I think the dialogue was revealing, thanks for sharing it. He said:
> "cancel culture is not about moral suasion or transforming the moral universe of the aggressor. It is about power, and stripping them of their platforms that allow them to spread such views. "
He finally put his cards on the table. We haeve to believe him, that question…
I think the dialogue was revealing, thanks for sharing it. He said:
> "cancel culture is not about moral suasion or transforming the moral universe of the aggressor. It is about power, and stripping them of their platforms that allow them to spread such views. "
He finally put his cards on the table. We haeve to believe him, that questions of "learning" or "growing" or "redemption" really are irrelevant to him and many like him, because they don't care about any of that. They are after power, and any morality assertions are shallow tactics for gaining power, nowhere near any core issue.
You are trying to say "we are all humans trying to get along and to find the best path, and we need to cut each other some slack along the way, see bad or misguided past behavior in context, and mutually grow as we learn to do better". And his response is basically "fuck that, I just want to get power by any means I can access, who cares about persuasion or understanding or growth". That in my opinion is often the case, but usually not so openly admitted.
Whenever I see somebody use the word "power", I ask myself "is this power from within, or power over other people?". Power from within involves growth, reflection, earned self-respect, earned confidence, and it's completely compatible with (and in fact works best with) other people also having power from within; win/win options (non-zero sum game) options are often possible, where each party can treat and be treated with respect and negotiate from their own clarity.
"Power over" is unidirectional, and incompatible with other people also being on top - it inherently must involve a win/lose. And it feels threatened by anybody with "power from within", because often (but not always) it's as important that the other person lose, as that one wins.
The outrage game, the victimhood game, the "accountability" game are all about obtaining "power over" by exploiting guilt and sympathy for weakness - specifically in this and many other ases, the power to control the narrative, the power to suppress viewpoints which might be persuasive if they can be heard.
The folks who want to deplatform Joe Rogan (and others) NEVER EVER (that I have seen) suggest that their audience listen to a representative sample - seeing full context - and judge for themselves. In fact, they urge just the opposite - take my word for it, and avoid tainting your ears by exposure to a source I have told you is not only wrong, but morally tainted such that decent folks should never see it for themselves, or be allowed to see it for themselves.
Progressives and liberals were not always like that; that is one reason that I call this neo-progressivism, which differs from traditional progressivism in key ways (another being whether they demonize or valorize the working class, or alternately whether their core base is in the social, media, educational and financial elites or in the working class). I see distorted versions of the traditional values and framing of progressivism in this new ideology, mixed in with ideas and framings which are nearly the opposite of traditional liberalism and progressivism. When I moved to the left in my youth, it was far less dogmatic and more welcoming to open discussion and free thinking. Neo-progressivism (wokism, successor ideology, identitarianism, whatever) is quite different in nature.
And the tactics which are used to gain more "power over" have a lot to do with that change. Rather than "stop discriminating and give us an even chance because we are confident that we can success on the same terms", it has become "we (and/or our protectees) are weak and easily wounded, so you must apply different rules, and give us unearned "power over" to control society, or else". Coming to rely on that kind of tactic is inherently corrupting, even if the original goals were very well intentioned.
The Prime Directive of neo-progressive ideology is "Reinforce the Narrative (of Oppression) at all costs" because the Narrative of Oppression is the source of our power over other people (not one's own ability or skills or accomplishments or persuasiveness or example). That means they have to control the mindspace, like a modern army trying to control the airspace over the battlefield. There must not be any marketplace of ideas, because they do not have confidence that their ideology could survive open scrutiny. They must try to deplatform any "wrong think". And they must try to demonize any source they cannot sufficiently suppress - convincing devotees that to actually read or view any dissent would be to be morally tainted by exposure to "right wing trash". Better to stick to believing the priesthood of Neo-progressivism, cheer and boo when the tribal cue cards tell you, and enjoy smugly mocking the strawmen that the leaders create for you.
Has anybody else noticed something similar to this? Does it resonate as a valid facet of the complex truth of society today?
"He finally put his cards on the table. We have to believe him, that questions of "learning" or "growing" or "redemption" really are irrelevant to him and many like him, because they don't care about any of that."
Yeah, I was impressed by his honesty here too!😅 It's not often that cancel culture's defenders even admit that it exists, never mind that it's about exerting power over others. And yes, in my experience of dealing with these modern-day puritans, the point is entirely power over others. But not in a way that has any political ends (or at least the ends are incidental). The primary goal seems to be the same as the typical bully; a way to calm their own insecurities and/or self-loathing by finding a target to attack.
I think you're spot on about the lack of interest in nuance and a fair hearing of the offenders' "crimes", but I think the reason so many of them are willing to do this is that they don't really care what the person said. They aren't even particularly interested in defending an ideology, and certainly not in making the lives of any particular group of marginalised people better. They want a target that they can attack whilst being praised by their peers. They want to be able to indulge their darkest, most vindictive instincts but still tell themselves the they're the "good guys." It's genuinely horrifying to see this psychosis spreading.
Later thoughts. Back the the quote from your correspondent:
>" cancel culture is not about moral suasion or transforming the moral universe of the aggressor. It is about power, and stripping them of their platforms that allow them to spread such views. "
That identifies one of the goals - direct deplatforming of an ongoing source.
But cancel culture has other facets as well. For example, Majdi Wadi was a Palestinian Muslim businessman (selling middle eastern food) in Minneapolis, supporting a mixed race community and Black Lives Matter, when somebody discovered some terrible racist and homophobic tweets by his daughter from many years previous when she was a mixed up teenager. She (who had radically changed since that time) was by then marching with BLM protestors; she apologized profusely and denounced the sentiments of those old tweets; her father fired her and apologized, tried to find a path towards redemption. (As mentioned previously, cancelling is not primarily about moral growth or redemption, but about gaining "power over").
