Given the (I think) similar tendency on the right toward increasing intolerance of dissenting views, I'm inclined to think the problem is less with the ideology of the social justice movement than of the social dynamics of created by social media and increasing political polarization.
I don't think you're wrong, at all. But naturally my first concern is with the health of my own broad movement, and anyway I just expect much more of the left. I don't see how it right gets out of its toxic mess anytime soon.
My sympathy, sir... and, sadly, you are correct. The fact that you have not been assassinated by the Far Left is a minor miracle! I tend to the right and I subscribe to your writings because you make intellectual sense. Thank you!
This all predates social media. The Right was cleansed not just of the Birchers but of isolationists by CIA asset William F. Buckley Jr. as early as the 50s and 60s, respectively. In fact I struggle to think of an American political movement that hasn't self-policed since day one.
Reading the Devil's Chessboard. Have to hand it to them. CIA really was everywhere. Maybe they still are - who else could have been responsible for the 'Russian bounty' misinformation?
The three-letter agencies' trust among what we might call ham-and-eggers - White Americans in their 40s through 60s, who generally pay taxes, vote, are engaged civically etc. - has utterly collapsed in the last five years. Admittedly this affects the FBI more than the CIA, but the group that now loves US intelligence is - surprise surprise! - the exact same center-left Democrats Freddie cites, who are so ruthlessly policing the left-wing discourse.
I confess to it being one of the great ironic joys of contemporary politics the Left is now on the 'same side' as the CIA which propped up authoritarians, led coups against left of center politicians, disappeared dissidents on US soil, etc. etc. etc.
And the precise same Back The Blue people on the Right are now trying to find a Fuck The Police shirt with enough asterisks to be decent for the potluck.
I once heard a ranger talk about baby rattlesnakes. Apparently, they are at their most dangerous when they're young and out and about because they can't control their venom. I always think about the generation that came of age on Tumblr and then got older and went to Twitter and then joined the work force as being like the baby rattlesnakes. They do not know their power so they kill things. What worries me more than the activists themselves are the corporations bowing to them. Therein lies the problem for our society. When publishing houses ban books, and movies and TV shows are dumbed down for the most sensitive among us, when we no longer can laugh at offensive jokes, when people can be fired for criticizing BLM -- that is when it goes from just destructive to the party to full blown 1984 land. I spend a lot of time on the right and they have the same inclinations as the left does - they just don't have the insitutional power. We need neutral entities and they're not at the moment. They've cast their side with the moneyed class which, now, is the left.
Great analogy. I'm reminded of that cynical joke about the young being liberals because they have hearts, and the middle-aged being conservative because they have heads. But there's truth there, right? I'm in many many ways not a conservative, but *by comparison* to the shenanigans and nonsense going on now on the far left, I am. So there are a lot of voices, like Coleman Hughes for example, being branded conservative when they're actually very invested in liberalism.
And if the left elite want to talk about power structures, this is a fantastic case in point. It is literally the power structures of institutions vs. the populace; now, they're just switching hats. But the left in this country has so long believed the identity of the powerless yet righteous, they're wearing the power hat while still talking the powerless talk.
Generationally the Left of my youth was still tied to a materialist epistemology. It wasn’t purely performative and had to pass a smell test in terms of class, socioeconomic status, and organizational hierarchy.
Perhaps that is what Judith Butlers legacy will ultimately be? In a flat, postmodern culture where everything is dissociated from its origin, you can pretend to be whatever you want and enforce responses from society if you have sufficient enthusiasm (bio power).
Oh Judith Butler. How many people don't know her name, but whose thoughts are an effect of her legacy?
Listen, I don't wish to sound self-righteous, but part of the reason I didn't feel compelled to continue into academia was a distaste for how the brain games of literary and cultural theory drifted so far away from average human experience. Of course, many theorists ground their ideas in "the body" but my God how far from a real pooping meat suit can you get than calling it "the body"?
A dozen years ago when I gave up my postgraduate studies, I didn't have the vocabulary to describe why I had an uneasy feeling. I just had it. And that is the larger point: if the left is supposed to be a coalition of the people, how quickly do the leaders of "the movement" or whatever adopt that elite language, that knowingness of attitude, and run verbal circles around the objectors? Even in their own coalition?
And how quickly do the activist class, so quick to dismiss a sexual binary, frame every other question as a binary? "If you think x, then you must think (awful horrific) y." I'm not saying most people lack the intellectual capacity to fully debate these issues on a theoretical plane; I'm saying most people lack the time or inclination to do it. And they're being punished for it.
Ditto. Some of the most erudite (and least ad-hominem-laced) conversations I've had in years have been on Substack comment boards. It's incredibly reassuring to know that others are concerned about what is happening in left leaning politics. I have by turns felt angry, dejected, cynical, shocked, fill-in-the-blank with regard to the transmogrification of the Democratic party. It appears that no one speaks for the little guy anymore. Or, if they do, it's only after they've passed a gauntlet of purity litmus tests.
I remember the joy of the old civil rights movement, the 60s, the utter euphoria of knowing that the old strictures and arbitrary barriers of the propriety-dominant 50s era (and prior eras) were being smashed; the hope that somehow we could all move forward toward a future where everyone regardless of race, creed, et al, could enjoy the possibility of self-determination without bs obstacles; that we could all just be people together. The free thought, the exploration, the comedy, the arts, music — all in full roar — beautiful and nourishing. It was an incredibly creative time to grow up in and I am grateful for it. Now, Oliver Cromwell rules and he has closed all of the pubs and theaters for 9 years of soul-puckering puritanical zealotry.
I had underestimated the power of self-righteousness and tribalism. I thought if I moved away from Appalachia and hyper-religiosity, I would be free of that crap. Now, I live in California and I have to watch my words because I am a free thinker who is not easily pigeon-holed. I have a variety of opinions which fall all over the map. I am heretic no matter which way I try to engage simply for the crime of not agreeing with overly simplistic, black and white worldviews (on both right and left) that feed the ego but not the soul. I refuse to dehumanize people I disagree with. These days, that is a crime in and of itself.
Engaging with commenters on Substack is the only thing I've found that takes the sting out of the current reality. I hope we can get past this toxic fervor more or less intact and can move on to pragmatic solutions that actually help people.
It's the juxtaposition of affected, swooning powerlessness with reality that stands out to me as well. People who had more spent on their education than I've spent in my entire life on everything, who've moved in elite circles since they can toddle, going around acting like they're Steve Biko.
Where I differ is, I think a lot of these people genuinely did think the riots were a good thing and genuinely do believe the things they say about power and identity. Maybe I'm overly optimistic. (I'd rather believe them sincere - and thus persuadable - than believe them capable of putting on the mask and thus unfathomably cynical, to the point of evil.)
But sincerity seems likely to me because of the efficacy gap. As you correctly point out, the riots didn't do a huge amount. (Trump looked weak in the face of them but he was going to lose anyway, most likely, and they weren't uniformly deployed to places he would be affected by. Portland still burns, a bit, for example.) But people still fight tooth and nail to defend them. I have an easier time thinking it's because these people actually believe that throwing a trash can through a laundromat's window is a revolutionary act, that small businesses are some disgusting bourgeois thing, and that opposition to this cry of the oppressed is itself violence.
Plus... those of us shivering outside the comfy confines of the Overton window may have an interest in backing you up here, but the pettier angels of our nature enjoy a wry smile when the likes of Bari Weiss are diet-cancelled. None of these people ever stood up for our rights, quite the opposite. David Shor is required reading to understand US elections, but does he care when the shoe is on the other foot? Do any of them?
