You know me, I'm all about scorched earth. — frank

I know you're a very reasonable guy, and I'm not trying to accuse anyone here as a culprit (though all of us have contributed to these problems in part); I'm really trying to get at the the effects of our mass movements, for which as individuals we're only marginally responsible.

It happens within all groups, and it used to go something like this:

Person A does or says something offensive, and as a response Persons B through Z spit at Person A to let them know how they feel and to correct the statement or behavior.

That's informal distributive justice. But in the digital era, it instead goes like this:

Person 1 does or says something offensive, and as a response, Persons 2 through 200,000 issue negative and direct digital response while Persons 200,001 through 400,000 harass Person 1's family and employer.

Each individual is just doing what comes naturally, but they don't realize that together they form a Mega-Zord of disproportionate guilt and retribution...

Scruton is only my concern in so far as his sacking represents a greater trend (first they came for Scruton and I said nothing...). We need to loosen up, the lot of us, and somehow get over our differences, because we're far too trigger happy and our guns have far too much range.

The MAGA kid (the one who was grinning at the Native American) is an example that comes to mind. The MAGA kids were there to protest abortion (stupid I know, but within their rights), and had been harassed for about an hour by a gaggle of racist "Black Israelites". Then a native activist marched right up to him and started pounding a drum in his face, and the kid handled it the best way he knew how. Meanwhile, as the video of his colonial grin and apparently thug like behavior was making its rounds, it infuriated so many people that it instantly birthed a vengeful movement against him. Celebrities like Kathy Griffin were demanding his identity and address on twitter (so that thousands could harass him at once), all because of a video devoid of context. He was a minor, and what the public and news media did to him was beyond irresponsible (it was gross and wanton negligence), but we just couldn't help ourselves. When I first saw the video, I was absolutely furious. I have Native American heritage, and what that kid appeared to do was beyond the pale. I wanted to lash out at him by whatever means that I could, but thankfully I'm either too lazy or too highfalutin to wax vulgar against a child (as far as I recall).

But now imagine if the MAGA kid was in fact an incorrigible racist who harassed peaceful protestors, which would have made the mob-style reaction to him somewhat justifiable. What would it have achieved? The kid himself would probably have to double down on his ideology (else he would be admitting wrongdoing) and every other vocal racist would sally from under their rocks to comfort and defend him. It would just lead to more conflict, and the politically diametrically opposed would just wind up hardening their beliefs. In response they would emotionally entrench themselves further, and the traumatic experience of being harassed and cajoled by society at large would surely either break or radicalize him.

It's experiences like this that make me reluctant to allow these kinds of vengeful emotions to cloud my opinions, especially as they apply to individuals. In the digital age we have new powers, and with new powers come new responsibilities that we don't yet fully understand. The need for civility on the individual level is paramount, evidenced by the circus we now call daily life. Since the weapons have become more deadly, we need a new code of honor that protects our vital organs, else open political discourse becomes too dangerous. This is why even if Scruton turns out to be thoroughly sexist, I would still try to dissuade others from crusading against the man himself. Let his ideas fail on the open market rather than by taking action to restrict access to his ideological products, lest we fuck the entire economy down the road.

If unity is what you're after, you should at least throw the lynch mob a bone. Tell them you understand why they're concerned. Acknowledge their fears. Acknowledge the tragic events that are generating their angst. Maybe then point out to them that there are victims they're overlooking, one of them being the first amendment. — frank

I try. I really do. I try every vector of persuasion that I can muster, but I'm starting to get tired of repeating the same songs and dances over and over. Our attitudes are driving each other more and more crazy, and instead of taking a step back we just take two blind steps forward (and firmly into the haze of our own bullshit). I'm not perfect either. I allow outrage to flavor my reactions far too often; we all need to mature and be better.

In the spirit of embracing our apparent opposition in good faith, let's take advice from the absolute sage, Melania Trump: "Be best".