But the company got pretty well cancelled, losing their contracts, being kicked out of a lease, had to move for safety, lay off 69 employees, etc. In this case, there was no platform being used to spread wrongthink - indeed there was no platform (the company wasn't a media company and had never been used as a platform) and no current or ongoing bad things happening on any other platform - just some long buried immature and wrongheaded tweets from a teenage daughter. Cancelling was punitive, and retributive, and disproportional, and was in no way protecting people from ongoing wrongdoing or harm. (See Bari Weiss' substack for more)
So "shutting down the ability for person to engage in ongoing bad speech or behavior" is not the only purpose of cancel culture or of flexing power. Sometimes it's just to intimidate and show the world how much "power over" a narrative or group has.
"Cross us, no matter whether there is real harm or not, and we can get you fired, get leases canceled, get contracts cancelled, get businesses damaged or closed, and make your family afraid by publicizing your names and sponsoring protests at your home and business"
And if the attempt to flex that cancellation power fails (as in the case of folks like Joe Rogan/Spotify and Dave Chappelle/Netflix), boy does that grind their gears. Not just because somebody might still have a platform for future unapproved speech, but perhaps even more so because they hate to have the limits of their power to destroy demonstrated, even in exceptional cases like these. (They can still destroy lesser folks).
"For example, Majdi Wadi was a Palestinian Muslim businessman (selling middle eastern food) in Minneapolis, supporting a mixed race community and Black Lives Matter, when somebody discovered some terrible racist and homophobic tweets by his daughter from many years previous when she was a mixed up teenager."
Yep, I mention this story in the article. It's such a perfect example of everything wring with this brand of "justice". And positively dystopian that he actually fired his daughter over the tweets in a desperate attempt to save his family business. How anybody involved, from the people on social media applying pressure, to the leaseholders and other business who reacted by disavowing the company, felt as if they were doing the right thing is totally beyond me.
Again, this is just evidence that this isn't about doing the right thing at all. In no moral universe I want to live in was that the right outcome.
Othering based on self-righteousness is a brain high (I'd love to know the chemistry involved) that makes the humanity of the person being othered invisible to the person othering them. This pattern is insidious. It can make people who otherwise appear normal and compassionate into monsters. I've had first-hand experience with this phenomenon. No appeal will sway them from seeing things a certain way. They are right. And that's that. It's the hardest rock I've ever banged myself against. I've twisted myself into pretzels trying to reach someone on the other side of othering. And I never was successful in convincing them that they were hurting me and that I didn't deserve their enmity. I had to remain the scapegoat in order for their worldview to stay intact.
Perhaps you've exposed some of the truth of this phenomenon when you tie it to revenge. When we deliberately seek to harm someone out of malice, it is frowned on by society. But, if we can gin up a good enough excuse as to why we must harm, then it's not malice, it's justified and legitimate. And, what greater excuse than that of "I was or am a victim. Someone hurt me so therefore, I am pushing back." Who can argue with someone standing up for themselves? “'Cancel culture' may have started out in good faith (much like Christianity) but it has since morphed into something gross and ugly.” - Nicole Chardenet
Maybe the whole thing is about legitimating revenge.
"Has anybody else noticed something similar to this? Does it resonate as a valid facet of the complex truth of society today?"
Yes, although you put it far more succinctly than I could have. Which leads to the question - how do we harness our own personal power against these weak-ass pretenders? Without seeking power over others ourselves which is ultimately self-defeating and validates the idea that absolute power corrupts, and power corrupts absolutely?
I'm reminded of the olden days of the Catholic Church (which only ended in the 20th century) when they told the flock, "Don't read the Bible yourselves, let us read it to you, you'll interpret it wrong, we know what we're doing." It's why they feared the Gutenberg printing press - holy fuck, what if the literate read this and tell the illiterate morons what it REALLY says?
I've been thinking for awhile that maybe where we need to apply the pressure is in academia and the corporate world who are, pardon my vulgar French, a big bunch of pussies when it comes to standing up to the unemployed, psychologically disturbed rabble with too much time on their hands.
Also, Thomas Sowell covers the topic of college-educated failures and their impact on social cohesion in his book “Intellectuals & Society.” Apparently, it's a known phenomenon.
This ties in handily with pushing too many kids into academic educations and the resulting fallout - which is that many, many jobs in the skilled trades are going vacant presently because we haven't stressed vocational training for at least the past several decades. That said, it's always been an upper class meme that there is something lesser, even shameful about working with your hands and so it makes sense that people interested in social mobility would pursue academic training rather than vocational.
Who would have thunk that an overabundance of educated people would result in a weakened, fractured society? That empowering people through education would lead them to strive for "power over" rather than simple being empowered. Perhaps we should be teaching some humility as well.
Ironically, I spoke with two plumbers last week for a sales campaign I'm on who addressed the problem of not being able to find good help. They need young people, willing to learn the business. Not many want to do the dirty work, or are willing to learn; one pays for courses for them but they don't do the work; they won't read the material and always have some excuse for why they didn't. These young people aren't reliable, both say, and they can't get or hang on to a driver's license, which they often lose due to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or they didn't pay their child support (not sure how that works, may vary state to state, this is a US campaign) which you can't be on drugs or alcohol when you're a plumber. They're both willing to train but the young won't stick with it. So, this kind of lends something to what's behind the story of *some* (not all!) lazy younger generation members. And something to think about when the unemployment numbers roll around. I asked these guys about folks from lower-class backgrounds without criminal backgrounds and they said they've tried them but they're lazy and don't do the work - and BTW neither these guys nor I talked colour at all, but one I'm pretty sure was black, a successful business owner himself. One of them, I forget which, complained about how 'overeducated' the young are, how they got sold on a college education but can't get a job and don't want plumbing work, although, *good* home improvement people don't come cheap (do you really want a third-rate plumber fixing your septic system?) Okay, plumbing work is REALLY unsexy and unglamourous but these are similar complaints I've heard for a month from the HVAC set, where the work is unglamorous but a lot less unseptic.
Good point about social mobility and a disdain for manual labour. Now we've got teachers leaving the profession in droves because one of the most critical, valuable intrinsic-to-survival jobs pays so little, and offers mostly neglect, disdain from parents and administrators, and often outright abuse from untamed children that they're throwing in the towel. America, I sometimes fear, is doomed, and it was a joint effort by partisans, hacks and lazy thinkers on both sides.