I work for probably strongest Democratic state Legislature and I've seen older coworkers terrified (many of them Black) of saying the wrong thing or getting mixed up in something accidentally.
Something is seriously wrong when a woman born in the Jim Crow south (the REAL one) is apologizing for calling me honey.
I've never been one to defend the status quo, but the lack of allowing good faith dissent (and being able to handle the non good faith) has been extremely disappointing.
"Your with us or against us" the children of Bush are doing that right by him.
This older black woman saying "honey" thing is something I have run across working in left non-profits. Literally, white recent grads from elite universities raising it as an issue for the organization's "equity work" when black women in their 40s and 50s working as admin assistants refer to someone as honey. Amazing but true.
A Democratic acquaintance of mine was campaigning at a Black church a few years ago. The kind old lady to her left offered her a candy from her purse. The kind old lady to hear right leaned in and whispered, "Oh honey, don't eat that, it's been there since the sixties." The "honey" is so essential to that - in rhythm, in meaning, in subtext - that the language would be so much poorer for its censoring. In fact, would I have remembered the anecdote without the "oh honey?" I doubt it. It's as baked into the language here as "bless your heart."
Totally, actually happened. I was there in the organization equity meeting when it did, couldn’t believe it. This was a while ago, showed me how things were going. The older women were not in the room however
From a woman, I generally *enjoy* being referred to as "honey". It feels friendly and casual. Losing a lot of these small niceties and idiosyncracies is making America feel like the cultural equivalent of a bland, gray big-box store. At best. A lot of the spice of life goes away when the tiniest mistake can have severe consequences. Everyone lives more cautiously. Every opinion is predictable. Every joke is safe. Every story has the prescribed narrative. Even setting the weightier consequences aside, the world this ideology creates is fucking *boring*, because irony of ironies, there's no diversity!
Sorry, that was unclearly worded, on my part. I mean that if a woman calls me "honey", I generally enjoy it. Being called "honey" by a man is more situational or case-by-case, because sometimes it's friendly but, occasionally, it's done condescendingly. (That usage, for obvious reasons, seems to be heavily on the decline these days, though.)
Edit: Upon further reflection, I realized that anyone can use it condescendingly. So, I'd revise this to say that it's overwhelmingly used in a friendly manner, and thus, in the overwhelming majority of cases, I enjoy it. But in a very small number of cases, it can be put to rude use (as most anything can be).
Or even to have a proportional response. Like the professor showing 1965 Othello at UMich. In a sane world the students could day “The movie upset me.” and he could say, “I’m sorry, in retrospect it was a bad choice.”
Instead it’s a massive shitstorm engulfing the campus, professor suspended, students in therapy. There will probably be vigils and forums and committees before it dies down.
I'm very disappointed to have learned in another recent Freddie post that the aliens aren't coming to invade and rescue us from this insanity any time soon.
It also just doesn't seem like a good way to live. I can't imagine needing therapy over or feeling physically hurt over a seeing something as harmless of Welles in blackface (wouldn't it be North African-face?, I'm not sure).
I also don't think it's particularly effective at addressing anything. Obviously it doesn't work in this case: Welles is dead, the 1965 movie ain't changing.
I think humor, an anathema to the woke, probably works better. I think of incels and the "chads" and "virgins." It must really hard for incels to make their case when their fundamental viewpoint has been ridiculed to death. They'd probably prefer it if people saw their ideology as dangerous rather than hilariously dumb.
That was my shorthand for all the stuff about them feeling unsafe and harmed. But you’re right, there’s nothing about them starting therapy over this. I imagine the campus offered resources which is pretty standard for Title IX complaints.
Makes sense, still wild stuff though. A few years back, I remember hearing arguments against showing media with blackface and similar offensive content. The argument was that these depictions would lead to material harms. Media mis-portraying minorities could lead to real people not getting jobs, loans, fair treatment under the law, etc.
At some point the argument morphed from "x can cause IRL harm" to "x is harm." Crazy stuff
We need "benefit of the doubt" or we lose social cohesion. The world that many are trying to usher in is utterly devoid of humanity and heart and I don't think they are self-aware enough to realize it.
'In the span of a decade or less a bizarre form of linguistically-radical but substantively-conservative identity neoliberalism descended from decaying humanities departments in elite universities and infected social media like Tumblr and Twitter, through which it conquered the media and entertainment industries, the nonprofit industrial complex, and government entities as wide-ranging as the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights and the brass of the Pentagon.'
I don't what to say other than that the 'Left' is doing it wrong if it:
1) Is in the thrall of esoteric ideological fixations that appeal to a small Mandarin elite.
2) Has a relatively warm relationship with the CIA, NSA, FBI, and security state.
3) As its main job program expands the social work/HR class to surveil and punish both working class and white collar employees.
4) Is enthusiastically embraced by everyone from Raytheon to Coca Cola to Disney to the Google in deflecting critique of the neoliberal order.
5) Becomes essentially a state religion administered the Power Elite that cannibalizes more meaningful dissent.
6) Has absolute disdain for the working class and those in the 10th through 60th percentile of income in the US.
All of the affluent moderate Republican suburban house wives of my affluent suburban upbringing are now Instagram radicals.
It's like the algorithm has been perfectly tuned to create endless engagement and bread and circuses (sans bread). The only cohort of the Left that hasn't disgraced itself the past five years are the progressive civil libertarians.
Like most of the comments here, this is a conflation of mainstream Democrats, liberals, and leftists with many different defining characteristics like geography and economic status, rather than engaging with the reality of a diverse political landscape with different factions, classes, and interests
'I think Klein didn’t really connect the dots between Shor’s cancelation and the debate about how the Democrats should strategize and message because he’s afraid of facing the same tactics Shor faced.'
Klein is the voice of his generation: endless dissembling and mealy-mouthed obfuscations.
I don't think he's ever voiced an opinion that isn't carefully calibrated and rehearsed to stay within the lines of the orthodoxies imposed by his peers.
Yeah, I dunno. He’s simultaneously ‘the smartest guy in the room’ but also totally opaque? Extraordinarily ambitious professionally but nothing beyond generic Ivy League progressive midwit NPC takes? I feel similarly about Yglesias - effective careerists but if you totally ignore them you’re not missing anything.
I'm sorry to say that I don't think this dynamic in the Democratic party is fixable under current conditions. There's too much inertia and too much power behind this shitty status quo. Sooner or later it will almost certainly explode, lead to a political thrashing the likes of which we have never seen before. There's a vast reservoir of contempt, loathing, and resentment for these activists. It won't take much for the right kind of politician to tap into it. I find it highly unlikely that someone won't, and it probably won't take very long. It's not going to be pretty. I don't think activist Dems are aware this is as close as they'll probably get to power for a very long time. When you constantly antagonize most of the population sooner or later that same majority will stop putting up with it.
Ironically I think it's the opposite. The only reason people have tolerated as much of this as they have is precisely because Trump was so awful and crazy. Most ordinary people feel like there is no (better) alternative. If I were playing for the other team, I'd be trying to find a less racist Tucker Carlson, perhaps one that avoided talking about culture war issues whenever possible. The GOP is prevented from doing this for structural reasons too, so who knows?
The larger point is that the two sides in the culture war feed off each other, even if it is through mutual hatred. I doubt there will be another Trump, and anyway such a character is a boon for activist Dems. What will really ruin their day is a professional looking "responsible" conservative. Something well informed and articulate.
