4 ms·

If I may quote Orwell, who opined at length on the tendency of his countrymen towards authoritarianism in support of 'good' causes, "But how much of the present

If I may quote Orwell, who opined at length on the tendency of his countrymen towards authoritarianism in support of 'good' causes, "But how much of the present slide towards Fascist ways of thought is traceable to the ‘anti-Fascism’ of the past ten years and the unscrupulousness it has entailed?" And in the words of Aldous Huxley, "The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." Of course, C.S. Lewis also had a good line on the matter; "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

NeverFade 4y ago
> The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats. This is exactly where this current tyranny is coming from: The radical leftists who promote it are thereby granted the license to abuse all who oppose them, since those "reactionaries" must be bigots, racist, sexist, transphobes, homophobes - in short: evil people who deserve the abuse of good people like themselves. Dissidents who reject this new tyranny aren't respected fellow citizens who hold differing opinions: they are evil people who must be silenced. If this trend is allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion, the dissidents will be silenced permanently, by eradication. > To be able to destroy with good conscience Like those ignorant young students, barging into complex discussions they often fail to understand, to shut them down. To shut down thought, invention, investigation, and discussion. And to do all that primarily in the very academic institutions dedicated to promoting these projects. > to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' A succinct description of cancel culture, the radical left's mob justice that has become normalized.
- thefaux 4y ago
  Cancel culture, while containing some truth, is very obviously a cudgel being used by the radical right to try and suppress any ideas they don't agree with. Sound familiar?
  - Dig1t 4y ago
    What do you mean by this exactly? I genuinely don’t understand and am asking in good faith. Are you saying that the radical right is cancelling people? Or do you mean the idea of cancel culture is being used to suppress ideas? I don’t understand how either could be true. I am nowhere near being a radical right person, at least I wouldn’t consider myself to be, but I am very concerned about the behavior described in the article as I have experienced the behavior first-hand. We are talking about the suppression of people and ideas.
    - vibrio 4y ago
      Generalization is a intellectual shortcut but, the bubble that the stereotypical typical Williams collage student was raised in supports this problem. I don’t know exactly what a “cancel” is, but in my mind, the behavior isn’t a left / right thing- it’s an extremest thing. There are plenty of examples from the right extremes, including banning of books and the unashamed desire to repeal the legality of gay marriage. Extreme political positions require a clean message of good and evil, and in my view, the “cancel” of anything (eg nuance) disrupting those messages is a broad issue in the future of our society and culture.
      - stevewatson301 4y ago
        Razor sharp analysis; the left and the right are both involved in similar policies around "cancellation". As an example, the right wing has expressed disdain and called for a reduction of powers of the FBI[1] in the same way the left has expressed theirs for the police[2]. [1] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-republicans-will-come-for-the-fbi-after-the-midterms/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-republicans-will-com... [2] https://time.com/5849495/black-lives-matter-defund-police-departments/ https://time.com/5849495/black-lives-matter-defund-police-de...
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> C.S. Lewis also had a good line on the matter; "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. Which reminds me of this gem by Alexis De Tocqueville from "Democracy in America"; "" That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?"" To me, this is the very essence of "convenience" and shrugging moral relativism that allows technology to act as am enabler of tyranny.

NeverFade 4y ago

> The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats. This is exactly where this current tyranny is coming from: The radical leftists who promote it are thereby granted the license to abuse all who oppose them, since those "reactionaries" must be bigots, racist, sexist, transphobes, homophobes - in short: evil people who deserve the abuse of good people like themselves. Dissidents who reject this new tyranny aren't respected fellow citizens who hold differing opinions: they are evil people who must be silenced. If this trend is allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion, the dissidents will be silenced permanently, by eradication. > To be able to destroy with good conscience Like those ignorant young students, barging into complex discussions they often fail to understand, to shut them down. To shut down thought, invention, investigation, and discussion. And to do all that primarily in the very academic institutions dedicated to promoting these projects. > to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' A succinct description of cancel culture, the radical left's mob justice that has become normalized.

thefaux 4y ago
Cancel culture, while containing some truth, is very obviously a cudgel being used by the radical right to try and suppress any ideas they don't agree with. Sound familiar?
- Dig1t 4y ago
  What do you mean by this exactly? I genuinely don’t understand and am asking in good faith. Are you saying that the radical right is cancelling people? Or do you mean the idea of cancel culture is being used to suppress ideas? I don’t understand how either could be true. I am nowhere near being a radical right person, at least I wouldn’t consider myself to be, but I am very concerned about the behavior described in the article as I have experienced the behavior first-hand. We are talking about the suppression of people and ideas.
  - vibrio 4y ago
    Generalization is a intellectual shortcut but, the bubble that the stereotypical typical Williams collage student was raised in supports this problem. I don’t know exactly what a “cancel” is, but in my mind, the behavior isn’t a left / right thing- it’s an extremest thing. There are plenty of examples from the right extremes, including banning of books and the unashamed desire to repeal the legality of gay marriage. Extreme political positions require a clean message of good and evil, and in my view, the “cancel” of anything (eg nuance) disrupting those messages is a broad issue in the future of our society and culture.
    - stevewatson301 4y ago
      Razor sharp analysis; the left and the right are both involved in similar policies around "cancellation". As an example, the right wing has expressed disdain and called for a reduction of powers of the FBI[1] in the same way the left has expressed theirs for the police[2]. [1] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-republicans-will-come-for-the-fbi-after-the-midterms/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-republicans-will-com... [2] https://time.com/5849495/black-lives-matter-defund-police-departments/ https://time.com/5849495/black-lives-matter-defund-police-de...

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> C.S. Lewis also had a good line on the matter; "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. Which reminds me of this gem by Alexis De Tocqueville from "Democracy in America"; "" That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?"" To me, this is the very essence of "convenience" and shrugging moral relativism that allows technology to act as am enabler of tyranny.