If one is simply vexed over the issue of free speech then this story regarding a children's speech pathologist in Texas who was fired because she refused to sign a pledge stating that she would not engage in any economic boycott of Israel should be more alarming. — Maw

You forget to mention that she has had success in her lawsuit (or the pressure group Council on American-Islamic Relations, which filed the lawsuit on her behalf), so maybe the legal system is still working in Texas. See Texas speech pathologist celebrates temporary free-speech win, hopes it inspires. Amawi, an US citizen and a person of Palestinian origin, has stated in her lawsuit that she has “seen and experienced the brutality of the Israeli government against Palestinians.” So obviously she takes it seriously.

If one is indeed vexed over the issue of free speech, one can debate the actions of the Texas legislator with having laws that state that certain state agencies shouldn't contract with and invest public funds in companies that boycott Israel.

Just as I said myself earlier, this is an example of how free speech is curtailed, just in this occasion on the opposite side of the political spectrum. It's quite common that some Muslim criticizing Israeli policy is labeled as an anti-semite. But of course for the political tribalist, only their own one side matters, they are the one's unjustly and viciously attacked while as any complaints from the other side are totally fictional, delusional and simply wrong (as the accusations are totally justified). Or they couldn't care less.

Yes. In a sense, there is a circle of vice ( the vicious) where the bullied (victims) can become the bullies. — Amity

I'd say those that portray themselves as defending the victims are the one's that really are the bullies.

I understand what you're saying. It just makes people feel good about themselves to shit on somebody else. Combine that with a sense of self righteousness and it's an addictive drug. As you say, the internet facilitates that and eliminates the risk.

Appealing to people to stop that and grow a soul is admirable. I wouldn't worry if they don't seem to hear you. Life is the best teacher.

It just makes people feel good about themselves to shit on somebody else. Combine that with a sense of self righteousness and it's an addictive drug. — frank

This is 110% correct.

Not only do we have evolutionary endowed cognitive biases to contend with (e.g: our penchant to only care about apparently immediate threats, such as our neglect of climate change and our focus on transsexual MTFs in women's bathrooms), we've got new social systems ('networks') that have an ass-backwards reward system (being outraged gets you insidious emotional attention).

And on top of that, we've got psychotic Zuckerberg types who are dumb enough to let learning algorithms maximize clicks, which amounts to finding out what has the largest psychological impact on a given individual, and then dumping upon them a never ending torrent of bespoke click-bait.

And what tends to get the most clicks? Anything that incites rage...

It seems like we're already up shit creek without a paddle...Or more fittingly, the creek has dried up entirely, and we're all just paddling each-other's bare asses in the mud, muck, and shit of our own making...

Life is the best teacher. — frank

But death is the great equalizer. The best of us (the most wise, patient, knowledgeable, soulful) are generally our elders, so if we don't take advantage of them before they're gone, the average intellect may actually decline. As I grow older, I'm noticing how hordes and hordes of ignorant youth are seemingly springing out of holes in the ground, and bringing with them new or magnified ignorance which present a few problems (the way they use social media without self-control or moderation, for example).

Basically we need to acquire the right wisdom faster than we forget it, and it's going to take concerted additional effort to actually build up the awareness.

P.S Sorry to blather so lengthily at you (and thanks for reading). I'm just passionate about the subject and you're the nearest open ear :)

You forget to mention that she has had success in her lawsuit (or the pressure group Council on American-Islamic Relations, which filed the lawsuit on her behalf), so maybe the legal system is still working in Texas. See Texas speech pathologist celebrates temporary free-speech win, hopes it inspires. Amawi, an US citizen and a person of Palestinian origin, has stated in her lawsuit that she has “seen and experienced the brutality of the Israeli government against Palestinians.” So obviously she takes it seriously. — ssu

Well this is certainly good news, I was not aware of this recent update. Unfortunately, this legislation has been introduced in multiple states.

Looks like this has turned into the usual nonsense. The OP was asking about the sacking of someone based on claims of “Islamophobia” and “Anti-semitism”. Neither of those reasons seem to hold up regarding the quotes (purposefully selective quotes) in question.

I want all your names and will promptly post a letter of disapproval to your employers about all of your disgusting attitudes - I’ll also start a petition online for you all to be sacked.

Point being there are some deplorable things being said, relative to what Scruton said which led to his sacking.

So names and employer contacts please? ;)

All of what you've said so well is true. And yes, it's a problem. I just want to point out that while making this point, you have turned a blind eye to sexism and racism because it wasnt quite explicit enough to trip your alarms.