The structural issue is that moderates don't fare well in primaries. I can't believe I'm admitting this but I'm so fed up with the progressive left that I actually think I would vote for a "responsible, well-informed and articulate" conservative if my choice were between crazy, progressive left and responsible conservative.
Black conservatives are having a day in the sun, and I'm glad of it. Stuff like this https://1776unites.com inspires me even if I don't agree with many conservative policies (reproductive rights being my main difference). Funny how much some modern conservatives mirror old-school liberal beliefs. Regardless of any disagreements, I resonate to their universal humanist stance.
One other thing, these woke types secretly adore Trump. He was the gift that kept on giving for them, masked all their own failings, gave them a constant stream of attention. Twitter liberals benefitted as much or more from Trump than anyone. Same as most major media outlets, who saw massive increases in ratings that evaporated as soon as he was gone. They may hate the man, but the absolutely adored fighting against him.
I've been saying this for five years. No one obsesses on any person that much without loving them. I hate LeBron, I don't sit around and watch Lakers games.
I always loved people who would follow his Twitter and watch his press conferences and then claim how exhausting it was. I'd always ask why they do that and I'd always get dumb answers like "I have to know what's going on" like they're the head of NORAD.
These people were obsessed with him and I don't believe it was purely hate.
I think that hate is the opposite of love, and obsession is the opposite of respect. I've noticed that people become obsessed with someone when they think they have taken respect away from them.
Brilliant. Too bad it's buried so deep in the thread. I remember a little sign on the top of the desk of an office secretary who terrorized and ran roughshod over the place: "Consider the Source"
I think they love what they believe Trump says about them. The perfect embodiment of con man, narcissistic personality disorder, and abrasive insensitivity who proves everything the left has been saying about the right to be true. Of course that’s something to love, in its own way.
Self-righteousness has a blinding effect on people's perceptions and Americans hate moral scolds. Election 2022 will be very interesting as a result.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
I've heard the argument made that stronger unions would help against all this, by preventing at-will firing of somebody to appease the frothing Twitter masses. Do you think this is so, and if so, how do we go about pushing for this change in the current climate?
Because something, structurally, needs to change to put an end to this insanity. Something that breaks the incentive structure driving all this.
If you can find a union more interested in your employment rights and economics than your political views, yes, but these are becoming harder and harder to come by. You won't get anywhere with any mainstream union in the US if you disagree with illegal immigration, for example. They'll hang you out to dry.
My two cents: Unions are way up in this stuff too. My union is. If anything you do can be remotely twisted into a narrative that you are bigot, my union will throw you under the bus. I mean, they all have to be elected next year by people that are terminally online.
As others are saying, unions have become part of the problem. Especially in media. The NY Times union helped to push out Donald McNeil. The Gimlet union helped to get rid of the Reply All hosts. The entire purpose of unions has been corrupted by people who benefit (in the short term) from “social justice” politics.
I saw someone propose cooling off periods - a commitment by employers that for anything less than an actual violent crime, they wouldn’t impose any kind of employment sanction for at least 2 weeks. Allows temperatures to cool and to bring out additional context. Seems like a really good idea.
Only existential crisis has a chance of bringing down this machine. America post Dec 1941 swept away all partisanship. If Pearl Harbor happened today, a livid public will tear limb from limb a ruling class who sleepwalked into WWIII during pronoun training.
I think that even just requiring that someone be fired for cause would help. Many times the person being cancelled is actually fired for dubious "performance" reasons or no official reason at all just to make the problem go away. If companies needed to prove that someone was being let go for an actual reason they'd have to put in at least some effort to proving the canceller's claims of harm it and might also provide an opportunity for the cancelled person's manager or close colleagues to speak up on their behalf. It would also provide an opportunity for lawsuits over firing someone for their behavior outside the workplace, a la the cheerleader who got expelled for the "fuck cheer, fuck everything" instagram post, that could ultimately set a precedent that protects employees from being fired for things like holding Bad Opinions on their own time. Or maybe I live in a fantasy world and people would just start getting fired with "cultural appropriation" or "misgendering" as the cause, idk.
On neoliberal sites and left-of-center sites, the woke mob is a problem of illiberal leftists.
On leftists sites that aren't woke, the woke mob is a problem of, as you put it "identity neoliberalism."
We aren't going to solve this problem by pointing at each other and saying its the others fault.
I don't know where it came from. I don't know who's fault it is. It could be smart phones, it could be American educational culture, it could be the legacy of the boomer generation that also thought it was the first truly moral generation and didn't acknowledge its forebears. I think the quest for power and control is a deeply seated human tendency, and that people are incredibly crafty in creating narratives that allow them to take power. In short, they will borrow from anything that works and make a new monster.
I was thinking of acknowledgment of those who went before that Gnoment mentioned. The UDHR was hard work and getting women included was not easy. Also the struggle of cultural rights. I don't think people today have thought through what a struggle it was...I think the best book of so many that helped me to realize how difficult it was is Ishay, Micheline R. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. History of Human Rights. Berkeley, Calif: Univ. of California Press, 2009.
Thanks. I know next to nothing about the history of the UDHR, and this is helpful. People are astonishingly unaware of how improbable and, in a sense, contingent social progress is. The study of the past seems like the best corrective. For all of our dysfunction and injustice we still have so much for which to be grateful.
Great post on the erstwhile Columbus Day! I was ceremoniously unfriended last year for jokingly wishing everyone a "Happy Columbus Day" on FB. The unfriending then led to the lady doxing me for "defending rape" on some feminist site. Lost in all the rancor was the fact that I am a moderate Democrat who was just pointing out the absurdity of a half-assed name change to a holiday without ever trying to understand the voyages of discovery in the context of the era in which they happened. Or that the name change has not led to any real improvements within the Native-American communities. My post was sarcastic. At least I had no job to lose. . .But the irony of actually being lectured about my ignorance on a subject that I've thought deeply about over decades was amusing and pathetic.
Using American Indians (to usr their preferred term) as props to show how progressive and caring you are is always, to me, the most disgusting. They're not gone. They're right there. And suffering under some of the most adverse conditions of any demographic group.
I'm not saying people need to actually give the land back and emigrate to wherever would take them. Obviously, they're not really that bothered by genocide and totally cool with profiting from it, unless they could get a nice place by the Seine, or maybe in one of the good parts of London. But they could actually, I don't know, give them money. Maybe organize as hard for laws that would improve their lives as they do for changing team names and taking down statues?
But, nah, they're really just there to make some Bryn Mawr grad feel like she's better than the plumber she hires.
There was a post in my neighborhood that a college graduate felt that a plumber had disrespected her and was condescending as he explained why she was having the problem.
There is a historical narrative of men talking down to women and assuming lack of competence. There is also a historical narrative of people who do not specialize in technical work not understanding technical work. I suppose we are left to our own devices to select which lens we view this conflict through.
My father was an electrician and my husband was a carpenter. They both explained and were proud of their trade. They both suggested that I should should understand how the house worked and how any tool (be it a car, vacuum cleaner or computer worked). By being clear when I need an electrician that I know the difference between a breaker and a fuse helps a lot in feeling competent. I've had friends who create a situation of being seen as incompetent because they don't take the time to think about where a baby diaper might go if it is flushed.
Right. When we can hire our own plumber, that I know some basics and definitely respect the work plumbers do is helpful.
On the other hand, that plumber hired by a landlord-insurance company who told me there was nothing wrong with the toilet, I was just a poor, sweet, overeducated miss who'd never learned to flush a toilet properly? Heh.
