In future, try being completely clear and straightforward like me. :halo: — Baden

I've found that a direct approach is often not feasible when it comes to very controversial subjects, although I do put in a lot of effort into doing so and with ample clarity (because yes, that's where it is most sorely needed).

Aside from the relative experimental freedom I enjoy in this place, in this case I could also blame my own desire to be shielded from personal exposure. My self-amputating tail, my thickened mane, and my bedazzling tail feathers help to protect my vital organs. I'm a peacock like any other, but I do repent.

Can I take credit for this? Pretty please. — fdrake

Half credit for tardiness! :naughty:

I value your perspective, and I appreciate the need for caution. — frank

:up:

I value your desire to see meaningful change (and I share it).

And by George, we've got our work cut out for us.

I'm most vulnerable to allegorical limericks!

I do apologize for the excesses of my rhetoric, but without color this subject is a real downer.

If I'm gonna be a broken record, I might as well make sweet sounds :grin:

Likewise, I'd never heard of Scruton before seeing this thread. The British government didn't eliminate his audience, it only removed itself from his company, making its sentiments clear. How is that a bad thing? — frank

It's not really a bad thing so far as I can tell, but we're approaching the line. Who gets to be in government ought to be democratically influenced. (The line we might mistakenly cross is holding someone's views against them when we ought not do so (if the views are irrelevant to the job, for example, then it might not make sense to defenestrate them, and if the views themselves are representative of their constituents, then the few might be going overboard by harassing them into resignation)).

I don't have any problems with the Sacking of Scruton, but I don't like the air of righteousness that seemed to surround it (although perhaps it is poetic, given that Scruton himself uses his own version of puritanical righteousness to substantiate his beliefs).

I'm not on facebook or twitter. I'm really only interested in the principles involved. I think we tried the completely uncensored internet. That resulted in the landscape being flooded with misinformation. If the goal is to protect democracy, we should at least make an effort to reduce misinformation, even if there is always more on the horizon. — frank

I agree totally with this (I also don't use twitter or facebook myself), but in taking up the objective to reduce misinformation, we should be careful not to liberally decide that certain political views amount to misinformation (disentangling the two is often difficult).

I don't propose being ruthless about it. We don't have to turn into China over it. BTW, have you heard about China's Muslim concentration camps? — frank

I have indeed. China isn't a democracy though (though it may claim to moonlight as such). China is a great example of why we can't have our emotionally progressive cake and eat it too. We need to deal with the unrest driving bits of political conflicts (and their ensuing resolutions) that China opts to black-out entirely for reasons of pragmatic efficiency.

I'm trying my best to not become the thing that I am criticizing, so please don't interpret anything I've written as a criticism of yourself. I too fancy myself a man of ideas, and really that's the inherent value I'm trying to promote.

But is there suddenly a dearth of whacky, objectionable, and generally fucked-up ideas out there? Has the volume on reactionary voices been turned so far down that we can no longer hear the anti-immigrant, homophobic, Islamophobic, sexist trumpets blowing? Or is the fear for a dystopic future where public figures are not allowed to be assholes and therefore we all forget how to think?

I don't see it. From the evidence of the thread I see:

1) The curmudgeonly unfortunately-not-yet-mummified Scruton losing one of his sidelines as a government advisor for some ill-judged use of language with the accusations against him appearing to be at least partly trumped up.
2) Camille Paglia being unsuccessfully assailed by some students exercising their free speech rights to try to punish her use of her ivory tower to fire thoughtless missives against sexual assault victims.
3) Major talking turd Alex Jones falling foul of social media company guidelines that, like our guidelines, result in the banning of minor talking turds on a regular basis.

The ideological warfare seems to be getting along fine and fears of peace seem greatly exaggerated. — Baden

Of course, in the red and brown misty heat of cultural warfare, the tits and the tats all seem above board, but in the long run our unwritten rules of engagement are changing from something like fight fair so the truth may out to we're right, therefore: go for the throat.

The latitude that we (used to?) give to our political opposition to freely showcase their ideas helps greatly (I think) to expedite our ability to come to mutual compromise across our various political aisles. Public figures don't dictate the beliefs of their followers by virtue of speaking them (hopefully), they ostensibly represent swaths of the general public whom they appeal to, so if our moods and methods force them all back into their own segregated nooks, the people they influence and represent are therefore unable to benefit from serious political dialogue and debate between them. In other words, Scruton goes back to writing obscure literature which may go unchallenged, Paglia schisms off with her own crowd, and Alex Jones, like a cockroach, not only survives, but thrives, and it becomes even more difficult for reasonable elements within mainstream to interact with or rebuke any of them.

