6 ms·

Because the far right have always been nuts and society is somewhat inoculated against them. The far left seem to be able to penetrate far more deeply and are a

Because the far right have always been nuts and society is somewhat inoculated against them. The far left seem to be able to penetrate far more deeply and are actually successful in suppressing free speech and scientific wrongthink.

Daishiman 5y ago
Multiple right-wing legislators in the US are obsessed with banning "critical race theory", and when you look at their proposed bannings it seems more like banning anything that would teach the history of racism in the US. This affects millions of students, but sure, the problem is "the far left".
- javajosh 5y ago
  It's nice to see that "whataboutism" can be wielded as well by left wing ideologues as right wing ones! The simple truth is that science and civic discourse has always been under attack from the right, and always will be, because right-wing views naturally gravitates toward authoritarianism. But the left has decided to join in recently. The left invented something new, a kind of distributed authoritarianism, with MeToo and woke/cancel culture, which gives every person of a "blessed" identity the absolute power of a tyrant over anyone within earshot who is of a corresponding "cursed" identity. I speak as someone on the receiving end of this, in family court. It's a shift in power that leaves straight white liberal men abandoned and demoralized. We are dehumanized, treated to precisely those iniquities that we've fought hard against for so long. Our expressions of pain and worry are ignored and demeaned by our erstwhile friends, and if we complain about that then we are attacked further as being manipulative and dishonest. It is a perfect little trap, that can apparently only be escaped by donning a certain red trucker hat. As another poster said, society has developed a resistance to right-wing censorship over time. But the left-wing censorship is a new innovation, and it's much harder to combat. I truly worry about my 2-year-old son growing up endlessly hearing about his toxic masculinity, his inherently oppressive identity, and always being at the mercy of other people's feelings, while his own are ignored or demeaned. The left is, if anything, more dangerous today in terms of censorship, forcing speakers to be silent, everywhere, lest they risk hurting someone's feeling, and thereby have their entire lives destroyed.
- specialp 5y ago
  You are not wrong either. But 2 wrongs do not make a right. Some liberals today are not much unlike the "family-values" conservatives of the past. Those people fought to censor/ban/boycott and otherwise deplatform material they found objectionable. Many people today who despised them are unfortunately becoming a lot like them. Open discourse is very important for a free society and especially research. Banning "hate-speech" and "false information" is a very noble goal, but who is the arbiter of what is false or hate? It is not a binary decision and generally just like the justice system is designed to let some guilty people go to protect the innocent, free speech restrictions have always had the high burden of that the speech must cause immediate harm.
- dissent 5y ago
  Not "the" problem, but definitely "a" problem in my opinion. If you're someone like me, in Australia, who always figured he was a left leaning liberal, some of the stuff coming out of CRT sounds right up there with young earth creationism. But creationism has effectively lost the battle against science. I'm therefore more concerned at present with the far left, while keeping an eye on those other crackpots on the right.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    Care to elaborate? As someone coming from France where racial studies are illegal and considered racist (by the actually-racist establishment who still deports/murders/exploits/pillages communities to this day), i don't see any relation between racial study and creationism or other pseudo-sciences. You seem to be worried about a strawman: what you call the "far left" has really little power beyond symbolism of preventing an actual fascist of organizing a meeting. The actual power, political and economic, resides in the far-right who's very well established in society and has been relentlessly campaigning and organizing. And i can tell you their campaigns are otherwise more violent than those of the so-called far left. As i'm witnessing the new rise of fascism here in France, i can tell you the overall ambience both in the streets and on campuses was much more pleasant twenty years ago when declaring sympathies for Hitler or Le Pen would have gotten you socially excluded from the group (except in a few fascist-friendly universities in the bourgeois neighborhoods). The fascists are rising again: when you see dozens/hundreds of neo-fascist militiamen charging alongside riot cops (who are famously pro-FN for the vast majority of them) to beat down and send to the hospital anti-racist demonstrators (such as happened during the first Zemmour speech a few months back), it's time to choose which side you wanna be on.