All that meant was an even more expensive repair for the landlord when the toilet clogged completely and we were entitled to emergency service. (The landlord did kindly suggest we might be able to do without emergency service if we peed in the tub and visited someone else's toilet for more solid concerns.)
To clarify: I made a public post for friends on FB. The post was misinterpreted by a female acquaintance who saw fit to lecture me on Colonialism and rape.. . .on my page in my thread (and lecturing a highly educated merchant marine on Colonialism and rape is a bit rich). I was then accused of being a "troll," on my own page. I was then subjected to the woman c/p'ing the thread out of context to some Mansplain site. It was all so pathetic and indicative of the gravitas that the Far Left grants itself, without even realizing the alienating effect.
Kudos for pointing that out. I minimize usage, but have had a hard time quitting due to moving so far from where I was living for the last two decades. In this case, I got bit by an acquaintance, not friend. But you are right, there is virtually no excuse for being on FB.
The way the history books are written, this humanization of Native Americans is glossed over and they are presented as passive denizens of the natural world (similar to animals), primitive, child-like, lacking in the sophistication of the West. And this simply because they weren't as technologically sophisticated in some very specific ways (weapons, mechanics, horses, etc.). When, in reality, in their own fashion, they were using very sophisticated and strategic methods to improve and tame the wilderness.
I wish that we had honored that wisdom instead of infantilizing them. I hope that we can learn from each other moving forward (the past can't be changed and wringing our hands about it does no good whatsoever). It's happening a bit in California where some tribal consultants are being hired for fire mitigation and forest management. https://www.nature.org/en-us/magazine/magazine-articles/indigenous-controlled-burns-california/ I find this hopeful. Partnership is possible and should be encouraged.
If you do something really terrible to someone else, don’t even make an attempt at any kind of actual restitution, but do make loud operatic apologies… really, who is that apology actually for?
I appreciate your focus on the silencing effect of fear in these movements. Everyone argues about who is or isn't "canceled", and all of that inevitably focuses on big names everyone has heard of. There's little recognition of how your average person is simply afraid to voice their opinions (which are by definition fairly average opinions). It's very stressful to live in a position where you're afraid that one wrong word could make you lose your job. So thank you for focusing on that.
I remain completely mystified by the fact that you claim to want the activists to win though. You write essay after essay writing about how awful these people are, and yet continue to claim to ally yourself with them. Why? Because they label themselves "leftist" even though most of them couldn't give two shits
Even though most of them couldn't give two shits about *class* the way you do? These people are not your allies and do not want what you want. They say they do, but they don't act like it and the latter is the important part.
The inevitable comeback to someone who disagrees with progressive Left orthodoxy on any point is, inevitably, that the objector will be labeled a "Trump Troll," which pretty much illustrates the progressive intolerance to any sort of criticism or critical reasoning that clashes with that of the progressive elites. It's knee jerk spawn of Godwin Law on steroids.
The hierarchy of suffering is a very interesting concept. I think it is a very real way many people think and preface some conversations.
I teach a diverse body of people in grad school (adults ranging 22-35 mainly) and will have a range of student issues each term ranging from deaths of parents, to bouts of physical or mental illness, to broke down cars, to sick pets. Each person is suffering and I do not evaluate their suffering. If they tell me they can't do an assignment I accept it. Race or gender orientation are not factors and if these are offered to convince me that the issue is even more valid..I tell them it's ok. I believe what you told me in the first place.
As for the larger world I do the same--assume each sufferer for their own reasons has a true belief in their suffering, but I do not assign them hierarchical status. I do not insert my personal history. Or in the words of a union colleague, we need to get this done for the greater good and "get over our own cheap selves."
"Race or gender orientation are not factors and if these are offered to convince me that the issue is even more valid..I tell them it's ok. I believe what you told me in the first place."
I never really thought about it in these terms, that people are conditioned to offer up "oh - and plus I'm [x]" because that's the only way they think they'll be listened to. That's very sad. Identity is important but the reductive way we treat it means the person behind the category is a mere passenger, and it manifests itself in little dehumanizing rituals like this, where the reality of someone's suffering doesn't matter nearly as much as who the someone is.
It happens more and more since summer of 2020..for race and gender identity. It also causes other students (in group discussions) to apologize if they are White and/or CIS. This is a fairly new development in my teaching.
Excellent post. I remember in the 2000s, we were fretting about whether we’d lose the white working class over “social issues” such as abortion and gay marriage. 20 years later, we’re happily telling the WWC to go fuck themselves. Democrats are screwed.
WWC has essentially given up caring about gay marriage, so the SJWs have had to glom onto something else, because grievances drive engagement, right? I don't think we can undersell how much Marcusian theory has shaped the philosophical stance of the far left in the past 30 years.
Abortion will always be up there because there's a large part of the population that will never divest the idea of life from an unborn fetus. There's nothing cynical about that. And that's an issue that will always be "conservative." The conversation gets hairy when as a liberal I start bringing up disability rights and the ethics of aborting fetuses that have non-terminal disabilities. Easier to say "go fuck yourself" than engage, which might lead to...gasp...compromise.
I believe a lot of voters would overlook abortion if they liked Democrats otherwise. They did in the past. But they absolutely hate woke discourse, which dominates Democratic Party politics these days… on abortion and everything else.
I tend to agree with this but I'm not sure how far into the past we can look for evidence of this. The Christian Right started organizing around abortion very soon after Roe v Wade in 1973 and by 1980 we had Reagan.
Abortion is the perfect issue because for most of my life the majority opinion in America has been the moderate position of allowing abortions early and in extreme cases. But it's somehow our most contentious issue? This also may have changed in recent years but guns were similar. Most Americans were in favor of reasonable gun control restrictions, emphasis on reasonable.
But, the people who really care about these things have extreme views. You nailed it with the engagement thing. If I were to say "we should have European style abortion laws where it's legal in the first trimester and only legal afterwards in specific circumstances" most people would agree with me. But they wouldn't care enough to engage with it, unless they disagree with me, which "both sides" would. To get engagement I need to take an extreme position.
The best piece FdB ever wrote was the Iron Law of Institutions. It is always what's driving this. Social media just amplifies it.
What conservative criticism is deserving of "direct, violent action for punitive purposes?"
Given the (I think) similar tendency on the right toward increasing intolerance of dissenting views, I'm inclined to think the problem is less with the ideology of the social justice movement than of the social dynamics of created by social media and increasing political polarization.
I don't think you're wrong, at all. But naturally my first concern is with the health of my own broad movement, and anyway I just expect much more of the left. I don't see how it right gets out of its toxic mess anytime soon.
My sympathy, sir... and, sadly, you are correct. The fact that you have not been assassinated by the Far Left is a minor miracle! I tend to the right and I subscribe to your writings because you make intellectual sense. Thank you!
This all predates social media. The Right was cleansed not just of the Birchers but of isolationists by CIA asset William F. Buckley Jr. as early as the 50s and 60s, respectively. In fact I struggle to think of an American political movement that hasn't self-policed since day one.
Reading the Devil's Chessboard. Have to hand it to them. CIA really was everywhere. Maybe they still are - who else could have been responsible for the 'Russian bounty' misinformation?
The three-letter agencies' trust among what we might call ham-and-eggers - White Americans in their 40s through 60s, who generally pay taxes, vote, are engaged civically etc. - has utterly collapsed in the last five years. Admittedly this affects the FBI more than the CIA, but the group that now loves US intelligence is - surprise surprise! - the exact same center-left Democrats Freddie cites, who are so ruthlessly policing the left-wing discourse.