I don't accept the persecution of the people you've mentioned. I'm asking you to do what you advised: get it right. This is for both of us:

Latest privileged white academic in the firing line for having incorrect views is Camille Paglia. It was only a matter of time I guess.

Art students are trying to get the social critic fired from a job she has held for three decades

" A student cited those remarks in an email explaining why she supports the anti-Paglia protests: “As a survivor of sexual assault, I would never feel comfortable taking a class with someone who stated that ‘It’s ridiculous … that any university ever tolerated a complaint of a girl coming in six months or a year after an event,’ or that ‘If a real rape was committed, go friggin’ report it to police.’ Perhaps this is an ‘opinion,’ but it’s a dangerous one, one that propagates rape culture and victim-blaming. For this and other reasons, I find her place as an educator at this university extremely concerning and problematic.”

Yes. Let's definitely discuss that stupidity.

I'm not sure why you think it's appropriate to post with precisely the kind of thoughtless cant that one finds on Twitter, and which I'm trying to draw attention to.

You're in a position to censor it. Why don't you?

Thoughtless cant is allowed here; I wouldn't class your post as low quality in the context of this discussion.

It was thoughtless, inappropriate cant, but not low post quality?

Paglia stated that if a woman comes forward with accusations of rape six months or a year after the event, she should be ignored. Students were upset about that. This is from the article you posted.

There's nothing to discuss there. It's just ridiculous bullshit that the university ought to condemn.

Latest privileged white academic in the firing line for having incorrect views is Camille Paglia. It was only a matter of time I guess. — jamalrob

From that article:

There are, finally, political costs of illiberal activism. By targeting Paglia’s job, student activists may alienate people who are open to substantive critiques of her ideas, yet insistent on the absolute necessity of safeguarding a culture of free speech, regardless of whether the speech in question is “correct” or “incorrect.”

This is how I feel. Activating fire alarms when there is no fire is especially indefensible. Requesting that tenured professors be de-platformed is within their rights but also an attack on the essence of the university. It reminds me of book burning. Note that other professors at Paglia's institution were mostly afraid to speak on the record. Generally attacks on the individual as opposed to attacks on ideas drives dissent to an anonymous underground. And then the voting booth is a private place.

I didn't vote for you-know-who (his name is too much with us), but I understand his appeal on the PC issue. In our new world where an offhand comment or a moment of hyperbole can summon the digital mob, a person like you-know-how who refuses to apologize for linguistic sins starts to look heroic. Lately Bill Mahr used the terms 'SJW' and 'crybully,' and his liberal guests laughed. Are other people on the left getting fed up? Maybe the left can focus on the central-for-me issue that almost everyone can get behind: money.

It's just ridiculous bullshit that the university ought to condemn. — frank

I'm open to that point, but are we talking condemnation or censorship? Free speech only matters when it offends someone, when someone thinks it's ridiculous bullshit.

Personally I'm not sure that the university should deal with accusations of rape. Why don't we just use the criminal justice system? And is not plausibly a goal of feminism that victims of crime like rape report such crimes immediately when they are easier to prosecute? To be sure, Paglia is tactless on this issue during the interview, but I think her insights have value. Even if I didn't, I'd still defend her right to think against the grain of her peers. The alternative seems to be the reduction of the university to a joke or a seminary for PC theology (inasmuch as it bothers with these kinds of issues.)

I just want to point out that while making this point, you have turned a blind eye to sexism and racism because it wasnt quite explicit enough to trip your alarms.

I don't accept the persecution of the people you've mentioned. I'm asking you to do what you advised: get it right. This is for both of us: — frank

But what sexism or racism have I turned my blind eye to?

Do you really think that Scruton is the crocodile in this situation? That I'm just defending him because I think he can destroy me?

My point is that he wasn't being sexist. He was being puritanical with respect to masturbation. Saying that I'm turning a blind eye to sexism just begs the question of whether or not he is actually sexist.

But what sexism or racism have I turned my blind eye to? — VagabondSpectre

Earlier you accepted RationalWiki's assessment that he used to be sexist and homophobic. Have you changed your mind about that? Just give that a big juicy acknowledgement and we're done. I don't think either of us gives a rat's who advises the British government.