I do want to wonder about how little teachers are paid. Locally, around the time we moved to California 17 years ago, there was a big issue about teachers, and the paper dug up salary information for local school districts. The median pay for teachers was about $70K, for less than 12 months work. If that was the median, imagine what most were making by the time they retire. At the time, a social worker with similar training was generally paid significantly less.
This is in a semi-rural county on the periphery of the SF Bay Area, for context.
I'm NOT against teachers, but I think we need to find out how much a particular district pays before automatically assuming the stereotype of being underpaid is always true. Even in our area, some districts paid significantly more than others.
Jordan Peterson likes to cite the extreme sex disparity in bricklaying and ask why feminists are not trying to get more women into the field.
There are a couple of reasons: real physical differences, and seeking equal outcomes in regard only to higher status desk jobs.
The latter influence is shared by educated young men as well.
From what I've heard, Germany does a better job of providing a respected path towards the trades as a parallel track to college, and the effect on their society is said to be positive. That's the kind of solution that old style progressives might really get behind - but the new elite-based neo-progressives find unappealing.
I went the higher education route myself, but I have a real respect for the folks who can get stuff done in the real world. We recently had an earthquake retrofit (bolting the frame to the foundation) done, and the young men doing the work were very polite, communicative, and respectful. And I respect them in turn.
I hope that liberals do not push more and more of the working class into "the other camp" through their elitism.
Thanks for sharing this anecdote. It is instructive.
We have become spoiled and in turn spoil our children because life has become progressively easier as technology and infrastructure have become more sophisticated. It is an unfortunate externality of the pursuit of comfort. In addition to this, glam is sold by Hollywood and the American marketing engine (unparalleled in the world) as the only desirable course (note the popularity of the Kardashians and the glam coiffures and clothing and jewelry pushed in all reality shows). Of course glam is faux and superficial and is a path that leads away from true substance and character building. And yet, because our visual sense is our most powerful, we get sucked in and our psyche gives it weight - as if it matters more than character or honor. Even I am not immune and I know better.
Somehow, we need a marketing campaign that "glamorizes" getting dirty and sweaty, building muscle and character and working outside in some cases. One thing I have learned in my life is that even good ideas have to be sold to people. The UMC always sets the cultural tone in any society and right now, the UMC is behaving very badly toward the working classes - demonizing and shaming them in the worst way possible. And the press are their handmaidens—gleefully communicating this arrogance and malice (at times) into the ether for all to consume.
There was an article by a reporter a couple of months ago asking whether it was okay to hire and/or speak to a plumber because the homeowner suspected that he was a likely Trump voter. I mean, seriously? This author was considering whether it was okay to dehumanize this guy in the full light of day simply over suspected (not even proven) political beliefs. The condescension and arrogance on display with this virtue signaling/fear mongering is just staggering! https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/13/donald-trump-class-rural-white-democrats-glenn-reynolds-column/96413412/
Of course, as you point out, our younger classes also have not been taught a healthy work ethic. They have not been taught to take pride in a job well done; to strive for excellence regardless of whether you are getting paid for it or not. We have the power to change this. Where there is a will, there is a way.
"Somehow, we need a marketing campaign that "glamorizes" getting dirty and sweaty, building muscle and character and working outside in some cases. One thing I have learned in my life is that even good ideas have to be sold to people."
...And also detoxify these trades for young women. I have a female friends who is a pipe layer and works with mostly men and when she was living and working here in Toronto years ago she told me about how misogynist they could be, especially after listening to Toronto's top morning drive show host who had, like most morning drive show hosts, the emotional maturity and enlightened attitudes of a 14-year-old boy. She said while listening to this shitbrain the guys became more misogynist, and then calmed down an hour or two after the show was off the air. It doesn't help when you're locked into an 'old boys' network', emphasis on the 'boys'.
Point taken. But you can learn to navigate this. I was in the Army, one of the most misogynist boys clubs around. And, I not only survived but learned a few tricks and how to stand up for myself. Believe it or not, it is a known fact that within the Army, units that include female soldiers like support, medical, commo, admin, the men behave in a more civilized fashion. So, she needs to recruit a second female and/or learn how to clap back when they get out of line. Just a thought.
Oh, my friend sounded like she handled them like a pro. But, the environment shouldn't be permitted in the first place. The military is famously an institution that doesn't protect women, even to this day. I don't doubt it's a great place to learn how to stand up for yourself, but it's also a good place to get raped - happened to a veteran friend of mine, multiple times. And I don't know if you're old enough to remember Shannon Faulkner, the first female student at The Citadel....they destroyed her, and she'd already gone through a lot just to get in there.
Terribly sorry to hear this and I hope that your friend's perps were punished. And I am old enough to remember SF. Although at least one of her peers has a different take on that situation: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/shannon-faulkner-ruined-feminism-for-the-citadel Of course the harrassment, bullying, sexual assault and career-path sabotage shouldn't be allowed and some strides have been made although there is still much work to be done. But, for the women who have to blaze the trails to this equitable future, we have had to be strong and endure because that future doesn't exist now. And we have to deal with what is in front of us right now. I was suggesting a strategy for coping with the realities on the ground right now. Institutions are coming around but in the mean time, we have to learn to protect ourselves.
And, I would say your friend is not "locked" into an old boys network but chose to go there most likely knowing that there would be resistance. And, it sounds like she IS handling it. So, more power to her. She is a pioneer who is making it easier for those who come behind her. This is the same for many women in the military as well.