I confess to it being one of the great ironic joys of contemporary politics the Left is now on the 'same side' as the CIA which propped up authoritarians, led coups against left of center politicians, disappeared dissidents on US soil, etc. etc. etc.
And the precise same Back The Blue people on the Right are now trying to find a Fuck The Police shirt with enough asterisks to be decent for the potluck.
Everyday I nearly weep about this irony, too.
I once heard a ranger talk about baby rattlesnakes. Apparently, they are at their most dangerous when they're young and out and about because they can't control their venom. I always think about the generation that came of age on Tumblr and then got older and went to Twitter and then joined the work force as being like the baby rattlesnakes. They do not know their power so they kill things. What worries me more than the activists themselves are the corporations bowing to them. Therein lies the problem for our society. When publishing houses ban books, and movies and TV shows are dumbed down for the most sensitive among us, when we no longer can laugh at offensive jokes, when people can be fired for criticizing BLM -- that is when it goes from just destructive to the party to full blown 1984 land. I spend a lot of time on the right and they have the same inclinations as the left does - they just don't have the insitutional power. We need neutral entities and they're not at the moment. They've cast their side with the moneyed class which, now, is the left.
Great analogy. I'm reminded of that cynical joke about the young being liberals because they have hearts, and the middle-aged being conservative because they have heads. But there's truth there, right? I'm in many many ways not a conservative, but *by comparison* to the shenanigans and nonsense going on now on the far left, I am. So there are a lot of voices, like Coleman Hughes for example, being branded conservative when they're actually very invested in liberalism.
And if the left elite want to talk about power structures, this is a fantastic case in point. It is literally the power structures of institutions vs. the populace; now, they're just switching hats. But the left in this country has so long believed the identity of the powerless yet righteous, they're wearing the power hat while still talking the powerless talk.
Who knew it would be so easy to switch hats?
Generationally the Left of my youth was still tied to a materialist epistemology. It wasn’t purely performative and had to pass a smell test in terms of class, socioeconomic status, and organizational hierarchy.
Perhaps that is what Judith Butlers legacy will ultimately be? In a flat, postmodern culture where everything is dissociated from its origin, you can pretend to be whatever you want and enforce responses from society if you have sufficient enthusiasm (bio power).
Oh Judith Butler. How many people don't know her name, but whose thoughts are an effect of her legacy?
Listen, I don't wish to sound self-righteous, but part of the reason I didn't feel compelled to continue into academia was a distaste for how the brain games of literary and cultural theory drifted so far away from average human experience. Of course, many theorists ground their ideas in "the body" but my God how far from a real pooping meat suit can you get than calling it "the body"?
A dozen years ago when I gave up my postgraduate studies, I didn't have the vocabulary to describe why I had an uneasy feeling. I just had it. And that is the larger point: if the left is supposed to be a coalition of the people, how quickly do the leaders of "the movement" or whatever adopt that elite language, that knowingness of attitude, and run verbal circles around the objectors? Even in their own coalition?
And how quickly do the activist class, so quick to dismiss a sexual binary, frame every other question as a binary? "If you think x, then you must think (awful horrific) y." I'm not saying most people lack the intellectual capacity to fully debate these issues on a theoretical plane; I'm saying most people lack the time or inclination to do it. And they're being punished for it.
This is really a great comments section. No disrespect to Freddie, but I am enjoying some of this more than the original essay.
Ditto. Some of the most erudite (and least ad-hominem-laced) conversations I've had in years have been on Substack comment boards. It's incredibly reassuring to know that others are concerned about what is happening in left leaning politics. I have by turns felt angry, dejected, cynical, shocked, fill-in-the-blank with regard to the transmogrification of the Democratic party. It appears that no one speaks for the little guy anymore. Or, if they do, it's only after they've passed a gauntlet of purity litmus tests.
I remember the joy of the old civil rights movement, the 60s, the utter euphoria of knowing that the old strictures and arbitrary barriers of the propriety-dominant 50s era (and prior eras) were being smashed; the hope that somehow we could all move forward toward a future where everyone regardless of race, creed, et al, could enjoy the possibility of self-determination without bs obstacles; that we could all just be people together. The free thought, the exploration, the comedy, the arts, music — all in full roar — beautiful and nourishing. It was an incredibly creative time to grow up in and I am grateful for it. Now, Oliver Cromwell rules and he has closed all of the pubs and theaters for 9 years of soul-puckering puritanical zealotry.
I had underestimated the power of self-righteousness and tribalism. I thought if I moved away from Appalachia and hyper-religiosity, I would be free of that crap. Now, I live in California and I have to watch my words because I am a free thinker who is not easily pigeon-holed. I have a variety of opinions which fall all over the map. I am heretic no matter which way I try to engage simply for the crime of not agreeing with overly simplistic, black and white worldviews (on both right and left) that feed the ego but not the soul. I refuse to dehumanize people I disagree with. These days, that is a crime in and of itself.
Engaging with commenters on Substack is the only thing I've found that takes the sting out of the current reality. I hope we can get past this toxic fervor more or less intact and can move on to pragmatic solutions that actually help people.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
Saying the right doesn't have institutional power and that the moneyed class is left wing is just objectively not true.
It's the juxtaposition of affected, swooning powerlessness with reality that stands out to me as well. People who had more spent on their education than I've spent in my entire life on everything, who've moved in elite circles since they can toddle, going around acting like they're Steve Biko.
Where I differ is, I think a lot of these people genuinely did think the riots were a good thing and genuinely do believe the things they say about power and identity. Maybe I'm overly optimistic. (I'd rather believe them sincere - and thus persuadable - than believe them capable of putting on the mask and thus unfathomably cynical, to the point of evil.)
But sincerity seems likely to me because of the efficacy gap. As you correctly point out, the riots didn't do a huge amount. (Trump looked weak in the face of them but he was going to lose anyway, most likely, and they weren't uniformly deployed to places he would be affected by. Portland still burns, a bit, for example.) But people still fight tooth and nail to defend them. I have an easier time thinking it's because these people actually believe that throwing a trash can through a laundromat's window is a revolutionary act, that small businesses are some disgusting bourgeois thing, and that opposition to this cry of the oppressed is itself violence.
Plus... those of us shivering outside the comfy confines of the Overton window may have an interest in backing you up here, but the pettier angels of our nature enjoy a wry smile when the likes of Bari Weiss are diet-cancelled. None of these people ever stood up for our rights, quite the opposite. David Shor is required reading to understand US elections, but does he care when the shoe is on the other foot? Do any of them?
I work for probably strongest Democratic state Legislature and I've seen older coworkers terrified (many of them Black) of saying the wrong thing or getting mixed up in something accidentally.
Something is seriously wrong when a woman born in the Jim Crow south (the REAL one) is apologizing for calling me honey.
I've never been one to defend the status quo, but the lack of allowing good faith dissent (and being able to handle the non good faith) has been extremely disappointing.
"Your with us or against us" the children of Bush are doing that right by him.
This older black woman saying "honey" thing is something I have run across working in left non-profits. Literally, white recent grads from elite universities raising it as an issue for the organization's "equity work" when black women in their 40s and 50s working as admin assistants refer to someone as honey. Amazing but true.