Do you really think that Scruton is the crocodile in this situation? That I'm just defending him because I think he can destroy me? — VagabondSpectre

If I was looking for a speech writer who could help me eloquently and passionately express the fears of all the Americans who believe that Trump's dog whistles to racists, whether it's "Law and Order" or the dangerous immigrants, are pulling at a scab over a wound that could easily erupt again into full blown social sepsis, it would be you. I'm not asking you to be paranoid. I'm not asking you to crucify people on the internet. I'm asking you to recognize that our society contains racist and sexist elements. All it takes is a lost war or an economic downturn to have them coming out into the open.

Maintaining an environment of hostility to racist and sexist views is not some leftist over-reaction. It's very much an expression of who we are. Sure, let them say what they want, but be clear and loud when they're wrong.

Latest privileged white academic in the firing line for having incorrect views is Camille Paglia. It was only a matter of time I guess. — jamalrob

I think we should set up an Outrage Bingo - the right-wing targeted version.

Other ones just waiting their turn to be 'Scrutonized' would have to be Christina Hoff Summers and professors Amy Wax and Janice Fiamengo. And all the horrible people in the Intellectual Dark Web.

Earlier you accepted RationalWiki's assessment that he used to be sexist and homophobic. Have you changed your mind about that? Just give that a big juicy acknowledgement and we're done. I don't think either of us gives a rat's who advises the British government. — frank

I should have been a bit more clear: the statements that were presented as evidence of sexism were not fundamentally sexist in nature. He may indeed be sexist or have been sexist, but if his statements don't reflect that (the statements being examined) then the charge falls flat.

It's a matter of due diligence.

And if indeed we can find blatantly sexist statements of his, we still may want to stay the wagons. Allegedly the man is no longer sexist and homophobic? If that's the case, why bring up faults that he has since corrected?

I'm asking you to recognize that our society contains racist and sexist elements. All it takes is a lost war or an economic downturn to have them coming out into the open. — frank

There's certainly racism and sexism in our society, but where and to what extent are hard questions to answer. I'm under no illusion that they're completely marginalized forces, but I also do not believe that they remain dominant forces in contemporary society.

I think Christina H Sommers is too tame to be whack-a-mole'd. It would just backfire, as she has no spinnable laundry (as far as I know).

Maintaining an environment of hostility to racist and sexist views is not some leftist over-reaction. It's very much an expression of who we are. Sure, let them say what they want, but be clear and loud when they're wrong. — frank

I do think hostility (verbal, emotional, or otherwise) is really the least productive course of action if it's someone's beliefs you're trying to change. Civil opposition is the thing.

For a second I would like to defend the impulse to castigate Scruton.

There are Scruton's ideas about sex being an interpersonal relationship between two people. For each, it is a relationship between self and other. He interprets masturbation during sex being a momentary cessation of that relationship, and sees (or saw) homosexuality as exploring someone who isn't other enough. That these are false I take as obvious, there are sexual contexts in which masturbation is still interpersonal. It is argued like a man who's never sucked a dick. Nevertheless, it is not necessarily sexist, insofar as it applies to men as well as women.

But really, what's at stake here is the social context of Scruton's ideas. Or the social context of Paglia's ideas. Or whatever martyred heretic we'd like to talk about. To the extent that shallow responses in our reactionary social media do not address themselves to the ideas in their philosophical context, we should be careful to interpret the responses not as off topic or as reductive (which they are, from the perspective of criticising the philosophy of the martyrs), but as focussed upon the norms of thought implicated and instigated by the expression of those ideas. It is in this regard that a government can be justified in revoking someone's position, or a newspaper justified in refusing someone a column. But it is also on this level, the level of the norms of discourse, that Twitter frenzies and other reactionary content act.

When people discuss Scruton's ideas, now for better or worse, they have been pulled into a social context away from the flowers in his country estate, his house with its stable, and the lairds gallavanting in the dale. Scruton's ideas become their echoes in discourse, a shallow projection onto a battleground of spittle and memes. One can distance oneself from this perspective, and wish for the days of yore when apparently discourse was not so reactionary, when simplifications did not propagate into received wisdom. But simplifications do propagate into received wisdom, internet debate is a market for attention, and the valued commodities are wit and pith.

