Wonderful discussion. However, I will make one observation. I believe the far left suffers from this delusion that they can't be authoritarian as if to say it can't happen by definition. This was a criticism I shared with a friend when discussing Adorno et al. work in "The Authoritarian Personality". I believe most academics unconsciously or consciously hold the position that authoritarianism is a right wing phenomena and not something those on the political left need to concern themselves with as they tend to be more democratic in their orientation.
Since the early 2000s, I have become more skeptical of the assumption that the political left can't be authoritarian in its orientation. Perhaps not in the political sense, but certainly in the cultural sense--that is, they have become too comfortable en masse with forcing their social values onto others. I agree attitudes around diversity and inclusion are wonderful things that should be promoted; however, what are the limiting principles? Should certain religious views from other cultures on the status of women be included in our culture? What about the caste system in India? Where is the sign that says "you have gone too far, now promptly turnaround or look for a different path"? I think the problematic with progressivism is that the political ideology needs to advocate for change or progress at all cost. But no one has any idea of what the goal is or the consequence. But of course, you can't ask what is the rational or limiting principle otherwise you are a bigot, a racist, or transphobic as if that is all you need to know. I agree with professor McWhorter with regard to taking their comments on the chin, but I want to understand why there is this desire to force these terms on others because you disagree with their rhetoric.
There is little to no serious intellectual discourse from the political left anymore on social issues. They seem aimless in their ideological movement. It almost seems like those on the far left have been primed to experience existential dread, and thus we get overreactions for everything that challenges their worldview. Isn't that the urstoff of authoritarianism?
When they questioned why people are so afraid of being called _____ on social media, the first thought that came to mind was the uncertainty, apparent randomness, and unreasonable nature of when, how & why people are fired or face some other negative career or other social consequences after being called out. There’s an element of old English frankpledge in selecting a member of the public and punishing them for the group’s sins. It’s not unlike Maoist purges or Islamic takfir. Anybody could become the next victim for anything or nothing, so avoiding branding like the plague is fairly rational, especially for certain types of individuals in certain categories and careers. I think there’s also a general lack of courage, toughness, Sisu as the Finns May say, or “balls” like sexist mansplainer McWhorter put it. But fear of the unknown can be rational, especially in a fast-moving, aggressive environment where one could go to sleep a human rights campaigner, or at least ally, and wake up Satan incarnate.
The underlying fear is losing ones means to earn money. Canceled people don't get work. Johnny Depp has filed suit against his ex over his loss of work thanks to her claims and #metoo. People who have been canceled have had their money earning potential seriously curtailed. People have lost their jobs. And the cancel culture people revel in their power.
"Cancel Culture" has been with us throughout history, McCarthyism for my generation in the 50s. New words and new "Causes" for people who want to control everyone, except themselves.
John is such a terrific blend of erudition and humor. I love his intonation when employing "problematic". Amna Khalid's hypothesis that freedoms necessarily producing unfreedom has corresponding ideas expressed by Patrick Deneen in 'Why Liberalism Failed", of which I'm sure she is familiar.
The nod is referenced in "Black-ish" which I really like because it gives air to a lot of unspoken ideas which deserve scrutiny. In that episode the father is disappointed that 'Junior' doesn't give 'the nod' to his peers. Junior responds by asking if it wasn't what he (dad) had hoped for, that he (Junior) wouldn't feel that oppressed as to need to.
Has anyone heard NPR's giddy coverage of "The Nod?" Apparently black people do this when encountering another blackperson to signal, "We are woke" or "We are in this (awful nation) together, right?"
I was surprised that on a show about cancel culture you both seem oblivious to the fact that people are afraid to speak out on social media for fear that someone in HR will use it against them.
It's been and will continue to be fascinating to watch those on the Left come to realize that so much (SO much) of the authoritarian anti-freedom movement is... from the Left! Ms. Khalid is currently struggling with this.
Human beings like to like what others like, but more we like to hate what others hate. So said Adam Smith (I'm paraphrasing). John is right that social medium have increased the power of small, hateful groups.
Are "cancel culture" or "to cancel" terms actually used by the - formerly woke - left, or has the term always been used pejoratively? Somebody on the left who is accused of censorship would be insulted, John says, but would it be any different if they were accused of being a part of cancel culture - or is that something to be proud of? Has the term migrated, too? (Asking from Europe.)
Not a fear of being called a dirty name. It’s about a respect for my time and the fact that those arguments on Twitter go on for hours, maybe even days. Some people have the self control to get through it. Other people have not learned that skill. Does it make me a moron? Does it make me a coward? The most vivid memory I have of social media is a suicide note I wrote. Social media makes that sort of thing very public, and very humiliating. There’s nothing social about this media. Case in point, it operates best in small elite circles that people pay for.
It’s the words we are afraid to say. I have teachers in my corner who quit their jobs teaching over Huckleberry Finn. The response from administrators was that this book was not safe. This is at a point where the word is purposely not being read aloud. When is it enough? John is worried that high school kids aren’t reading mediocre poetry from Alok Vaid-Menon, but Huckleberry Finn has crossdressing in it, and is actually good. I have never crumpled from hearing an offensive word, I think the idea of taboo language is absolutely ridiculous, especially when it gets in the way of something like reading Huckleberry Finn.
