7 ms·

> The reason the current wave of intolerance comes from the left is simply because the new unifying ideology happened to come from the left. This is an (aggres

> The reason the current wave of intolerance comes from the left is simply because the new unifying ideology happened to come from the left. This is an (aggressively?) conventional idea that I have an (I guess) heretical opinion about. I'm somewhat persuaded that there is a recent outbreak of intolerance for differing ideas and ideals (though I suspect every generation expresses a version of this opinion as they get older and become out of step with cultural evolution), but I don't think it has any particular political valence. I have to watch my tongue just as much around "aggressive conventionalists" on either side, they just have different conventions. It's just as disqualifying as the x-isms from the left, if you care about staying in the good graces of convention on the right, to express opinions like "immigrants are good", "the 2020 US presidential election ran smoothly and had a clear victor who was duly inaugurated", "gender is a social construct", "people who are attracted to others of the same sex are normal and should have the same rights as anyone else", etc. etc. Honestly I think this whole thing is as simple as, people just have different views and lots of people of all stripes don't want to agree to disagree with the people they spend most of their time with.

randomtwiddler 5y ago
Seems a false equivalency. The majority of the personalized destruction, cancelling, firing, etc, comes from one side.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  This is a common claim that seems to be based more on vibes than on evidence.
  - SauciestGNU 5y ago
    Yeah there are laws being passed to prohibit certain concepts from being discussed in private corporate trainings. Those laws are being passed by those same partisans who loudly claim to oppose cancel culture. I don't think we can have an honest discussion on the topic without acknowledging one side is using voluntary dissociation as a means of punishment while the other is using the power of the state to prohibit the expression of certain ideas.
- ss108 5y ago
  Because that side simply has economic power.
- philosopher1234 5y ago
  How about bills restricting voting access to people of color, or the ability to say the word “gay”? Those don’t qualify as material consequences for violating conventions/ideology? You have a one sided view.
  - honkdaddy 5y ago
    Which bills restrict voting access for people of color?
    - philosopher1234 5y ago
      Read the news some time.
      - Skiiing 5y ago
        I consume a wide range of media every day and I've never seen a bill that "restricts voting access for people of color". It's an extraordinary claim so you would to need provide strong evidence, rather than being dismissive.
        philosopher1234 5y ago
        Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000526827484 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id... https://youtu.be/EN9OdruH_qM https://youtu.be/EN9OdruH_qM
        Skiiing 5y ago
        By strong evidence I was hoping you'd link to the bill, or to factual reporting from a credible mainstream newspaper. If you're getting news from strongly opinionated talking-heads, then that might explain the disconnect.
        philosopher1234 5y ago
- banannaise 5y ago
  ...which one?
slibhb 5y ago
> It's just as disqualifying as the x-isms from the left, if you care about staying in the good graces of convention on the right The question isn't "staying in good graces". While people should have friends with whom they disagree, the topic here is heresy. Heresy leads to punishment that goes beyond social consequences. At this point, it's hard for me to know how to respond to people who remain skeptical of the thesis here. The NYT editorial board has acknowledged the problem. If you're still a holdout, you're probably part of it.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  > The question isn't "staying in good graces". While people should have friends with whom they disagree, the topic here is heresy. Heresy leads to punishment that goes beyond social consequences. Potayto potahto. I was talking about the same thing that the article called "heresy". My claim isn't that shunning and social pressure doesn't exist or isn't a problem. I'm just a bit skeptical that it's a lot worse now than in the past, and I'm a lot skeptical that it's only a problem on one side of the political aisle. I don't even think it's really a thing with a political valence, I think it's just a human thing.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    The essay specifically says it's not worse than in the past. No one's being burned at stake for example. And by the way, that's one reason I continue to believe in moral progress. The essay does claim things are worse than 10 years ago. But 70 years ago? Things are better now than during McCarthyism. > I don't even think it's really a thing with a political valence, I think it's just a human thing. It's definitely a human thing. However, like I said, if you deny the political valence that currently exists, you're either not a clear-eyed observer of the present or you're part of it. And of course no one is saying "in 2022, the right never cancels anyone" just that present day punishments for heresy in the US are clearly politically-valenced.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - 5y ago
chronolitus 5y ago
Another take on this particular question (that I found much more interesting) https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/
- sanderjd 5y ago
  Yeah his take is very interesting, but I think it's also very personal, very much coming from his own personal milieu (which contains a lot of very reactionary right wing folks...). I think it's an example of what I meant by saying this conventional wisdom seems to be more informed by "vibes" more so than data. It's definitely true that the SSC and pg crowds have are deeply convinced that this is a problem unique to the left, I'm just skeptical that their belief is as factually based as they might think. The SSC article does a good job of incorporating this uncertainty, but the OP does not, in my view.
asiachick 5y ago
ignoring your point to nitpic but, none of these (immigrants are good", "the 2020 US presidential election ran smoothly and had a clear victor who was duly inaugurated", "gender is a social construct", "people who are attracted to others of the same sex are normal and should have the same rights as anyone else", ) are position of the right. They are the left's worst spin on the right's positions.