What a gawdawful article that is. 'Francis' is a misogynist pig and blames Shannon Faulkner for not having what it takes to put up with a helluva lot of shit from a bunch of misogynist pigs. On top of that, he then admits that female cadets have to work much, much harder even today because The Citadel is still a refuge for misogynist pigs who call it 'leadership building'. It's bloody unequal and unfair and it doesn't do a thing to move equity mindset forward. At least for the thirty women who came after the VMI fight, they had each other. Faulkner may have lacked some gumption but she also DID expend a lot of energy just to get in, and she scared the shit out of a bunch of misogynist pigs who are terrified of having to accept women as anything other than sexual objects. Oh, and that guy's such a man he doesn't even write this under his full name. What a pussy! Then again, what do you expect from an institution that's as terrified of vaginas as they are?
In Susan Faludi's book Stiffed (referred to here as 'just out' but it came out more than ten years ago), about American masculinity, there's a bit about Faulkner. Here's an excerpt of what she had to put up with to, I don't know, build 'leadership' or some bullshit:
I've had a low opinion of The Citadel since then, and you just reinforced it massively. This little wuss had it easy, since no one was 'testing' his leadership skills like they 'test' their female cadets. I'm with you on the need to be strong and endure - the world is an unfair place - but that doesn't mean we have to reinforce it by not challenging our own mindsets. Sounds like at the Citadel, that's only for women, not for the boys.
Not sure how to respond to this. I prefer not to be angry about that state of affairs in the military. I just tried to deal with things the best I could. Perhaps our perspectives differ because I was never accorded any respect as a child growing up so when I entered the military, and they treated me far better than my family, it was a win of a sort, in spite of bad boy behavior. And I learned to hold my own with the men to a certain degree.
Here's the thing - if you are a woman and you are breaching the portals of a spoiled boys club, you are going to face headwinds and harrassment. Getting pissed about it does nothing. Just put your head down and pursue your course and let the slings and arrows roll off your back. Barbara Walters said it best. She was asked in an interview how she survived the "Mad Men" era of 60s media. She said "I ignored it." This is powerful. And it's how I overcame child abuse and many other challenges in my life. I worked very hard not to allow the negatives to deter me or even consume my focus.
You create what you focus on. It's that simple.
Things are getting better, btw. There are thousands of organizations devoted to lifting women up and I am on the board of directors for one of them. This suits my philosophy - I would rather work to empower women than fight against men. This approach will get us further, faster. YMMV. Be well! :-)
What is the UMC? Unaccountable Media Corporations?
It's interesting how values are promulgated to successive generations; partly by parents, partly by schools and organizations, partly by media (including social media today). Often through fiction, like with relatable characters demonstrating traits in positive or negative ways. The cultural elites who were among the first infected with neo-progressivism (or wokeness if you prefer) are very aware of this.
I recall being very impressed at some early age by an episode of a TV western, The Rifleman, where the protagonist defended somebody coming through town and expressing unpopular ideas, even while not agreeing with the man. It was like a version of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." framed for TV viewers and children. I think it had an effect on the values I internalized.
So what values are children's media instilling in kids today? And what values have been instilled over recent decades?
I agree that showing positive and respectful portrayals of working class folks, and of skilled tradespeople, would be helpful.
Upper Middle Class. Agree with the rest. I think media has been an outsized influence and it would be nice if they would take more responsibility. Doubt if we see it happen any time soon. Pardon my cynicism on this topic.
Yeah, I think they are more focused on being "accountable" for ending oppression and inequity while also somehow getting enough amygdala driven clicks & views to pay salaries, than on creating a functioning and sustainable society.
Hey, Unaccountable Media Corporations was pretty close, I should at least get a participation trophy.
"Perhaps we should be teaching some humility as well."
When an organization I volunteer for was undergoing a make over a few years back, including crafting mission statements, vision statements, values documents and all of that - on of the values was "humility". I kind of wondered about it then, as it was unlike the other values, and sounded more Christian (this was a very liberal California organization).
But I have since come to see that it's a critical value, being the antithesis (and possible partial antidote) to self righteousness. Whenever we are tempted to become a zealot or self-righteous, it's good to remind ourselves that we don't know the full truth, that some of our beliefs may be inaccurate and may need changing, that our prescriptions may have side effects we haven't realized.
I have come to see belief that one has the moral high ground as a spiritual and intellectual pitfall from which springs many injustices and misguided policies.
We kind of have to believe that our own take on things is likely more right than wrong, or we wouldn't forge ahead and engage with the world. But we don't have to be smugly sure of it, we can qualify our support of individual ideas or policies with our current degree of confidence, we can openly recognize which of our opinions should be treated as hypotheses we are trying out for now (with good reason to think are probably good, but no certainty). We need to be open to other views, and to feedback from reality. In short, we need some thoughtful humility or we become tyrants (or would-be tyrants waiting for a change to be on top, in control).
I very rarely see this kind of humility in neo-progressivism, and have never seen it valorized as a positive (let alone essential) trait. There is a poor facsimile in terms of fostering guilt and self doubt among those labeled "privileged" - but that's more like trying to break down all resistance and discard critical thinking, not a reasoned and nuanced balance. And those trying to tear down the "privileged" evince the opposite of humility, a smug certainty that they are on the right side of history and supporting designated oppressed folks, which means there is no need for respectful discourse - just execute the program as you have been told.
So I want to distinguish functioning humility from outwardly imposed (or internalized) self-abnegation. One is about fostering more awareness and moderation, the other about someone else seeking to gain power over us.
I would guess that I question myself several times a week, as I read and watch political things. I question whether I'm certain my take is right or is it possible that I'm wrong in part or whole. I question whether I'm setting up a strawman, or demonizing an opponent, or over simplifying. I have my own biases, and am subject to confirmation bias. And sometimes I rewrite or revise my internal dialogue. Less often, I try within myself to "steelman" an argument clumsily or emotionally made by an opponent - is there some nugget of (inconvenient?) truth buried under even an infuriatingly dishonest or inept argument?
And I do an imperfect job of all that.
Alas, I do not find this form of good faith discourse to be the norm, or even common. So we muddle on.
Absolutely. Your post inspired me to look it up. The connotation I was promoting is "freedom from pride and arrogance." Thanks for unpacking this further. Good stuff!