A Democratic acquaintance of mine was campaigning at a Black church a few years ago. The kind old lady to her left offered her a candy from her purse. The kind old lady to hear right leaned in and whispered, "Oh honey, don't eat that, it's been there since the sixties." The "honey" is so essential to that - in rhythm, in meaning, in subtext - that the language would be so much poorer for its censoring. In fact, would I have remembered the anecdote without the "oh honey?" I doubt it. It's as baked into the language here as "bless your heart."
Wait this actually happened?
Totally, actually happened. I was there in the organization equity meeting when it did, couldn’t believe it. This was a while ago, showed me how things were going. The older women were not in the room however
From a woman, I generally *enjoy* being referred to as "honey". It feels friendly and casual. Losing a lot of these small niceties and idiosyncracies is making America feel like the cultural equivalent of a bland, gray big-box store. At best. A lot of the spice of life goes away when the tiniest mistake can have severe consequences. Everyone lives more cautiously. Every opinion is predictable. Every joke is safe. Every story has the prescribed narrative. Even setting the weightier consequences aside, the world this ideology creates is fucking *boring*, because irony of ironies, there's no diversity!
I'm a man and like it too. Waitresses at diners and stuff call men honey all the time. I didn't even know it was supposed to be a gendered thing.
Sorry, that was unclearly worded, on my part. I mean that if a woman calls me "honey", I generally enjoy it. Being called "honey" by a man is more situational or case-by-case, because sometimes it's friendly but, occasionally, it's done condescendingly. (That usage, for obvious reasons, seems to be heavily on the decline these days, though.)
Edit: Upon further reflection, I realized that anyone can use it condescendingly. So, I'd revise this to say that it's overwhelmingly used in a friendly manner, and thus, in the overwhelming majority of cases, I enjoy it. But in a very small number of cases, it can be put to rude use (as most anything can be).
As a genXer, the inability of younger generations to just let some stuff go is baffling to me.
Or even to have a proportional response. Like the professor showing 1965 Othello at UMich. In a sane world the students could day “The movie upset me.” and he could say, “I’m sorry, in retrospect it was a bad choice.”
Instead it’s a massive shitstorm engulfing the campus, professor suspended, students in therapy. There will probably be vigils and forums and committees before it dies down.
Who has the time for that? I'm exhausted just listening to that story.
I'm very disappointed to have learned in another recent Freddie post that the aliens aren't coming to invade and rescue us from this insanity any time soon.
And now Astral Codex Ten is saying that climate change isn't a good reason to forgo having children. Bad times for the apocalypse.
That asteroid can't hit us soon enough.
It also just doesn't seem like a good way to live. I can't imagine needing therapy over or feeling physically hurt over a seeing something as harmless of Welles in blackface (wouldn't it be North African-face?, I'm not sure).
I also don't think it's particularly effective at addressing anything. Obviously it doesn't work in this case: Welles is dead, the 1965 movie ain't changing.
I think humor, an anathema to the woke, probably works better. I think of incels and the "chads" and "virgins." It must really hard for incels to make their case when their fundamental viewpoint has been ridiculed to death. They'd probably prefer it if people saw their ideology as dangerous rather than hilariously dumb.
Correction: It was the version starring Laurence Olivier, not Orson Welles.
Where did you see students in therapy? I saw some of the crazy responses but I didn't see that.
That was my shorthand for all the stuff about them feeling unsafe and harmed. But you’re right, there’s nothing about them starting therapy over this. I imagine the campus offered resources which is pretty standard for Title IX complaints.
Makes sense, still wild stuff though. A few years back, I remember hearing arguments against showing media with blackface and similar offensive content. The argument was that these depictions would lead to material harms. Media mis-portraying minorities could lead to real people not getting jobs, loans, fair treatment under the law, etc.
At some point the argument morphed from "x can cause IRL harm" to "x is harm." Crazy stuff
Perfect example.
It was a good choice... so if you do not like it, GFY, and do not watch it again!
...except for every bit of pop culture from 1978 to 1990.
Ditto. I am GenX/BB cusp and I, too, am baffled. George Carlin said it best: “Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.”
We need "benefit of the doubt" or we lose social cohesion. The world that many are trying to usher in is utterly devoid of humanity and heart and I don't think they are self-aware enough to realize it.
Great piece.
I think this is basically sums it up:
'In the span of a decade or less a bizarre form of linguistically-radical but substantively-conservative identity neoliberalism descended from decaying humanities departments in elite universities and infected social media like Tumblr and Twitter, through which it conquered the media and entertainment industries, the nonprofit industrial complex, and government entities as wide-ranging as the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights and the brass of the Pentagon.'
I don't what to say other than that the 'Left' is doing it wrong if it:
1) Is in the thrall of esoteric ideological fixations that appeal to a small Mandarin elite.
2) Has a relatively warm relationship with the CIA, NSA, FBI, and security state.
3) As its main job program expands the social work/HR class to surveil and punish both working class and white collar employees.
4) Is enthusiastically embraced by everyone from Raytheon to Coca Cola to Disney to the Google in deflecting critique of the neoliberal order.
5) Becomes essentially a state religion administered the Power Elite that cannibalizes more meaningful dissent.
6) Has absolute disdain for the working class and those in the 10th through 60th percentile of income in the US.
All of the affluent moderate Republican suburban house wives of my affluent suburban upbringing are now Instagram radicals.
It's like the algorithm has been perfectly tuned to create endless engagement and bread and circuses (sans bread). The only cohort of the Left that hasn't disgraced itself the past five years are the progressive civil libertarians.
Like most of the comments here, this is a conflation of mainstream Democrats, liberals, and leftists with many different defining characteristics like geography and economic status, rather than engaging with the reality of a diverse political landscape with different factions, classes, and interests
Progressive civil libertarians - like Maud Maron: https://www.fairforall.org/profiles-in-courage/maron-v-the-legal-aid-society/ She is one of my new heroes.
'I think Klein didn’t really connect the dots between Shor’s cancelation and the debate about how the Democrats should strategize and message because he’s afraid of facing the same tactics Shor faced.'
Klein is the voice of his generation: endless dissembling and mealy-mouthed obfuscations.
I don't think he's ever voiced an opinion that isn't carefully calibrated and rehearsed to stay within the lines of the orthodoxies imposed by his peers.
Yeah, I dunno. He’s simultaneously ‘the smartest guy in the room’ but also totally opaque? Extraordinarily ambitious professionally but nothing beyond generic Ivy League progressive midwit NPC takes? I feel similarly about Yglesias - effective careerists but if you totally ignore them you’re not missing anything.
I'm sorry to say that I don't think this dynamic in the Democratic party is fixable under current conditions. There's too much inertia and too much power behind this shitty status quo. Sooner or later it will almost certainly explode, lead to a political thrashing the likes of which we have never seen before. There's a vast reservoir of contempt, loathing, and resentment for these activists. It won't take much for the right kind of politician to tap into it. I find it highly unlikely that someone won't, and it probably won't take very long. It's not going to be pretty. I don't think activist Dems are aware this is as close as they'll probably get to power for a very long time. When you constantly antagonize most of the population sooner or later that same majority will stop putting up with it.
Trump already did, didn't he? And I would expect more Trumps in the future.
Ironically I think it's the opposite. The only reason people have tolerated as much of this as they have is precisely because Trump was so awful and crazy. Most ordinary people feel like there is no (better) alternative. If I were playing for the other team, I'd be trying to find a less racist Tucker Carlson, perhaps one that avoided talking about culture war issues whenever possible. The GOP is prevented from doing this for structural reasons too, so who knows?