    - dissent 5y ago
      I will have to take your word for it. I'm in my 40s, I'm from the UK, I live in Australia, and I don't really feel what you're saying. It sounds like hyperbole. Perhaps you need to be living in France to see it. All I see is a major ramp up in censorship and attack on free inquiry coming from the left over the last 10 years. This is becoming normal. I'm not really worried about it per se, it is what it is. I'll adjust accordingly, be careful what I say in public, and my children will grow up adjusted to it. The question is whether society as a whole will be better off or not. I suspect not, but who knows. In regards to the rise of the far right, it seems conceivable it's a reaction to the extremes of the far left. It's political polarization and I'd tend to lay blame on the dogmatists on both sides. I find them equally absurd, but I'm more disappointed in the left. That was my original point.
- yucky 5y ago
  The history of racism has been, and will continue to be taught. That isn't what critical race theory is. Critical race theory posits that an entire race of people are to blame for the actions of people with similar colored skin. That is of course racist, so giving those racists the ability to assign collective blame based on skin color is getting pushback for obvious reasons.
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    Conservative legislators are explicitly using CRT as an excuse to push laws that aren't actually about CRT and are instead about literally banning anything that would make white students uncomfortable [1]. > Accordingly, instruction on the topics enumerated in this section and supporting materials must be consistent with the following principles of individual freedom: [...] An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race. [1]: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/?Tab=BillText https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/?Tab=BillText
    - yucky 5y ago
      >are instead about literally banning anything that would make white students uncomfortable Why would something that supposedly doesn't assign collective blame based on skin color make all white students uncomfortable? I wonder what Ibram X. Kendi, the most well known proponent of CRT, would have to say about the subject: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." Yeah, CRT is racist. Anybody who supports it is racist.
      - crooked-v 5y ago
        > Why would something that supposedly doesn't assign collective blame based on skin color make all white students uncomfortable? The factual history of slavery and discrimination in the US (as promulgated against minorities by non-minorities) could cause white students discomfort on the basis of their race, and would thereby be illegal under Florida's bill. > CRT Actual critical race theory is irrelevant in this discussion. The legislation being pushed here has nothing to do with it, beyond using it as a convenient negative label for literally anything relating to historical and modern racism.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
I know what you're saying, but, in plain English, you're acknowledging that the far right get a pass.
- dissent 5y ago
  I certainly am not. I'm saying the far right have no hope of deplatforming, say, Richard Dawkins. But that's been done successfully by the far left. They are censoring in ways the far right could only dream of. I think they might actually be jealous.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    They may have no hope to "deplatform" someone from a university (except here in France where they're gaining power), but they certainly have strong success in ruining people's lives without consequences for themselves. See for example GamerGate and the many other harassment campaigns organized by the neo-fascists and masculinists, who had terrible consequences. And you say they have no hope to "deplatform" people, but hey what happened with the crackdowns on Riseup, Indymedia, Unicorn Riot, Wikileaks and other platforms? The fascists, due to having strong ties/networks within the institutions, have a bigger impact when talking about their own hurdles and we barely talk about anti-left censorship.