randomtwiddler 5y ago

Seems a false equivalency. The majority of the personalized destruction, cancelling, firing, etc, comes from one side.

sanderjd 5y ago
This is a common claim that seems to be based more on vibes than on evidence.
- SauciestGNU 5y ago
  Yeah there are laws being passed to prohibit certain concepts from being discussed in private corporate trainings. Those laws are being passed by those same partisans who loudly claim to oppose cancel culture. I don't think we can have an honest discussion on the topic without acknowledging one side is using voluntary dissociation as a means of punishment while the other is using the power of the state to prohibit the expression of certain ideas.
ss108 5y ago
Because that side simply has economic power.
philosopher1234 5y ago
How about bills restricting voting access to people of color, or the ability to say the word “gay”? Those don’t qualify as material consequences for violating conventions/ideology? You have a one sided view.
- honkdaddy 5y ago
  Which bills restrict voting access for people of color?
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    Read the news some time.
    - Skiiing 5y ago
      I consume a wide range of media every day and I've never seen a bill that "restricts voting access for people of color". It's an extraordinary claim so you would to need provide strong evidence, rather than being dismissive.
      - philosopher1234 5y ago
        Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000526827484 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id... https://youtu.be/EN9OdruH_qM https://youtu.be/EN9OdruH_qM
        Skiiing 5y ago
        By strong evidence I was hoping you'd link to the bill, or to factual reporting from a credible mainstream newspaper. If you're getting news from strongly opinionated talking-heads, then that might explain the disconnect.
        philosopher1234 5y ago
banannaise 5y ago
...which one?

slibhb 5y ago

> It's just as disqualifying as the x-isms from the left, if you care about staying in the good graces of convention on the right The question isn't "staying in good graces". While people should have friends with whom they disagree, the topic here is heresy. Heresy leads to punishment that goes beyond social consequences. At this point, it's hard for me to know how to respond to people who remain skeptical of the thesis here. The NYT editorial board has acknowledged the problem. If you're still a holdout, you're probably part of it.

sanderjd 5y ago
> The question isn't "staying in good graces". While people should have friends with whom they disagree, the topic here is heresy. Heresy leads to punishment that goes beyond social consequences. Potayto potahto. I was talking about the same thing that the article called "heresy". My claim isn't that shunning and social pressure doesn't exist or isn't a problem. I'm just a bit skeptical that it's a lot worse now than in the past, and I'm a lot skeptical that it's only a problem on one side of the political aisle. I don't even think it's really a thing with a political valence, I think it's just a human thing.
- slibhb 5y ago
  The essay specifically says it's not worse than in the past. No one's being burned at stake for example. And by the way, that's one reason I continue to believe in moral progress. The essay does claim things are worse than 10 years ago. But 70 years ago? Things are better now than during McCarthyism. > I don't even think it's really a thing with a political valence, I think it's just a human thing. It's definitely a human thing. However, like I said, if you deny the political valence that currently exists, you're either not a clear-eyed observer of the present or you're part of it. And of course no one is saying "in 2022, the right never cancels anyone" just that present day punishments for heresy in the US are clearly politically-valenced.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - 5y ago

chronolitus 5y ago

Another take on this particular question (that I found much more interesting) https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/

sanderjd 5y ago
Yeah his take is very interesting, but I think it's also very personal, very much coming from his own personal milieu (which contains a lot of very reactionary right wing folks...). I think it's an example of what I meant by saying this conventional wisdom seems to be more informed by "vibes" more so than data. It's definitely true that the SSC and pg crowds have are deeply convinced that this is a problem unique to the left, I'm just skeptical that their belief is as factually based as they might think. The SSC article does a good job of incorporating this uncertainty, but the OP does not, in my view.

asiachick 5y ago

ignoring your point to nitpic but, none of these (immigrants are good", "the 2020 US presidential election ran smoothly and had a clear victor who was duly inaugurated", "gender is a social construct", "people who are attracted to others of the same sex are normal and should have the same rights as anyone else", ) are position of the right. They are the left's worst spin on the right's positions.