The taboo zones we create are like no-mans lands that result from trench warfare. Our weapons are too deadly, and only the slipperiest kinds of a-holes remain free to tread there (example: Shapiro can deflect outrage with his gotchya gish gallop alone, Jones Overwhelms with volume and distraction, Paglia wields postmodern technicality like the shining shield of Hercules, and Scruton, with decreasing effectiveness, seems to build his nest as far away as possible from his opposition (deep within conservative thickets), but thanks to the increased range and accuracy of our weapons, that's no longer a viable strategy of political survival.).

Looking at these few anecdotes isn't all that convincing, and I'll admit I've been paying attention to this phenomenon for so long that I might be afflicted by confirmation bias, but there's definitely been a rise in political animosity and unproductive division. 28 Out of 30 canaries might still be chirping happily, but I can't stop worrying about the two that croaked.

As far as politics is concerned, neither qualification nor fame are more likely to make what I have to say more interesting or right, but qualification or fame just happen to be the university's criteria for offering a platform. If they extend that criteria to include, for want of a better word, 'political correctness', how is that any different? — Isaac

This makes perfect sense in theory, but things tend to play out a bit differently on campus. It's not so much qualifications that are being debated, it's disqualifications. Deplatforming isn't the mere denial of a platform to anyone without credentials, it's actually revoking the use of a platform by someone who ostensibly already has access to it (a subtle but important distinction)

In this sense, you aren't "de-platformed" at American universities because you were never platformed to begin with...

Taking Ben Shapiro as an example, he was "platformed" at various universities by conservative student unions who were interested in his ideas, but he was subsequently "de-platformed" by progressive student groups (and non-student protestors) who used force to shut down the conservative event.

The conservative union rented out an auditorium from the University to have a private event, and it was interrupted and shut down by people who were upset by its existence on campus. The real problem with this isn't that Shapiro suffers (in fact it was the best publicity he ever received), it's that some people are claiming the right to forcefully shut down the political organizing of others, and it's nothing but emotion and popular demand that allows them to pull it off. The damage there is that a bunch of students really wanted to hear Shapiros ideas, and so by shutting down the event, they interfered with the free speech of their fellow students who have every right to decide who they want to invite as a speaker at their private events.

The same goes for YouTube, Facebook etc. We don't all have an equal platform in these places either. Those with more money, fame, charm or even just dumb luck have a platform that others don't. Again, how is adding 'political correctness' to that list any more arbitrary? — Isaac

Because so many people hold ideas that others find to be politically incorrect, in practice we would just be appealing to 51% of the population to silence the other 49% (or worse, appealing to the vocal 1% to silence the bottom 50%.). "Political correctness" can more or less amount to a certain emotional frame of mind (the will to be sensitive to certain identity groups), and unfortunately different people have different levels of such emotion (one white man's dreadlocks are another mans microaggressions are another man's cultural appropriations are another man's systems of racist oppression). If you think about it, trying to institute a political correctness rule would just send us down the road of always kowtowing to the loudest source of outrage. What is and is not politically correct is contested, and constantly changes. Do you really want to put corporations and professional victims in that driver seat?

And suppose that Youtube and Twitter have become somewhat crucial tools for staying politically informed and engaged. Ought we think about some kind of fairness regulation to negate their ability to influence democratic outcomes (the influence of the corporations themselves, by virtue of deciding what is and is not politically correct). Before the era of Fox news, major news outlets were required by law to show both sides of a story. I don't think we need to erect such laws against major social media networks, but if we allow them to straight up delete opposing perspectives, then we might be royally fucking our ability to achieve political progress through dialogue and debate.

In a university setting, almost by definition, competing and critical views are absolutely required for students to actually improve their juvenile and often naive political frameworks. We don't mind exposing students to ideas that make them uncomfortable because they need to get used to the idea that they don't know everything, and that the best way to improve their knowledge is to actually challenge them. Universities cannot be helicopter parents to our mollycoddled guilt-spawn, and any attempt to do so will only lead to their intellectual ruination.

A safe space...

That's what the kids wanted...

A space free from ideas that challenge their own, and free of the people that hold them.