I think the dialogue was revealing, thanks for sharing it. He said:
> "cancel culture is not about moral suasion or transforming the moral universe of the aggressor. It is about power, and stripping them of their platforms that allow them to spread such views. "
He finally put his cards on the table. We haeve to believe him, that questions of "learning" or "growing" or "redemption" really are irrelevant to him and many like him, because they don't care about any of that. They are after power, and any morality assertions are shallow tactics for gaining power, nowhere near any core issue.
You are trying to say "we are all humans trying to get along and to find the best path, and we need to cut each other some slack along the way, see bad or misguided past behavior in context, and mutually grow as we learn to do better". And his response is basically "fuck that, I just want to get power by any means I can access, who cares about persuasion or understanding or growth". That in my opinion is often the case, but usually not so openly admitted.
Whenever I see somebody use the word "power", I ask myself "is this power from within, or power over other people?". Power from within involves growth, reflection, earned self-respect, earned confidence, and it's completely compatible with (and in fact works best with) other people also having power from within; win/win options (non-zero sum game) options are often possible, where each party can treat and be treated with respect and negotiate from their own clarity.
"Power over" is unidirectional, and incompatible with other people also being on top - it inherently must involve a win/lose. And it feels threatened by anybody with "power from within", because often (but not always) it's as important that the other person lose, as that one wins.
The outrage game, the victimhood game, the "accountability" game are all about obtaining "power over" by exploiting guilt and sympathy for weakness - specifically in this and many other ases, the power to control the narrative, the power to suppress viewpoints which might be persuasive if they can be heard.
The folks who want to deplatform Joe Rogan (and others) NEVER EVER (that I have seen) suggest that their audience listen to a representative sample - seeing full context - and judge for themselves. In fact, they urge just the opposite - take my word for it, and avoid tainting your ears by exposure to a source I have told you is not only wrong, but morally tainted such that decent folks should never see it for themselves, or be allowed to see it for themselves.
Progressives and liberals were not always like that; that is one reason that I call this neo-progressivism, which differs from traditional progressivism in key ways (another being whether they demonize or valorize the working class, or alternately whether their core base is in the social, media, educational and financial elites or in the working class). I see distorted versions of the traditional values and framing of progressivism in this new ideology, mixed in with ideas and framings which are nearly the opposite of traditional liberalism and progressivism. When I moved to the left in my youth, it was far less dogmatic and more welcoming to open discussion and free thinking. Neo-progressivism (wokism, successor ideology, identitarianism, whatever) is quite different in nature.
And the tactics which are used to gain more "power over" have a lot to do with that change. Rather than "stop discriminating and give us an even chance because we are confident that we can success on the same terms", it has become "we (and/or our protectees) are weak and easily wounded, so you must apply different rules, and give us unearned "power over" to control society, or else". Coming to rely on that kind of tactic is inherently corrupting, even if the original goals were very well intentioned.
The Prime Directive of neo-progressive ideology is "Reinforce the Narrative (of Oppression) at all costs" because the Narrative of Oppression is the source of our power over other people (not one's own ability or skills or accomplishments or persuasiveness or example). That means they have to control the mindspace, like a modern army trying to control the airspace over the battlefield. There must not be any marketplace of ideas, because they do not have confidence that their ideology could survive open scrutiny. They must try to deplatform any "wrong think". And they must try to demonize any source they cannot sufficiently suppress - convincing devotees that to actually read or view any dissent would be to be morally tainted by exposure to "right wing trash". Better to stick to believing the priesthood of Neo-progressivism, cheer and boo when the tribal cue cards tell you, and enjoy smugly mocking the strawmen that the leaders create for you.
Has anybody else noticed something similar to this? Does it resonate as a valid facet of the complex truth of society today?
"He finally put his cards on the table. We have to believe him, that questions of "learning" or "growing" or "redemption" really are irrelevant to him and many like him, because they don't care about any of that."
Yeah, I was impressed by his honesty here too!😅 It's not often that cancel culture's defenders even admit that it exists, never mind that it's about exerting power over others. And yes, in my experience of dealing with these modern-day puritans, the point is entirely power over others. But not in a way that has any political ends (or at least the ends are incidental). The primary goal seems to be the same as the typical bully; a way to calm their own insecurities and/or self-loathing by finding a target to attack.
I think you're spot on about the lack of interest in nuance and a fair hearing of the offenders' "crimes", but I think the reason so many of them are willing to do this is that they don't really care what the person said. They aren't even particularly interested in defending an ideology, and certainly not in making the lives of any particular group of marginalised people better. They want a target that they can attack whilst being praised by their peers. They want to be able to indulge their darkest, most vindictive instincts but still tell themselves the they're the "good guys." It's genuinely horrifying to see this psychosis spreading.
Later thoughts. Back the the quote from your correspondent:
>" cancel culture is not about moral suasion or transforming the moral universe of the aggressor. It is about power, and stripping them of their platforms that allow them to spread such views. "
That identifies one of the goals - direct deplatforming of an ongoing source.
But cancel culture has other facets as well. For example, Majdi Wadi was a Palestinian Muslim businessman (selling middle eastern food) in Minneapolis, supporting a mixed race community and Black Lives Matter, when somebody discovered some terrible racist and homophobic tweets by his daughter from many years previous when she was a mixed up teenager. She (who had radically changed since that time) was by then marching with BLM protestors; she apologized profusely and denounced the sentiments of those old tweets; her father fired her and apologized, tried to find a path towards redemption. (As mentioned previously, cancelling is not primarily about moral growth or redemption, but about gaining "power over").
But the company got pretty well cancelled, losing their contracts, being kicked out of a lease, had to move for safety, lay off 69 employees, etc. In this case, there was no platform being used to spread wrongthink - indeed there was no platform (the company wasn't a media company and had never been used as a platform) and no current or ongoing bad things happening on any other platform - just some long buried immature and wrongheaded tweets from a teenage daughter. Cancelling was punitive, and retributive, and disproportional, and was in no way protecting people from ongoing wrongdoing or harm. (See Bari Weiss' substack for more)
So "shutting down the ability for person to engage in ongoing bad speech or behavior" is not the only purpose of cancel culture or of flexing power. Sometimes it's just to intimidate and show the world how much "power over" a narrative or group has.
