is that, while rarer, right-wing cancellation is a thing. Notable examples are Dixie Chicks and Colin Kaepernick. While I could believe that the Dixie Chicks were a matter of an OW shift a few years in the making, and while I can believe that the window shifted gradually leftward from there, I can't believe that it shifted to the extreme left, then abruptly back to the right in just a week's time for the Kaepernick cancellation, and then a week later back to the far left for various left-wing cancellations. Even if it is the Overton Window, is it eminently desirable that people's livelihoods and healthcare should be subject to expressing views within the OW? EDIT: Downvoters, I would be very interested in your feedback, genuinely; where am I wrong?
mattnewton 6y ago
It may seem narrower to people who's views are sliding out of the window, but I see no evidence that the overton window in the US is any narrower now than say, the 1950's. If anything it feels like it has effectively widened, or at least fundamentally changed to lose some of it's bite, since there is no longer truly national media and everyone can quickly find a bubble with a window that fits their views.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  You may be able to find a bubble, but can you find a job?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- yanderekko 6y ago
  >It may seem narrower to people who's views are sliding out of the window, but I see no evidence that the overton window in the US is any narrower now than say, the 1950's. I can probably think of several views supported by the median American in 2021 (or at least 30% of Americans) that would get you summarily dismissed from most high-visibility jobs if publicly expressed. You probably could too. What views in the 1950s do you think were similar? Again, there was undoubtedly an Overton Window in the 1950s. What's peculiar about 2020s cancel culture imo, however, is how zealously it goes after people who hold views that are extremely common among the broader population.
  - lapetitejort 6y ago
    A view in the 1950's that could get you dismissed from a high-visibility job? How about being a communist? Have people forgotten about the McCarthy Era?
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      You'd probably still get dismissed from a high visibility job for being a communist, actually. IIRC in California being a communist bars you from holding office still today.
samlevine 6y ago
> What happens when nothing can be discussed? At that point, not discussing anything clearly means that you're a witch.
bhouston 6y ago
If the old Overton window (A) and new Overton window (B) are like circles in a Venn diagram and you are determined to stick in the old one, you will find that the intersection between it and the new Overton window is shrinking (A intersects B). This phenomenon explains why old people who do not want to change with the times will find that their Overton window is shrinking.

yanderekko 6y ago

>I find that this is a bit of a deception and used to disavow that you are unhappy with the current position of the Overton Window with regards to very specific issues, usually because if they discussed the specifics of their concern, it would actually fall outside of most people's Overton Window - thus the need to argue the meta route. I think a lot of the concerns about "cancel culture" in particular is that there's an unusually large (and growing) chasm between the Overton Window that exists in certain elite "captured" institutions and the Overton Window that exists in broader American society - and that the enforcers of this "vocal minority" Overton Window are unusually zealous about trying to punish heresy in their captured spaces. Also, there's an amusing critique that is increasingly forceful in my view that this is all a way to create a new sort of social class divide. I went to school for a long time and although I do not adhere to the scriptures of wokism I am accultured to its mores and can adopt the requisite Taqiya-style practices to survive in a culturally-hostile environment. Many cannot do the same and are excluded from opportunities accordingly - look at how many cancellations are predicated on "it's not what they said but how they said it" to see this sort of shibboleth-like status filter in action.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jtbayly 6y ago

I disagree. Many of those concerned about this do not hold any view that is currently suddenly outside the window. For you to claim that this is the case with is just a form of ad hominem. Rather, what is going on is a slippery slope (in reality, not in fallacy) being recognized for what it is. People see that their friends, parents, neighbors, children, coworkers, and eventually themselves are quite possibly going to be labeled with a scarlet letter for holding any view whatsoever except what was decided at yesterday's HR meeting, which nobody has been notified of yet. In other words, this is not a question of the Overton Window moving. This is a question of whether the Overton Window should become the Overton Pinhole.

qsort 6y ago

The strongest objections to "cancel culture" (it's a bad term, but I'm not arguing semantics, let's just go along with it) are procedural. Because the public often lacks the entire picture, "cancel mobs" are effectively operating a form of vigilante justice with imperfect information. While strictly speaking people do have a right to do so, when "cancelled" people suffer real-world consequences (pressure on employers to fire them, etc.), the entire thing starts getting scary, regardless of the merit of the accusation. I'd also argue that, for a well-intentioned person, it's tactically stupid to engage in such behavior, because this circus allows truly bad actors to credibly claim they're being unjustly accused.

throwaway894345 6y ago
Confusingly, cancellation proponents argue that they aren't enforcing justice, but only exercising their "freedom of association" which, they argue, includes depriving dissidents of income and healthcare. "Social Consequences" (TM).

throwaway894345 6y ago

I don't think this is a very good characterization of the debate. Most importantly, the debate as far as I can tell centers around whether or not it is appropriate for your livelihood and access to healthcare to be at the mercy of a Twitter mob, specifically about whether or not threatening someone's livelihood, etc (namely by way of harassment campaign against one's employer) constitutes 'free speech'--more abstractly, the debate is about whether or not threats and harassment constitute free speech. Further, I don't think the cancel culture debate is about the Overton Window as much as rank partisanship. For example, I don't think progressives would argue that nonviolent protest falls afoul of their OW, but they canceled (and defend the canceling of) a data scientist who so transgressed. Similarly, do progressives really think it's so offensive to publish a quote from a black man in the context of BLM in which he wished for more attention to other problems his community faces--is that actually outside of their OW, or is it more likely that the journalist's crime was publishing a viewpoint that failed to toe the ideological line? Similarly, the Hispanic utility worker who accidentally and absent-mindedly made the "OK" gesture from his truck--whose Overton window is that out-of-bounds of? Or the professor who said a Chinese word in appropriate context which sounded sort of like the N-word? Are these really outside of people's Overton window, or is this just overt bullying? In the other direction, the sitting Prime Minister of Canada has dressed in blackface so often that he's admittedly lost track, but he was somehow not cancelled? Is blackface really within the left-wing Overton Window, or are we observing ideological partisanship? EDIT: Downvoters, I'm really interested in hearing your opinions!

yeetawayhn 6y ago
> EDIT: Downvoters, I'm really interested in hearing your opinions! Best guess is that they just very strongly disagree with your points but have no rebuttal. So a downvote has to do.

rayiner 6y ago

I agree there's always been an Overton Window, but I think you're leaving out important context. When conservatives controlled culture, championing free expression was a way to expand the Overton Window to make it okay to say liberal things. To older liberals like Pinker, the change in tack comes across as hypocritical. (Of course, it's not actually hypocritical, insofar as we're talking about different individuals.)