3 ms·

>But in recent years the dogmatic mode of thinking, in which uncritical commitments are enforced by mechanisms involving public humiliation, no-platforming, and

>But in recent years the dogmatic mode of thinking, in which uncritical commitments are enforced by mechanisms involving public humiliation, no-platforming, and attempts to have scholars fired, has become to seem like it has become endemic. Now, too many humanities scholars move in lock step with the general ideology of our time, dogmatically echoing the opinions of politicians, the media, and business. It's more than cancel culture, per title, though. It seems like the problem is our current morality is being considered to always be the best, the golden standard from which history must be judged by. Which is, of course, ridiculous, but I think it's deeper than that. I think no one stops to think about what WE will be judged by in the future. No one likes to think they'll be our generation's slave owners, and in general, no one believes they do such atrocities current-day. Yet, we all rely on nearly slave labor, when we buy items from sweatshops (though this is "hard to avoid"). Or, we all economically support quasi-terrorist regimes, like Russia and China. Sure, we can't judge each other for that now. But can we do the same in 100 years? 250? To be clear cancel culture over inconsequential stuff (like tweeting a tasteless joke when you were 14) is absolutely ridiculous. It matters the severity, context, and the time scale. Is it "cancel culture" to fire an employee for posting Confederate flags on their Facebook? What about a Nazi flag? Where's the distinction?

soco 5y ago
I think the relativism is killing all sides' arguments. Everybody starts from a probably sensible argument, but then takes it to extremes with slippery slopes and strawmen until the start gets diluted or even lost, so that's how we get both neonazis and cancel culture and many other denominations at the same time which all claim being right. Was the initial statement right? Possibly, but that one is long gone and all the reaction and measures are a consequence of the later additions (aka slippery slopes and strawmen).
linspace 5y ago
> Is it "cancel culture" to fire an employee for posting Confederate flags on their Facebook? What about a Nazi flag? Where's the distinction? Yes and yes, and such firing would be considered illegal in a lot of places. It would be different if the employee made inappropriate comments at work or harassed other people, but you shouldn't go policing other's people out of work life. Evaluate employees by their job, not to protect the nazis, but to be fair to people irrespective of their gender or their race.

soco 5y ago

I think the relativism is killing all sides' arguments. Everybody starts from a probably sensible argument, but then takes it to extremes with slippery slopes and strawmen until the start gets diluted or even lost, so that's how we get both neonazis and cancel culture and many other denominations at the same time which all claim being right. Was the initial statement right? Possibly, but that one is long gone and all the reaction and measures are a consequence of the later additions (aka slippery slopes and strawmen).

linspace 5y ago

> Is it "cancel culture" to fire an employee for posting Confederate flags on their Facebook? What about a Nazi flag? Where's the distinction? Yes and yes, and such firing would be considered illegal in a lot of places. It would be different if the employee made inappropriate comments at work or harassed other people, but you shouldn't go policing other's people out of work life. Evaluate employees by their job, not to protect the nazis, but to be fair to people irrespective of their gender or their race.