"Cross us, no matter whether there is real harm or not, and we can get you fired, get leases canceled, get contracts cancelled, get businesses damaged or closed, and make your family afraid by publicizing your names and sponsoring protests at your home and business"
And if the attempt to flex that cancellation power fails (as in the case of folks like Joe Rogan/Spotify and Dave Chappelle/Netflix), boy does that grind their gears. Not just because somebody might still have a platform for future unapproved speech, but perhaps even more so because they hate to have the limits of their power to destroy demonstrated, even in exceptional cases like these. (They can still destroy lesser folks).
"For example, Majdi Wadi was a Palestinian Muslim businessman (selling middle eastern food) in Minneapolis, supporting a mixed race community and Black Lives Matter, when somebody discovered some terrible racist and homophobic tweets by his daughter from many years previous when she was a mixed up teenager."
Yep, I mention this story in the article. It's such a perfect example of everything wring with this brand of "justice". And positively dystopian that he actually fired his daughter over the tweets in a desperate attempt to save his family business. How anybody involved, from the people on social media applying pressure, to the leaseholders and other business who reacted by disavowing the company, felt as if they were doing the right thing is totally beyond me.
Again, this is just evidence that this isn't about doing the right thing at all. In no moral universe I want to live in was that the right outcome.
Othering based on self-righteousness is a brain high (I'd love to know the chemistry involved) that makes the humanity of the person being othered invisible to the person othering them. This pattern is insidious. It can make people who otherwise appear normal and compassionate into monsters. I've had first-hand experience with this phenomenon. No appeal will sway them from seeing things a certain way. They are right. And that's that. It's the hardest rock I've ever banged myself against. I've twisted myself into pretzels trying to reach someone on the other side of othering. And I never was successful in convincing them that they were hurting me and that I didn't deserve their enmity. I had to remain the scapegoat in order for their worldview to stay intact.
Perhaps you've exposed some of the truth of this phenomenon when you tie it to revenge. When we deliberately seek to harm someone out of malice, it is frowned on by society. But, if we can gin up a good enough excuse as to why we must harm, then it's not malice, it's justified and legitimate. And, what greater excuse than that of "I was or am a victim. Someone hurt me so therefore, I am pushing back." Who can argue with someone standing up for themselves? “'Cancel culture' may have started out in good faith (much like Christianity) but it has since morphed into something gross and ugly.” - Nicole Chardenet
Maybe the whole thing is about legitimating revenge.
Outside the Wall
All alone, or in two's
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall
Some hand in hand
And some gathered together in bands
The bleeding hearts and the artists
Make their stand
And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall
—Pink Floyd, The Wall
"Has anybody else noticed something similar to this? Does it resonate as a valid facet of the complex truth of society today?"
Yes, although you put it far more succinctly than I could have. Which leads to the question - how do we harness our own personal power against these weak-ass pretenders? Without seeking power over others ourselves which is ultimately self-defeating and validates the idea that absolute power corrupts, and power corrupts absolutely?
I'm reminded of the olden days of the Catholic Church (which only ended in the 20th century) when they told the flock, "Don't read the Bible yourselves, let us read it to you, you'll interpret it wrong, we know what we're doing." It's why they feared the Gutenberg printing press - holy fuck, what if the literate read this and tell the illiterate morons what it REALLY says?
I've been thinking for awhile that maybe where we need to apply the pressure is in academia and the corporate world who are, pardon my vulgar French, a big bunch of pussies when it comes to standing up to the unemployed, psychologically disturbed rabble with too much time on their hands.
https://newdiscourses.com/2021/05/bourgeois-overproduction-problem-fake-elite/
Also, Thomas Sowell covers the topic of college-educated failures and their impact on social cohesion in his book “Intellectuals & Society.” Apparently, it's a known phenomenon.
This ties in handily with pushing too many kids into academic educations and the resulting fallout - which is that many, many jobs in the skilled trades are going vacant presently because we haven't stressed vocational training for at least the past several decades. That said, it's always been an upper class meme that there is something lesser, even shameful about working with your hands and so it makes sense that people interested in social mobility would pursue academic training rather than vocational.
Who would have thunk that an overabundance of educated people would result in a weakened, fractured society? That empowering people through education would lead them to strive for "power over" rather than simple being empowered. Perhaps we should be teaching some humility as well.
Ironically, I spoke with two plumbers last week for a sales campaign I'm on who addressed the problem of not being able to find good help. They need young people, willing to learn the business. Not many want to do the dirty work, or are willing to learn; one pays for courses for them but they don't do the work; they won't read the material and always have some excuse for why they didn't. These young people aren't reliable, both say, and they can't get or hang on to a driver's license, which they often lose due to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or they didn't pay their child support (not sure how that works, may vary state to state, this is a US campaign) which you can't be on drugs or alcohol when you're a plumber. They're both willing to train but the young won't stick with it. So, this kind of lends something to what's behind the story of *some* (not all!) lazy younger generation members. And something to think about when the unemployment numbers roll around. I asked these guys about folks from lower-class backgrounds without criminal backgrounds and they said they've tried them but they're lazy and don't do the work - and BTW neither these guys nor I talked colour at all, but one I'm pretty sure was black, a successful business owner himself. One of them, I forget which, complained about how 'overeducated' the young are, how they got sold on a college education but can't get a job and don't want plumbing work, although, *good* home improvement people don't come cheap (do you really want a third-rate plumber fixing your septic system?) Okay, plumbing work is REALLY unsexy and unglamourous but these are similar complaints I've heard for a month from the HVAC set, where the work is unglamorous but a lot less unseptic.
Good point about social mobility and a disdain for manual labour. Now we've got teachers leaving the profession in droves because one of the most critical, valuable intrinsic-to-survival jobs pays so little, and offers mostly neglect, disdain from parents and administrators, and often outright abuse from untamed children that they're throwing in the towel. America, I sometimes fear, is doomed, and it was a joint effort by partisans, hacks and lazy thinkers on both sides.
