7 ms·

The author is pointing out parallels between the way our society is trending in terms of ideological control, and similar things that happened in the USSR. Your

by umvi 5y ago

The author is pointing out parallels between the way our society is trending in terms of ideological control, and similar things that happened in the USSR. Your argument amounts to "the US government hasn't rounded up political/ideological dissidents and murdered them yet so this article is flawed" which seems a bit dismissive. Two triangles can be similar even if one is an order of magnitude bigger than the other.

wffurr 5y ago
The author is essentially saying that being asked to use respectful language makes her university administrator Joseph Stalin. Cherry-picking a few examples, stating "I am not personally offended by these so obviously no one could be", and using that to claim "Social Justice (note the capitals) has gone TOO FAR", does not a good argument make. It's a bit beyond "similar triangles". First they ask us to stop saying "master/slave architecture". Next it's FORCED FARM LABOR. It's a non-sequitur.
- etangent 5y ago
  The next step isn't "forced farm labor," that would indeed be a non-sequitur. A most likely next step is putting someone in jail over a tweet (already happening in the United Kingdom). It takes three or four more steps to get to forced farm labor.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    Seriously asking: How can putting someone in jail over a tweet be closer to forced farm labor when the united states already has forced farm labor (see below for link)? How can we simultaneously be approaching something and also already there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_farm
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      Because the farm labor isn't for a tweet.
  - thephyber 5y ago
    People have been put in jail in the US for the equivalent of a tweet, but it doesn’t prove your point. The freedom of speech does not guarantee an individual freedom from the consequences of that speech. There is established jurisprudence to allow such prosecutions. And no, being jailed for anything you can name does not mean we are on a path to following the USSR (or any similar trajectory). The problem with allegations of “slippery slope” is that it discounts that the US and UK have legal tools to challenge bad prosecutions and bad legislation. The courts have the ability to check the prosecution and juries have the ability to reject bad prosecutions (used infrequently, but importantly when the US government went after Dan Ellsberg)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - etangent 5y ago
      > And no, being jailed for anything you can name does not mean we are on a path to following the USSR (or any similar trajectory) Ex-USSR person here. It absolutely does mean that.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > It takes three or four more steps to get to forced farm labor. Make that "one or two more steps": > Prisoners to plug worker shortage in meat industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58303679 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58303679
- mturmon 5y ago
  Strong agree. Similarly, the OP’s jocular use of the word “canceled” when referring to Soviet assassinations during the Stalin years. No, Stalinist political execution is not comparable to losing your job because you have groped women at work.
watwut 5y ago
In USSR, there was massive Civil War with around 6 different parties struggling to gain power via violence. The victor turned out to be violent. Nothing similar is going on in west now, you could compare Islamic regions. And incidentally, both Russia and those regions were destabilized by wars prior that.
dluan 5y ago
Using someone's preferred pronouns is not "ideological control".
- isitdopamine 5y ago
  Using them it’s not, forcing people to use them it is. It’s the argument Jordan Peterson was making, and probably one of his most misunderstood points. He’s fine with people asking to be called in a certain way, and he would most likely oblige. He’s not fine with a state law dictating how pronouns should be used. I think it makes sense.
  - dluan 5y ago
    > Jordan Peterson uhhh ok sure
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - seoaeu 5y ago
    That's supposed to be a generous position? I demand the right to harass you, and in return I promise that I most likely will choose not to?
    - DuskStar 5y ago
      Imagine a law stating that if your neighbor came to your door and asked for a cup of sugar because they ran out, you had to give it to them. Now, this might be common decency, and the sort of thing that you'd always do for those around you. That doesn't mean you'd be happy with such a law.
      - iamacyborg 5y ago
        Which law are you talking about? C-16 is nothing like this.
    - Banana699 5y ago
snowwrestler 5y ago
The word “yet” is doing tremendous amounts of work in your comment.

by umvi 5y ago

wffurr 5y ago

The author is essentially saying that being asked to use respectful language makes her university administrator Joseph Stalin. Cherry-picking a few examples, stating "I am not personally offended by these so obviously no one could be", and using that to claim "Social Justice (note the capitals) has gone TOO FAR", does not a good argument make. It's a bit beyond "similar triangles". First they ask us to stop saying "master/slave architecture". Next it's FORCED FARM LABOR. It's a non-sequitur.

etangent 5y ago
The next step isn't "forced farm labor," that would indeed be a non-sequitur. A most likely next step is putting someone in jail over a tweet (already happening in the United Kingdom). It takes three or four more steps to get to forced farm labor.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  Seriously asking: How can putting someone in jail over a tweet be closer to forced farm labor when the united states already has forced farm labor (see below for link)? How can we simultaneously be approaching something and also already there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_farm
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Because the farm labor isn't for a tweet.
- thephyber 5y ago
  People have been put in jail in the US for the equivalent of a tweet, but it doesn’t prove your point. The freedom of speech does not guarantee an individual freedom from the consequences of that speech. There is established jurisprudence to allow such prosecutions. And no, being jailed for anything you can name does not mean we are on a path to following the USSR (or any similar trajectory). The problem with allegations of “slippery slope” is that it discounts that the US and UK have legal tools to challenge bad prosecutions and bad legislation. The courts have the ability to check the prosecution and juries have the ability to reject bad prosecutions (used infrequently, but importantly when the US government went after Dan Ellsberg)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - etangent 5y ago
    > And no, being jailed for anything you can name does not mean we are on a path to following the USSR (or any similar trajectory) Ex-USSR person here. It absolutely does mean that.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > It takes three or four more steps to get to forced farm labor. Make that "one or two more steps": > Prisoners to plug worker shortage in meat industry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58303679 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58303679
mturmon 5y ago
Strong agree. Similarly, the OP’s jocular use of the word “canceled” when referring to Soviet assassinations during the Stalin years. No, Stalinist political execution is not comparable to losing your job because you have groped women at work.

watwut 5y ago

In USSR, there was massive Civil War with around 6 different parties struggling to gain power via violence. The victor turned out to be violent. Nothing similar is going on in west now, you could compare Islamic regions. And incidentally, both Russia and those regions were destabilized by wars prior that.

dluan 5y ago

Using someone's preferred pronouns is not "ideological control".

isitdopamine 5y ago
Using them it’s not, forcing people to use them it is. It’s the argument Jordan Peterson was making, and probably one of his most misunderstood points. He’s fine with people asking to be called in a certain way, and he would most likely oblige. He’s not fine with a state law dictating how pronouns should be used. I think it makes sense.
- dluan 5y ago
  > Jordan Peterson uhhh ok sure
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- seoaeu 5y ago
  That's supposed to be a generous position? I demand the right to harass you, and in return I promise that I most likely will choose not to?
  - DuskStar 5y ago
    Imagine a law stating that if your neighbor came to your door and asked for a cup of sugar because they ran out, you had to give it to them. Now, this might be common decency, and the sort of thing that you'd always do for those around you. That doesn't mean you'd be happy with such a law.
    - iamacyborg 5y ago
      Which law are you talking about? C-16 is nothing like this.
  - Banana699 5y ago

snowwrestler 5y ago

The word “yet” is doing tremendous amounts of work in your comment.