The larger point is that the two sides in the culture war feed off each other, even if it is through mutual hatred. I doubt there will be another Trump, and anyway such a character is a boon for activist Dems. What will really ruin their day is a professional looking "responsible" conservative. Something well informed and articulate.
The structural issue is that moderates don't fare well in primaries. I can't believe I'm admitting this but I'm so fed up with the progressive left that I actually think I would vote for a "responsible, well-informed and articulate" conservative if my choice were between crazy, progressive left and responsible conservative.
Black conservatives are having a day in the sun, and I'm glad of it. Stuff like this https://1776unites.com inspires me even if I don't agree with many conservative policies (reproductive rights being my main difference). Funny how much some modern conservatives mirror old-school liberal beliefs. Regardless of any disagreements, I resonate to their universal humanist stance.
One other thing, these woke types secretly adore Trump. He was the gift that kept on giving for them, masked all their own failings, gave them a constant stream of attention. Twitter liberals benefitted as much or more from Trump than anyone. Same as most major media outlets, who saw massive increases in ratings that evaporated as soon as he was gone. They may hate the man, but the absolutely adored fighting against him.
I've been saying this for five years. No one obsesses on any person that much without loving them. I hate LeBron, I don't sit around and watch Lakers games.
I always loved people who would follow his Twitter and watch his press conferences and then claim how exhausting it was. I'd always ask why they do that and I'd always get dumb answers like "I have to know what's going on" like they're the head of NORAD.
These people were obsessed with him and I don't believe it was purely hate.
I think that hate is the opposite of love, and obsession is the opposite of respect. I've noticed that people become obsessed with someone when they think they have taken respect away from them.
Brilliant. Too bad it's buried so deep in the thread. I remember a little sign on the top of the desk of an office secretary who terrorized and ran roughshod over the place: "Consider the Source"
“From the deepest desires often come the deadliest hate.” — Socrates
I think they love what they believe Trump says about them. The perfect embodiment of con man, narcissistic personality disorder, and abrasive insensitivity who proves everything the left has been saying about the right to be true. Of course that’s something to love, in its own way.
Self-righteousness has a blinding effect on people's perceptions and Americans hate moral scolds. Election 2022 will be very interesting as a result.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
I've heard the argument made that stronger unions would help against all this, by preventing at-will firing of somebody to appease the frothing Twitter masses. Do you think this is so, and if so, how do we go about pushing for this change in the current climate?
Because something, structurally, needs to change to put an end to this insanity. Something that breaks the incentive structure driving all this.
If you can find a union more interested in your employment rights and economics than your political views, yes, but these are becoming harder and harder to come by. You won't get anywhere with any mainstream union in the US if you disagree with illegal immigration, for example. They'll hang you out to dry.
My two cents: Unions are way up in this stuff too. My union is. If anything you do can be remotely twisted into a narrative that you are bigot, my union will throw you under the bus. I mean, they all have to be elected next year by people that are terminally online.
As others are saying, unions have become part of the problem. Especially in media. The NY Times union helped to push out Donald McNeil. The Gimlet union helped to get rid of the Reply All hosts. The entire purpose of unions has been corrupted by people who benefit (in the short term) from “social justice” politics.
I saw someone propose cooling off periods - a commitment by employers that for anything less than an actual violent crime, they wouldn’t impose any kind of employment sanction for at least 2 weeks. Allows temperatures to cool and to bring out additional context. Seems like a really good idea.
Only existential crisis has a chance of bringing down this machine. America post Dec 1941 swept away all partisanship. If Pearl Harbor happened today, a livid public will tear limb from limb a ruling class who sleepwalked into WWIII during pronoun training.
I think that even just requiring that someone be fired for cause would help. Many times the person being cancelled is actually fired for dubious "performance" reasons or no official reason at all just to make the problem go away. If companies needed to prove that someone was being let go for an actual reason they'd have to put in at least some effort to proving the canceller's claims of harm it and might also provide an opportunity for the cancelled person's manager or close colleagues to speak up on their behalf. It would also provide an opportunity for lawsuits over firing someone for their behavior outside the workplace, a la the cheerleader who got expelled for the "fuck cheer, fuck everything" instagram post, that could ultimately set a precedent that protects employees from being fired for things like holding Bad Opinions on their own time. Or maybe I live in a fantasy world and people would just start getting fired with "cultural appropriation" or "misgendering" as the cause, idk.
GREAT post, thank you Freddie.
On neoliberal sites and left-of-center sites, the woke mob is a problem of illiberal leftists.
On leftists sites that aren't woke, the woke mob is a problem of, as you put it "identity neoliberalism."
We aren't going to solve this problem by pointing at each other and saying its the others fault.
I don't know where it came from. I don't know who's fault it is. It could be smart phones, it could be American educational culture, it could be the legacy of the boomer generation that also thought it was the first truly moral generation and didn't acknowledge its forebears. I think the quest for power and control is a deeply seated human tendency, and that people are incredibly crafty in creating narratives that allow them to take power. In short, they will borrow from anything that works and make a new monster.
Does it matter where it came from?
When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was crafted after WWII the additional documentation surrounding its adoption illuminates your comment.
Kathleen: Can you expand on this?
I was thinking of acknowledgment of those who went before that Gnoment mentioned. The UDHR was hard work and getting women included was not easy. Also the struggle of cultural rights. I don't think people today have thought through what a struggle it was...I think the best book of so many that helped me to realize how difficult it was is Ishay, Micheline R. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. History of Human Rights. Berkeley, Calif: Univ. of California Press, 2009.
Thanks. I know next to nothing about the history of the UDHR, and this is helpful. People are astonishingly unaware of how improbable and, in a sense, contingent social progress is. The study of the past seems like the best corrective. For all of our dysfunction and injustice we still have so much for which to be grateful.
There was a lot of struggle with Sharia law and I think Saudi Arabia still hasn't signed on.
Great post on the erstwhile Columbus Day! I was ceremoniously unfriended last year for jokingly wishing everyone a "Happy Columbus Day" on FB. The unfriending then led to the lady doxing me for "defending rape" on some feminist site. Lost in all the rancor was the fact that I am a moderate Democrat who was just pointing out the absurdity of a half-assed name change to a holiday without ever trying to understand the voyages of discovery in the context of the era in which they happened. Or that the name change has not led to any real improvements within the Native-American communities. My post was sarcastic. At least I had no job to lose. . .But the irony of actually being lectured about my ignorance on a subject that I've thought deeply about over decades was amusing and pathetic.
Using American Indians (to usr their preferred term) as props to show how progressive and caring you are is always, to me, the most disgusting. They're not gone. They're right there. And suffering under some of the most adverse conditions of any demographic group.
I'm not saying people need to actually give the land back and emigrate to wherever would take them. Obviously, they're not really that bothered by genocide and totally cool with profiting from it, unless they could get a nice place by the Seine, or maybe in one of the good parts of London. But they could actually, I don't know, give them money. Maybe organize as hard for laws that would improve their lives as they do for changing team names and taking down statues?
But, nah, they're really just there to make some Bryn Mawr grad feel like she's better than the plumber she hires.
There was a post in my neighborhood that a college graduate felt that a plumber had disrespected her and was condescending as he explained why she was having the problem.
There is a historical narrative of men talking down to women and assuming lack of competence. There is also a historical narrative of people who do not specialize in technical work not understanding technical work. I suppose we are left to our own devices to select which lens we view this conflict through.