I do want to wonder about how little teachers are paid. Locally, around the time we moved to California 17 years ago, there was a big issue about teachers, and the paper dug up salary information for local school districts. The median pay for teachers was about $70K, for less than 12 months work. If that was the median, imagine what most were making by the time they retire. At the time, a social worker with similar training was generally paid significantly less.
This is in a semi-rural county on the periphery of the SF Bay Area, for context.
I'm NOT against teachers, but I think we need to find out how much a particular district pays before automatically assuming the stereotype of being underpaid is always true. Even in our area, some districts paid significantly more than others.
How about women in the trades?
Jordan Peterson likes to cite the extreme sex disparity in bricklaying and ask why feminists are not trying to get more women into the field.
There are a couple of reasons: real physical differences, and seeking equal outcomes in regard only to higher status desk jobs.
The latter influence is shared by educated young men as well.
From what I've heard, Germany does a better job of providing a respected path towards the trades as a parallel track to college, and the effect on their society is said to be positive. That's the kind of solution that old style progressives might really get behind - but the new elite-based neo-progressives find unappealing.
I went the higher education route myself, but I have a real respect for the folks who can get stuff done in the real world. We recently had an earthquake retrofit (bolting the frame to the foundation) done, and the young men doing the work were very polite, communicative, and respectful. And I respect them in turn.
I hope that liberals do not push more and more of the working class into "the other camp" through their elitism.
Thanks for sharing this anecdote. It is instructive.
We have become spoiled and in turn spoil our children because life has become progressively easier as technology and infrastructure have become more sophisticated. It is an unfortunate externality of the pursuit of comfort. In addition to this, glam is sold by Hollywood and the American marketing engine (unparalleled in the world) as the only desirable course (note the popularity of the Kardashians and the glam coiffures and clothing and jewelry pushed in all reality shows). Of course glam is faux and superficial and is a path that leads away from true substance and character building. And yet, because our visual sense is our most powerful, we get sucked in and our psyche gives it weight - as if it matters more than character or honor. Even I am not immune and I know better.
Somehow, we need a marketing campaign that "glamorizes" getting dirty and sweaty, building muscle and character and working outside in some cases. One thing I have learned in my life is that even good ideas have to be sold to people. The UMC always sets the cultural tone in any society and right now, the UMC is behaving very badly toward the working classes - demonizing and shaming them in the worst way possible. And the press are their handmaidens—gleefully communicating this arrogance and malice (at times) into the ether for all to consume.
There was an article by a reporter a couple of months ago asking whether it was okay to hire and/or speak to a plumber because the homeowner suspected that he was a likely Trump voter. I mean, seriously? This author was considering whether it was okay to dehumanize this guy in the full light of day simply over suspected (not even proven) political beliefs. The condescension and arrogance on display with this virtue signaling/fear mongering is just staggering! https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/13/donald-trump-class-rural-white-democrats-glenn-reynolds-column/96413412/
Of course, as you point out, our younger classes also have not been taught a healthy work ethic. They have not been taught to take pride in a job well done; to strive for excellence regardless of whether you are getting paid for it or not. We have the power to change this. Where there is a will, there is a way.
"Somehow, we need a marketing campaign that "glamorizes" getting dirty and sweaty, building muscle and character and working outside in some cases. One thing I have learned in my life is that even good ideas have to be sold to people."
...And also detoxify these trades for young women. I have a female friends who is a pipe layer and works with mostly men and when she was living and working here in Toronto years ago she told me about how misogynist they could be, especially after listening to Toronto's top morning drive show host who had, like most morning drive show hosts, the emotional maturity and enlightened attitudes of a 14-year-old boy. She said while listening to this shitbrain the guys became more misogynist, and then calmed down an hour or two after the show was off the air. It doesn't help when you're locked into an 'old boys' network', emphasis on the 'boys'.
Point taken. But you can learn to navigate this. I was in the Army, one of the most misogynist boys clubs around. And, I not only survived but learned a few tricks and how to stand up for myself. Believe it or not, it is a known fact that within the Army, units that include female soldiers like support, medical, commo, admin, the men behave in a more civilized fashion. So, she needs to recruit a second female and/or learn how to clap back when they get out of line. Just a thought.
Oh, my friend sounded like she handled them like a pro. But, the environment shouldn't be permitted in the first place. The military is famously an institution that doesn't protect women, even to this day. I don't doubt it's a great place to learn how to stand up for yourself, but it's also a good place to get raped - happened to a veteran friend of mine, multiple times. And I don't know if you're old enough to remember Shannon Faulkner, the first female student at The Citadel....they destroyed her, and she'd already gone through a lot just to get in there.
Terribly sorry to hear this and I hope that your friend's perps were punished. And I am old enough to remember SF. Although at least one of her peers has a different take on that situation: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/shannon-faulkner-ruined-feminism-for-the-citadel Of course the harrassment, bullying, sexual assault and career-path sabotage shouldn't be allowed and some strides have been made although there is still much work to be done. But, for the women who have to blaze the trails to this equitable future, we have had to be strong and endure because that future doesn't exist now. And we have to deal with what is in front of us right now. I was suggesting a strategy for coping with the realities on the ground right now. Institutions are coming around but in the mean time, we have to learn to protect ourselves.
And, I would say your friend is not "locked" into an old boys network but chose to go there most likely knowing that there would be resistance. And, it sounds like she IS handling it. So, more power to her. She is a pioneer who is making it easier for those who come behind her. This is the same for many women in the military as well.
What a gawdawful article that is. 'Francis' is a misogynist pig and blames Shannon Faulkner for not having what it takes to put up with a helluva lot of shit from a bunch of misogynist pigs. On top of that, he then admits that female cadets have to work much, much harder even today because The Citadel is still a refuge for misogynist pigs who call it 'leadership building'. It's bloody unequal and unfair and it doesn't do a thing to move equity mindset forward. At least for the thirty women who came after the VMI fight, they had each other. Faulkner may have lacked some gumption but she also DID expend a lot of energy just to get in, and she scared the shit out of a bunch of misogynist pigs who are terrified of having to accept women as anything other than sexual objects. Oh, and that guy's such a man he doesn't even write this under his full name. What a pussy! Then again, what do you expect from an institution that's as terrified of vaginas as they are?