This is the very antithesis of learning and higher education.

-----

All that said, I want to clarify and restate that I'm not suggesting that universities should be inviting people just because they're controversial, or that we need to inflict emotional suffering in order to stimulate intellectual growth; what I'm suggesting is that we should not trod on the rights of one group in order to protect the emotional security of another group. Given that Shapiro was willingly invited by a group of students looking to exercise their civil rights of democratic engagement, the context is that of dis-invitation and sanction. By de-platforming Shapiro they're not just sanctioning Shapiro, they're sanctioning every student who paid for or wanted to attend the event for the crime of political wrong-think.

Boycotting is one thing, and forceful intervention is another. If you boycott something, people who still support it are free to do so. If you forcefully intervene, it's no longer political speech (it's merely an authoritarian shut-down of speech). It's easy to be unspecific about these things and to end up going wildly overboard (especially thanks to the emotion involved), which is why I think discussing things case by case is the only sensical way to proceed.

If we did decide to implement political correctness as globally enforced standard, who would we let decide what is and is not politically correct?

I don't usually watch videos posted online, but that is inspiring. The guest, Leon Castillo, was absolutely brilliant - so gentle, thoughtful and respectful. I wish he were the US president. The conservatives: Buckley and Meyer, were also civilised, polite and deferential. The mood was one of trying to jointly work towards a solution, rather than trying to score points off one another, which is what modern political discourse in the media so commonly is. — andrewk

I was pretty much blown away by the overall quality of it all, especially Castillo. While I am not a fan of Buckley's political views, I'm a big fan of his style and effort. What I found most surprising was that we have basically made zero progress since the filming of that episode in terms of the specific political debate, and that we seem to have actually regressed in terms of our general civility and willingness to engage openly and in earnest.

I want to de-platform people who say the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax perpetrated by gun control proponents.

You disagree? — frank

This is a great question. My answer is yes and no.

Is the platform government funded? If so, then it has no business wasting time on outlandish conspiracy theories, and we're democratically duty bound to demand satisfaction from our representatives.

Is the platform privately owned? If so, then it's something I would usually rather be solved through debate. De-platforming doesn't defeat ideas, it just sweeps them under the rug where they fester in the dark. By policing ideas on the platforms we do follow, we're just increasing demand for niche platforms that will cater directly to whatever it is we're censoring (and also inflating it (especially to rebellious youth) by making it seem forbidden).

"Platform" can mean many things in this context. If someone like Alex Jones publishes this kind of material on his own website, should we lobby his ISP or domain provider to cut him off? Should we lobby google to remove his material from search engine results or disallow his use of google ads? Should we criminalise spreading unreasonable conspiracy theories about atrocities? How far we are willing to go do "de-platform" someone, and what that actually means, can only really be answered by looking at specific cases.

Alex Jones might be the perfect case study. Not quite David Ike level crazy, but pretty close, Alex Jones was pushed out of the mainstream ("de-platformed") over a decade ago, so he turned to the newest and as yet unregulated forms of media to reach and build his audience. Now that new media is becoming the mainstream, his shitty views have caught up with him and once again he is de-platformed from places like faceboook, twitter, and youtube (which combined represent a very impressive market share of online dialogue). As before, he is just going to move into newer formats, and he will likely bring much of his existing audience with him. The main difference is that there will be few to challenge him in these new platforms. I'm definitely not saying that mainstream news outlets should have wasted any time trying to hear Alex out, but I am definitely saying that de-platforming alone might not make a lick of difference (it might even be counter-productive to our goals).

Online conspiracy theories are actually a billion dollar industry based on click value alone (ad-revenue), and since the 00's and early 10's there has been this endless rabbit hole of interlinked podunk websites (hundreds of thousands of them; think flashing gifs and a 5 mile long front-page) that profit from it. The sheer volume and density of bullshit they contain is enough to delude the best of us, and it's all so cloistered that there's no room for criticism (which is essential for them to grow in popularity). This is how and why the flat-earth community has been revived in the 21st century; cloistered and divided communities bereft of intellectual diversity, and marked by the inability to tolerate the presence of opposing views.

I don't think we should be platforming obviously ridiculous views, but if we make it a point to push them off their extant rocks and into the sea, they're out of sight and out mind, but not for very long (there's always more rocks). It's better to let Alex live or die on his Youtube or Facebook hill.