My father was an electrician and my husband was a carpenter. They both explained and were proud of their trade. They both suggested that I should should understand how the house worked and how any tool (be it a car, vacuum cleaner or computer worked). By being clear when I need an electrician that I know the difference between a breaker and a fuse helps a lot in feeling competent. I've had friends who create a situation of being seen as incompetent because they don't take the time to think about where a baby diaper might go if it is flushed.
Right. When we can hire our own plumber, that I know some basics and definitely respect the work plumbers do is helpful.
On the other hand, that plumber hired by a landlord-insurance company who told me there was nothing wrong with the toilet, I was just a poor, sweet, overeducated miss who'd never learned to flush a toilet properly? Heh.
All that meant was an even more expensive repair for the landlord when the toilet clogged completely and we were entitled to emergency service. (The landlord did kindly suggest we might be able to do without emergency service if we peed in the tub and visited someone else's toilet for more solid concerns.)
O, I never thought you couldn't hire who you wanted.
To clarify: I made a public post for friends on FB. The post was misinterpreted by a female acquaintance who saw fit to lecture me on Colonialism and rape.. . .on my page in my thread (and lecturing a highly educated merchant marine on Colonialism and rape is a bit rich). I was then accused of being a "troll," on my own page. I was then subjected to the woman c/p'ing the thread out of context to some Mansplain site. It was all so pathetic and indicative of the gravitas that the Far Left grants itself, without even realizing the alienating effect.
You sound in this case like you may of been the victim of your own promiscuous Facebook friending.
I can't think of anything good about Facebook.
Kudos for pointing that out. I minimize usage, but have had a hard time quitting due to moving so far from where I was living for the last two decades. In this case, I got bit by an acquaintance, not friend. But you are right, there is virtually no excuse for being on FB.
Agreed. Plus this, which was eye-opening to me: https://rangemagazine.com/specialreports/pristine-nature.pdf And also https://openendedsocialstudies.org/2018/08/04/the-pristine-myth-how-native-americans-shaped-their-world/ Many of the lush forests and streams rich with game and fish and abundant comestibles of every variety had been cultivated into being by Native Americans were assumed by early European explorers/colonizers to be Mother Nature at work. The reality was that Native Americans curated/improved their environment just like any other culture.
The way the history books are written, this humanization of Native Americans is glossed over and they are presented as passive denizens of the natural world (similar to animals), primitive, child-like, lacking in the sophistication of the West. And this simply because they weren't as technologically sophisticated in some very specific ways (weapons, mechanics, horses, etc.). When, in reality, in their own fashion, they were using very sophisticated and strategic methods to improve and tame the wilderness.
I wish that we had honored that wisdom instead of infantilizing them. I hope that we can learn from each other moving forward (the past can't be changed and wringing our hands about it does no good whatsoever). It's happening a bit in California where some tribal consultants are being hired for fire mitigation and forest management. https://www.nature.org/en-us/magazine/magazine-articles/indigenous-controlled-burns-california/ I find this hopeful. Partnership is possible and should be encouraged.
If you do something really terrible to someone else, don’t even make an attempt at any kind of actual restitution, but do make loud operatic apologies… really, who is that apology actually for?
I appreciate your focus on the silencing effect of fear in these movements. Everyone argues about who is or isn't "canceled", and all of that inevitably focuses on big names everyone has heard of. There's little recognition of how your average person is simply afraid to voice their opinions (which are by definition fairly average opinions). It's very stressful to live in a position where you're afraid that one wrong word could make you lose your job. So thank you for focusing on that.
I remain completely mystified by the fact that you claim to want the activists to win though. You write essay after essay writing about how awful these people are, and yet continue to claim to ally yourself with them. Why? Because they label themselves "leftist" even though most of them couldn't give two shits
(Accidentally hit publish)
Even though most of them couldn't give two shits about *class* the way you do? These people are not your allies and do not want what you want. They say they do, but they don't act like it and the latter is the important part.
The inevitable comeback to someone who disagrees with progressive Left orthodoxy on any point is, inevitably, that the objector will be labeled a "Trump Troll," which pretty much illustrates the progressive intolerance to any sort of criticism or critical reasoning that clashes with that of the progressive elites. It's knee jerk spawn of Godwin Law on steroids.
The hierarchy of suffering is a very interesting concept. I think it is a very real way many people think and preface some conversations.
I teach a diverse body of people in grad school (adults ranging 22-35 mainly) and will have a range of student issues each term ranging from deaths of parents, to bouts of physical or mental illness, to broke down cars, to sick pets. Each person is suffering and I do not evaluate their suffering. If they tell me they can't do an assignment I accept it. Race or gender orientation are not factors and if these are offered to convince me that the issue is even more valid..I tell them it's ok. I believe what you told me in the first place.
As for the larger world I do the same--assume each sufferer for their own reasons has a true belief in their suffering, but I do not assign them hierarchical status. I do not insert my personal history. Or in the words of a union colleague, we need to get this done for the greater good and "get over our own cheap selves."
"Race or gender orientation are not factors and if these are offered to convince me that the issue is even more valid..I tell them it's ok. I believe what you told me in the first place."
I never really thought about it in these terms, that people are conditioned to offer up "oh - and plus I'm [x]" because that's the only way they think they'll be listened to. That's very sad. Identity is important but the reductive way we treat it means the person behind the category is a mere passenger, and it manifests itself in little dehumanizing rituals like this, where the reality of someone's suffering doesn't matter nearly as much as who the someone is.
It happens more and more since summer of 2020..for race and gender identity. It also causes other students (in group discussions) to apologize if they are White and/or CIS. This is a fairly new development in my teaching.
Very sad. Thanks for the information.
Excellent post. I remember in the 2000s, we were fretting about whether we’d lose the white working class over “social issues” such as abortion and gay marriage. 20 years later, we’re happily telling the WWC to go fuck themselves. Democrats are screwed.
WWC has essentially given up caring about gay marriage, so the SJWs have had to glom onto something else, because grievances drive engagement, right? I don't think we can undersell how much Marcusian theory has shaped the philosophical stance of the far left in the past 30 years.
Abortion will always be up there because there's a large part of the population that will never divest the idea of life from an unborn fetus. There's nothing cynical about that. And that's an issue that will always be "conservative." The conversation gets hairy when as a liberal I start bringing up disability rights and the ethics of aborting fetuses that have non-terminal disabilities. Easier to say "go fuck yourself" than engage, which might lead to...gasp...compromise.
I believe a lot of voters would overlook abortion if they liked Democrats otherwise. They did in the past. But they absolutely hate woke discourse, which dominates Democratic Party politics these days… on abortion and everything else.
I tend to agree with this but I'm not sure how far into the past we can look for evidence of this. The Christian Right started organizing around abortion very soon after Roe v Wade in 1973 and by 1980 we had Reagan.
Abortion is the perfect issue because for most of my life the majority opinion in America has been the moderate position of allowing abortions early and in extreme cases. But it's somehow our most contentious issue? This also may have changed in recent years but guns were similar. Most Americans were in favor of reasonable gun control restrictions, emphasis on reasonable.
But, the people who really care about these things have extreme views. You nailed it with the engagement thing. If I were to say "we should have European style abortion laws where it's legal in the first trimester and only legal afterwards in specific circumstances" most people would agree with me. But they wouldn't care enough to engage with it, unless they disagree with me, which "both sides" would. To get engagement I need to take an extreme position.
The best piece FdB ever wrote was the Iron Law of Institutions. It is always what's driving this. Social media just amplifies it.
Spot on.