Insofar as this medium is reactionary, it is grounded in its specular reflexivity; an alienated series of images signifying other images, simplifications upon simplifications, a world view condensed to 33 characters. Here in Dys among the other heretics, screams call for more screams. In the marketplace of ideas, attention buys more attention, magnifying outrage and outrage about outrage. In this medium, a call for sanity is still assigned a side, a call for sanity from both sides at best upends the table or leaves the game. At worst, the laments of the sane are a performative contradiction, pieces in a game they do not understand, or think in vain that their lamentation allows them to escape their place in Hell. They speak in others' voices in foreign words, like the simplified language of a migrant worker on another nation's soil. They cannot integrate without losing themselves in the throes of this unholy river, among the other corpulent bodies covered with the bloody detritus of the Styx.

In this medium, restraint casts only a shadow of madness, the bastard smile of a mutinous super ego conjured from the space between othering and the other. It plays the same part as the other it loathes, whether it likes it or not.

@VagabondSpectre You're really not hearing me. Lol. It's always cool to talk with you, though.

My apologies. But I think we only seem to disagree about whether or not Scruton's statements were actually sexist? (thankfully that's irrelevant to our larger agreement)

This is terrifying.

You're suggesting that by trying to stand firm against the constant septic flow, I'm creating as much foam and turbulence as anyone...

I confess that rings true, but it's not for lack of trying. How can I dispassionately play a game that demands passion as the ante?

Must we really join them?

Must we really join them? — VagabondSpectre

We all float down here, already.

We all float down here, already. — fdrake

:rofl:

Bravo!

Do you think democracy will be able to overcome this trauma with some kind of coming-of-age trial and triumph?

Do you think democracy will be able to overcome this trauma with some kind of coming-of-age trial and triumph? — VagabondSpectre

I don't think it's a threat to democracy, it rarely leads to disruptions in anything, or political movements. What is a continuing threat to democracy, a threat through omitted necessary action, is the reduction of politics to the perturbation or stabilisation of the norms of discourse (in social media). Our government institutions are now more than ever the HR department of international corporate power, and Twitter would need to be repurposed or 'reclaimed' by a real, global, social-democratic movement for it to in any way contribute to frustrating the desires of that power.

It's not even a 'distraction' or a 'waste of resources' if this becomes discourse, which is the way I think it's going. It's already political discourse, the powerful meet behind closed doors, they don't have to post on social media to have an impact. Even when that impact, the impact of all our thinking and desires, is only ever a caricature of the image of the world it wishes to create.

A caricature that makes lots of ad revenue, by the way.

I don't think it's a threat to democracy, it rarely leads to disruptions in anything, or political movements. What is a continuing threat to democracy, a threat through omitted necessary action, is the reduction of politics to the perturbation or stabilisation of the norms of discourse (in social media). — fdrake

But that's the rub isn't it? We're divided and conquered into these groups which are emotionally focused on the most trivial aspects of ourselves and the other, to the point that it crowds out any room for movements that don't match their attention-getting-power.

It's already political discourse, the powerful meet behind closed doors, they don't have to post on social media to have an impact. — fdrake

They just need to post on social media to have a following. The specific details of what they then do or don't do in office are largely beyond our average concerns.

Isn't there a tragic irony somewhere in this?

But that's the rub isn't it? We're divided and conquered into these groups which are emotionally focused on the most trivial aspects of ourselves and the other, to the point that it crowds out any room for movements that don't match their attention-getting-power. — VagabondSpectre

Social media = social life and discourse = politics make sense in a political system where individuals cannot influence all, or at least the most important, institutional influences on their lives. Twitter is far less the downfall of civilisation than a concentrated expression of the alienation of people from politics and their governments from power. It reflects the state of the world more than it creates it.

The subjectivities which make good use of Twitter are those who already resemble brands, the Ben Shapiros, the Sargons, the Stephen Frys. Our use of it is a tragic imitation of its optimality condition, trying to ram the square peg of our souls through the round hole of commodified personhood. No wonder we come out bloody.