Wonderful discussion. However, I will make one observation. I believe the far left suffers from this delusion that they can't be authoritarian as if to say it can't happen by definition. This was a criticism I shared with a friend when discussing Adorno et al. work in "The Authoritarian Personality". I believe most academics unconsciously or consciously hold the position that authoritarianism is a right wing phenomena and not something those on the political left need to concern themselves with as they tend to be more democratic in their orientation.
Since the early 2000s, I have become more skeptical of the assumption that the political left can't be authoritarian in its orientation. Perhaps not in the political sense, but certainly in the cultural sense--that is, they have become too comfortable en masse with forcing their social values onto others. I agree attitudes around diversity and inclusion are wonderful things that should be promoted; however, what are the limiting principles? Should certain religious views from other cultures on the status of women be included in our culture? What about the caste system in India? Where is the sign that says "you have gone too far, now promptly turnaround or look for a different path"? I think the problematic with progressivism is that the political ideology needs to advocate for change or progress at all cost. But no one has any idea of what the goal is or the consequence. But of course, you can't ask what is the rational or limiting principle otherwise you are a bigot, a racist, or transphobic as if that is all you need to know. I agree with professor McWhorter with regard to taking their comments on the chin, but I want to understand why there is this desire to force these terms on others because you disagree with their rhetoric.
There is little to no serious intellectual discourse from the political left anymore on social issues. They seem aimless in their ideological movement. It almost seems like those on the far left have been primed to experience existential dread, and thus we get overreactions for everything that challenges their worldview. Isn't that the urstoff of authoritarianism?
I'm on a mission now to find utility with the word "perky."
When they questioned why people are so afraid of being called _____ on social media, the first thought that came to mind was the uncertainty, apparent randomness, and unreasonable nature of when, how & why people are fired or face some other negative career or other social consequences after being called out. There’s an element of old English frankpledge in selecting a member of the public and punishing them for the group’s sins. It’s not unlike Maoist purges or Islamic takfir. Anybody could become the next victim for anything or nothing, so avoiding branding like the plague is fairly rational, especially for certain types of individuals in certain categories and careers. I think there’s also a general lack of courage, toughness, Sisu as the Finns May say, or “balls” like sexist mansplainer McWhorter put it. But fear of the unknown can be rational, especially in a fast-moving, aggressive environment where one could go to sleep a human rights campaigner, or at least ally, and wake up Satan incarnate.
The underlying fear is losing ones means to earn money. Canceled people don't get work. Johnny Depp has filed suit against his ex over his loss of work thanks to her claims and #metoo. People who have been canceled have had their money earning potential seriously curtailed. People have lost their jobs. And the cancel culture people revel in their power.
"Cancel Culture" has been with us throughout history, McCarthyism for my generation in the 50s. New words and new "Causes" for people who want to control everyone, except themselves.
John is such a terrific blend of erudition and humor. I love his intonation when employing "problematic". Amna Khalid's hypothesis that freedoms necessarily producing unfreedom has corresponding ideas expressed by Patrick Deneen in 'Why Liberalism Failed", of which I'm sure she is familiar.
Great discussion. Thanks.
I am awake, not woke.
The nod is referenced in "Black-ish" which I really like because it gives air to a lot of unspoken ideas which deserve scrutiny. In that episode the father is disappointed that 'Junior' doesn't give 'the nod' to his peers. Junior responds by asking if it wasn't what he (dad) had hoped for, that he (Junior) wouldn't feel that oppressed as to need to.
Has anyone heard NPR's giddy coverage of "The Nod?" Apparently black people do this when encountering another blackperson to signal, "We are woke" or "We are in this (awful nation) together, right?"
I was surprised that on a show about cancel culture you both seem oblivious to the fact that people are afraid to speak out on social media for fear that someone in HR will use it against them.
It's been and will continue to be fascinating to watch those on the Left come to realize that so much (SO much) of the authoritarian anti-freedom movement is... from the Left! Ms. Khalid is currently struggling with this.
Human beings like to like what others like, but more we like to hate what others hate. So said Adam Smith (I'm paraphrasing). John is right that social medium have increased the power of small, hateful groups.
Are "cancel culture" or "to cancel" terms actually used by the - formerly woke - left, or has the term always been used pejoratively? Somebody on the left who is accused of censorship would be insulted, John says, but would it be any different if they were accused of being a part of cancel culture - or is that something to be proud of? Has the term migrated, too? (Asking from Europe.)
Not a fear of being called a dirty name. It’s about a respect for my time and the fact that those arguments on Twitter go on for hours, maybe even days. Some people have the self control to get through it. Other people have not learned that skill. Does it make me a moron? Does it make me a coward? The most vivid memory I have of social media is a suicide note I wrote. Social media makes that sort of thing very public, and very humiliating. There’s nothing social about this media. Case in point, it operates best in small elite circles that people pay for.
It’s the words we are afraid to say. I have teachers in my corner who quit their jobs teaching over Huckleberry Finn. The response from administrators was that this book was not safe. This is at a point where the word is purposely not being read aloud. When is it enough? John is worried that high school kids aren’t reading mediocre poetry from Alok Vaid-Menon, but Huckleberry Finn has crossdressing in it, and is actually good. I have never crumpled from hearing an offensive word, I think the idea of taboo language is absolutely ridiculous, especially when it gets in the way of something like reading Huckleberry Finn.