In Susan Faludi's book Stiffed (referred to here as 'just out' but it came out more than ten years ago), about American masculinity, there's a bit about Faulkner. Here's an excerpt of what she had to put up with to, I don't know, build 'leadership' or some bullshit:
https://cyber.harvard.edu/vaw00/Faulkner.html
I've had a low opinion of The Citadel since then, and you just reinforced it massively. This little wuss had it easy, since no one was 'testing' his leadership skills like they 'test' their female cadets. I'm with you on the need to be strong and endure - the world is an unfair place - but that doesn't mean we have to reinforce it by not challenging our own mindsets. Sounds like at the Citadel, that's only for women, not for the boys.
Not sure how to respond to this. I prefer not to be angry about that state of affairs in the military. I just tried to deal with things the best I could. Perhaps our perspectives differ because I was never accorded any respect as a child growing up so when I entered the military, and they treated me far better than my family, it was a win of a sort, in spite of bad boy behavior. And I learned to hold my own with the men to a certain degree.
Here's the thing - if you are a woman and you are breaching the portals of a spoiled boys club, you are going to face headwinds and harrassment. Getting pissed about it does nothing. Just put your head down and pursue your course and let the slings and arrows roll off your back. Barbara Walters said it best. She was asked in an interview how she survived the "Mad Men" era of 60s media. She said "I ignored it." This is powerful. And it's how I overcame child abuse and many other challenges in my life. I worked very hard not to allow the negatives to deter me or even consume my focus.
You create what you focus on. It's that simple.
Things are getting better, btw. There are thousands of organizations devoted to lifting women up and I am on the board of directors for one of them. This suits my philosophy - I would rather work to empower women than fight against men. This approach will get us further, faster. YMMV. Be well! :-)
What is the UMC? Unaccountable Media Corporations?
It's interesting how values are promulgated to successive generations; partly by parents, partly by schools and organizations, partly by media (including social media today). Often through fiction, like with relatable characters demonstrating traits in positive or negative ways. The cultural elites who were among the first infected with neo-progressivism (or wokeness if you prefer) are very aware of this.
I recall being very impressed at some early age by an episode of a TV western, The Rifleman, where the protagonist defended somebody coming through town and expressing unpopular ideas, even while not agreeing with the man. It was like a version of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." framed for TV viewers and children. I think it had an effect on the values I internalized.
So what values are children's media instilling in kids today? And what values have been instilled over recent decades?
I agree that showing positive and respectful portrayals of working class folks, and of skilled tradespeople, would be helpful.
Upper Middle Class. Agree with the rest. I think media has been an outsized influence and it would be nice if they would take more responsibility. Doubt if we see it happen any time soon. Pardon my cynicism on this topic.
Yeah, I think they are more focused on being "accountable" for ending oppression and inequity while also somehow getting enough amygdala driven clicks & views to pay salaries, than on creating a functioning and sustainable society.
Hey, Unaccountable Media Corporations was pretty close, I should at least get a participation trophy.
You crack me up. Here you go: 🏆 ;-)
The article was roughly 5 years ago. Apologies for the error.
"Perhaps we should be teaching some humility as well."
When an organization I volunteer for was undergoing a make over a few years back, including crafting mission statements, vision statements, values documents and all of that - on of the values was "humility". I kind of wondered about it then, as it was unlike the other values, and sounded more Christian (this was a very liberal California organization).
But I have since come to see that it's a critical value, being the antithesis (and possible partial antidote) to self righteousness. Whenever we are tempted to become a zealot or self-righteous, it's good to remind ourselves that we don't know the full truth, that some of our beliefs may be inaccurate and may need changing, that our prescriptions may have side effects we haven't realized.
I have come to see belief that one has the moral high ground as a spiritual and intellectual pitfall from which springs many injustices and misguided policies.
We kind of have to believe that our own take on things is likely more right than wrong, or we wouldn't forge ahead and engage with the world. But we don't have to be smugly sure of it, we can qualify our support of individual ideas or policies with our current degree of confidence, we can openly recognize which of our opinions should be treated as hypotheses we are trying out for now (with good reason to think are probably good, but no certainty). We need to be open to other views, and to feedback from reality. In short, we need some thoughtful humility or we become tyrants (or would-be tyrants waiting for a change to be on top, in control).
I very rarely see this kind of humility in neo-progressivism, and have never seen it valorized as a positive (let alone essential) trait. There is a poor facsimile in terms of fostering guilt and self doubt among those labeled "privileged" - but that's more like trying to break down all resistance and discard critical thinking, not a reasoned and nuanced balance. And those trying to tear down the "privileged" evince the opposite of humility, a smug certainty that they are on the right side of history and supporting designated oppressed folks, which means there is no need for respectful discourse - just execute the program as you have been told.
So I want to distinguish functioning humility from outwardly imposed (or internalized) self-abnegation. One is about fostering more awareness and moderation, the other about someone else seeking to gain power over us.
I would guess that I question myself several times a week, as I read and watch political things. I question whether I'm certain my take is right or is it possible that I'm wrong in part or whole. I question whether I'm setting up a strawman, or demonizing an opponent, or over simplifying. I have my own biases, and am subject to confirmation bias. And sometimes I rewrite or revise my internal dialogue. Less often, I try within myself to "steelman" an argument clumsily or emotionally made by an opponent - is there some nugget of (inconvenient?) truth buried under even an infuriatingly dishonest or inept argument?
And I do an imperfect job of all that.
Alas, I do not find this form of good faith discourse to be the norm, or even common. So we muddle on.
Absolutely. Your post inspired me to look it up. The connotation I was promoting is "freedom from pride and arrogance." Thanks for unpacking this further. Good stuff!