4 ms·

The author spends a lot of time decrying Chait, his article, and his views, but seems to end up in a pretty similar place. Other than the fact that deBoer has

The author spends a lot of time decrying Chait, his article, and his views, but seems to end up in a pretty similar place. Other than the fact that deBoer has scrupulously chosen to only call out white authors, this article seems to "scold" its subjects for their tactics just the same as Chait's did. What's the basis for the great distinction between the two that's the basis for the first and last paragraphs? That Chait is a "centrist Democrat" instead of "more left wing"?

Kalium 12y ago
The author needs to be seen to hate Chait in order to be taken seriously by the intended audience.
Lazare 12y ago
I think the short of it is that deBoer believes he has a valid point, but believes that there's is a likelihood that his intended audience will just ignore him. He's trying to insulate himself from that outcome by several tactics: The elaborate denunciation of Chait, the careful choosing of targets, the stressing of his credentials and history. If deBoer could be honest, he'd probably say "WTF is wrong with you? Chait was correct, and excommunicating him for saying correct-but-uncomfortable things is fundamentally unhelpful and illiberal". But he can't say that, because the same process will excommunicate him too, so we get this instead. Not that it'll help; for some of the more extreme types, it's probably enough that Chait quoted deBoer approvingly in his article. (You'll notice that while he mouths the pro forma denunciations of Chait, he never really specifies where he thinks Chait got it wrong.)
mrxd 12y ago
> What's the basis for the great distinction between the two Chait thinks that traditional liberal values of free speech and free thought are threatened by political correctness. DeBoer thinks that anti-oppression movements are undermining themselves by alienating their own members. They both see political correctness as harmful, but are very different in every other way.

Kalium 12y ago

The author needs to be seen to hate Chait in order to be taken seriously by the intended audience.

Lazare 12y ago

I think the short of it is that deBoer believes he has a valid point, but believes that there's is a likelihood that his intended audience will just ignore him. He's trying to insulate himself from that outcome by several tactics: The elaborate denunciation of Chait, the careful choosing of targets, the stressing of his credentials and history. If deBoer could be honest, he'd probably say "WTF is wrong with you? Chait was correct, and excommunicating him for saying correct-but-uncomfortable things is fundamentally unhelpful and illiberal". But he can't say that, because the same process will excommunicate him too, so we get this instead. Not that it'll help; for some of the more extreme types, it's probably enough that Chait quoted deBoer approvingly in his article. (You'll notice that while he mouths the pro forma denunciations of Chait, he never really specifies where he thinks Chait got it wrong.)

mrxd 12y ago

> What's the basis for the great distinction between the two Chait thinks that traditional liberal values of free speech and free thought are threatened by political correctness. DeBoer thinks that anti-oppression movements are undermining themselves by alienating their own members. They both see political correctness as harmful, but are very different in every other way.