When it comes to making libellous or harassing accusations against grieving parents, I think that should be a matter for the courts (I don't think he should have the right to publish baseless claims in a way that directly harasses and invades the privacy of innocent individuals).

Personally, I want a diverse landscape; the tallest peaks, the flattest fields, and free-to-travel foot paths linking them all together.

But it feels like we've just discovered a new kind of siege technology, and it's changing the landscape:

We can form such large groups that we're able to put immense pressure on institutional facades, and they often have no choice but to cave, whether or not they should be allowed to stand or fall on its own merit (as opposed to our ire).

Once we can no longer safely exhibit our ideas above ground, what happens to democratic dialogue and debate? Instead of Ivory towers that are visible to all, architecture will move underground, like bunkers, and we'll have nothing left but our conflicts.

I 100% support moderated medical usage. It's so gratifying to see social mores about it change right before our eyes.

Also true about the impact on productivity, which is one of the few reasons I don't smoke it constantly!

This is a 1979 episode of William F. Buckley Junior's "Firing Line" titled: "The Problem of Illegal Aliens" (a title which would itself be controversial in some contemporary circles). Despite Buckley's status as a right wing darling, and despite his use of offensive language (less so when it was filmed), he manages to conduct a civil and somewhat nuanced discussion of Mexico-U.S immigration, and actually winds up looking far more progressive than many of his contemporary conservative counter-parts. Throughout this episode they discuss the exact same issues that have been such hot topics of late, and though we have 40 years of hindsight to benefit from, somehow they do a better job of it (much credit to his guest who did an excellent job of challenging Buckley et al.'s conservative assumptions).

This contrasts with contemporary discourse like an opera contrasts with a pair of mewling asses.



Here are some interesting timestamps:

Border wall: 15:00
Caravans and refugee boats: 29:31
Immigration in general: 40:00

Am I wrong to think that this is the kind of discourse that improves our democratic health?

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. — fdrake

I agree that it's the way we use the tool of social media that is the problem (because of what we are), and not the existence of social media itself, but I think it has made the symptom of political marginalization (of the middle and lower class to be specific) much more severe. Maybe I'm being naive, but it feels like the public was more in the loop before we exchanged specifics for pomp and optics. What meaningful discourse we did have has devolved into simplistic diatribe.

All that deep learning stuff on your posting habits is to map you onto a consumer identity, this is why social media synergises so well with advertising. You first have that advertising allows the commodification of potential; your potential attention increases the expected revenue through exposure to goods you may purchase, making the codification of your personality valuable intellectual property (yes, you don't own your cyberspace image, that is terrifying).

You then have the site explicitly tailoring the goods it shows you to maximise the purchase chance. This has the effect of associating a revenue stream, literally, with your eye movements and left mouse clicks. — fdrake

I think one half-solution to this will be anti-trust legislation that break up data monopolies, and also additional legislation to enforce stronger privacy rights, but the overall perverse incentives that have commoditized our identities are likely here to stay (so long as the digital spice road stays what it is).

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?

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?

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?

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)

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.

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 teenagers are most vulnerable to the paranoia. (maybe it magnifies angst for them). But generally it just chills people out (especially "indica" strains that are high in CBD, opposed to "sativa' strains that are higher in THC).

It affects everyone differently, and your attitude going into it will probably color your experience, should you choose to do so. Novice smokers get a lot more "high", so results vary most greatly with initial usage.

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.

He didn't. He wrote that Barr's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office’s work and conclusions." — Michael

And then when congress asked Barr if Mueller supported his summary of the principal conclusions, Barr lied and said he had no idea. That's the crime Pelosi is accusing him of.

Pelosi is accusing Barr if a crime. Apparently Mueller wrote to him prior to his testimony to Congress, informing him that his summary-not-summary was inaccurate. But when asked, Barr testified that he had no idea whether Mueller supported his summary or not.

Another sacrifice for the volcano?

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 :)

Get into the philosophy behind artificial neural networks, although it will require you to adventure into computer science.

We're on the lookout for "general artificial intelligence" that is as good or better than humans, but we are scarcely getting there. We can make the learning networks, but they can only learn one specific task at a time (we haven't figured out how to integrate multiple specific intelligence into one operant algorithm, which might be something not unlike "conscious thought").

I think trying to model a fish like intelligence through an artificial neural network (and maybe a simulation providing inputs) could actually be useful for isolating pieces of the more complex puzzle.