Daishiman 5y ago

Multiple right-wing legislators in the US are obsessed with banning "critical race theory", and when you look at their proposed bannings it seems more like banning anything that would teach the history of racism in the US. This affects millions of students, but sure, the problem is "the far left".

javajosh 5y ago
It's nice to see that "whataboutism" can be wielded as well by left wing ideologues as right wing ones! The simple truth is that science and civic discourse has always been under attack from the right, and always will be, because right-wing views naturally gravitates toward authoritarianism. But the left has decided to join in recently. The left invented something new, a kind of distributed authoritarianism, with MeToo and woke/cancel culture, which gives every person of a "blessed" identity the absolute power of a tyrant over anyone within earshot who is of a corresponding "cursed" identity. I speak as someone on the receiving end of this, in family court. It's a shift in power that leaves straight white liberal men abandoned and demoralized. We are dehumanized, treated to precisely those iniquities that we've fought hard against for so long. Our expressions of pain and worry are ignored and demeaned by our erstwhile friends, and if we complain about that then we are attacked further as being manipulative and dishonest. It is a perfect little trap, that can apparently only be escaped by donning a certain red trucker hat. As another poster said, society has developed a resistance to right-wing censorship over time. But the left-wing censorship is a new innovation, and it's much harder to combat. I truly worry about my 2-year-old son growing up endlessly hearing about his toxic masculinity, his inherently oppressive identity, and always being at the mercy of other people's feelings, while his own are ignored or demeaned. The left is, if anything, more dangerous today in terms of censorship, forcing speakers to be silent, everywhere, lest they risk hurting someone's feeling, and thereby have their entire lives destroyed.
specialp 5y ago
You are not wrong either. But 2 wrongs do not make a right. Some liberals today are not much unlike the "family-values" conservatives of the past. Those people fought to censor/ban/boycott and otherwise deplatform material they found objectionable. Many people today who despised them are unfortunately becoming a lot like them. Open discourse is very important for a free society and especially research. Banning "hate-speech" and "false information" is a very noble goal, but who is the arbiter of what is false or hate? It is not a binary decision and generally just like the justice system is designed to let some guilty people go to protect the innocent, free speech restrictions have always had the high burden of that the speech must cause immediate harm.
dissent 5y ago
Not "the" problem, but definitely "a" problem in my opinion. If you're someone like me, in Australia, who always figured he was a left leaning liberal, some of the stuff coming out of CRT sounds right up there with young earth creationism. But creationism has effectively lost the battle against science. I'm therefore more concerned at present with the far left, while keeping an eye on those other crackpots on the right.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Care to elaborate? As someone coming from France where racial studies are illegal and considered racist (by the actually-racist establishment who still deports/murders/exploits/pillages communities to this day), i don't see any relation between racial study and creationism or other pseudo-sciences. You seem to be worried about a strawman: what you call the "far left" has really little power beyond symbolism of preventing an actual fascist of organizing a meeting. The actual power, political and economic, resides in the far-right who's very well established in society and has been relentlessly campaigning and organizing. And i can tell you their campaigns are otherwise more violent than those of the so-called far left. As i'm witnessing the new rise of fascism here in France, i can tell you the overall ambience both in the streets and on campuses was much more pleasant twenty years ago when declaring sympathies for Hitler or Le Pen would have gotten you socially excluded from the group (except in a few fascist-friendly universities in the bourgeois neighborhoods). The fascists are rising again: when you see dozens/hundreds of neo-fascist militiamen charging alongside riot cops (who are famously pro-FN for the vast majority of them) to beat down and send to the hospital anti-racist demonstrators (such as happened during the first Zemmour speech a few months back), it's time to choose which side you wanna be on.
  - dissent 5y ago
    I will have to take your word for it. I'm in my 40s, I'm from the UK, I live in Australia, and I don't really feel what you're saying. It sounds like hyperbole. Perhaps you need to be living in France to see it. All I see is a major ramp up in censorship and attack on free inquiry coming from the left over the last 10 years. This is becoming normal. I'm not really worried about it per se, it is what it is. I'll adjust accordingly, be careful what I say in public, and my children will grow up adjusted to it. The question is whether society as a whole will be better off or not. I suspect not, but who knows. In regards to the rise of the far right, it seems conceivable it's a reaction to the extremes of the far left. It's political polarization and I'd tend to lay blame on the dogmatists on both sides. I find them equally absurd, but I'm more disappointed in the left. That was my original point.
yucky 5y ago
The history of racism has been, and will continue to be taught. That isn't what critical race theory is. Critical race theory posits that an entire race of people are to blame for the actions of people with similar colored skin. That is of course racist, so giving those racists the ability to assign collective blame based on skin color is getting pushback for obvious reasons.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  Conservative legislators are explicitly using CRT as an excuse to push laws that aren't actually about CRT and are instead about literally banning anything that would make white students uncomfortable [1]. > Accordingly, instruction on the topics enumerated in this section and supporting materials must be consistent with the following principles of individual freedom: [...] An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race. [1]: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/?Tab=BillText https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/?Tab=BillText
  - yucky 5y ago
    >are instead about literally banning anything that would make white students uncomfortable Why would something that supposedly doesn't assign collective blame based on skin color make all white students uncomfortable? I wonder what Ibram X. Kendi, the most well known proponent of CRT, would have to say about the subject: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." Yeah, CRT is racist. Anybody who supports it is racist.
    - crooked-v 5y ago
      > Why would something that supposedly doesn't assign collective blame based on skin color make all white students uncomfortable? The factual history of slavery and discrimination in the US (as promulgated against minorities by non-minorities) could cause white students discomfort on the basis of their race, and would thereby be illegal under Florida's bill. > CRT Actual critical race theory is irrelevant in this discussion. The legislation being pushed here has nothing to do with it, beyond using it as a convenient negative label for literally anything relating to historical and modern racism.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

I know what you're saying, but, in plain English, you're acknowledging that the far right get a pass.

dissent 5y ago
I certainly am not. I'm saying the far right have no hope of deplatforming, say, Richard Dawkins. But that's been done successfully by the far left. They are censoring in ways the far right could only dream of. I think they might actually be jealous.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  They may have no hope to "deplatform" someone from a university (except here in France where they're gaining power), but they certainly have strong success in ruining people's lives without consequences for themselves. See for example GamerGate and the many other harassment campaigns organized by the neo-fascists and masculinists, who had terrible consequences. And you say they have no hope to "deplatform" people, but hey what happened with the crackdowns on Riseup, Indymedia, Unicorn Riot, Wikileaks and other platforms? The fascists, due to having strong ties/networks within the institutions, have a bigger impact when talking about their own hurdles and we barely talk about anti-left censorship.