I tend to agree.

Maybe a section for featured threads (chosen somehow) could do something to up our quality game without ostracizing others, but I'm fairly satisfied as it is.

It's just too much work Jake. TPF is a charity, not a business, and what you ask for requires time and money to achieve.

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".

Probably not, but I wasn't looking to crucify anyone. We know Scruton is conservative and we know he's made comments about what women should and shouldn't do in bed. Suppose you tell me that you think it's sexist. Instead of telling you that I understand why you would think that, I tell you it's not sexism. There are two reasons I might do that:

1. I'm just really ignorant of the sexism attached to traditional attitudes about the sex act.
2. I am very worried about people over-reacting to every little sign of sexism, racism, religious intolerance, homophobia, etc. so that innocent people are being attacked. IOW, I'm over-reacting to the over-reacting. — frank

Should we find him guilty of being conservative or wanton opinion-having? Being sexually conservative isn't the same as being sexist, though there is often overlap.

It's not just that the quotes provided don't actually establish him as sexist, it's that we all seem to be on-board with head-hunting once we've agreed about his sexist nature. Not only can we easily get it wrong, but en masse we can't help but leave scorched earth in our wake.

Who was inappropriately deplatformed? — frank

Here's one short list from 2016.

Let's say a conservative student group rents out a university auditorium and invites Ben Shapiro to speak, but the event is shut down due to security concerns caused by protestors intending to disrupt the event.

On the one hand, Ben Shapiro is an annoying jackanape and I could care less about his success, but on the other hand, people have a right to to hear what he has to say without interference if that's their paying wish. In the same thread, putting PR pressure on the university to disallow such controversial speaking events is a dangerous game, because we're trying to achieve political gains by forcefully shutting down the speech of our opposition. It tends to backfire in numerous ways, and it's unjust to begin with.

That's what I understood to be jamalrob's view. It was sexism and therefore it doesn't qualify as a legitimate stance worthy of engagement. — frank

As far as I can tell what has been quoted so far isn't clearly sexist. It's crass, puritan, and insensitive (or over-sensitive?) but it's not sexist. The fact remains that a huge chunk of American's hold these kinds of sexually conservative views. Characterizing them as mainly sexist might to some degree be true, but it's not going to get us anywhere, and it's not productive to persecute Scruton as an effigy of sexism in general.

In fact, I don't think intolerance and general assholedness is ever going to go away. But I do think we should pay attention to the message we broadcast. — frank

I think we've been learning a lot lately about the problems of excessive division (especially as a result of social media), so we might be able to tone it down significantly. As Dr. King would have said, it is far better to be strong enough to return intolerance with love, because hate only begets more hate. Perhaps that's an impossible standard for many reasons, but it's the cure to our intolerance.

What's the effect of doing nothing when a person makes inappropriate remarks? Doesn't that send the message: 'Yes, that's ok. We're fine with that.' Doesn't that have to potential to create complacency? — frank

We should respond, but we should respond proportionately, and in pursuit of truth, not heads. The deplatform movement is a great example of how we can respond inappropriately; it's might makes right.

:scream:

I just can't resist posting this @Merkwurdichliebe:

Be water my friend:

In life, we tend to get what we pay for, and while we share the same desires, we would need to pay a premium.

Absolutely. But we shouldn't be apathetic about their words and the effect of their words. — frank

I agree, but quote mining 30 year old literature isn't exactly the front-line of social justice.

When it comes to countering the effect of Scruton's words, if they are sufficiently harmful then at some point sanctions of arbitrary force are justifiable, but if they are rooted in a larger framework of ideas (that many of his followers share), then ostensibly silencing through de-platforming wont actually work (other than to create a poster-(man)-child). So long as he has the right to hold and express his views, we need to primarily attack his ideas and their foundations rather than his platform, else were undermining our own right to hold and express our own views. In so far as he occupies any governmental advisory position, elected or otherwise, and in so far as we disagree with his beliefs and political views, it is also perfectly fine to lobby our representatives to ignore and replace him, but we should not take away his very right to be a lobbyist through social and emotional persecution.

What benefit would it serve to have him fired from a private conservative institution which follows his ideas? They'll just replace the man with an updated model and carry on with more of the same, so the underlying ideas, and their effects, remain undamaged.

harm on the basis of sex or to someone of a sex — TheWillowOfDarkness

Harm to someone of a sex?

So if I harm another male, for whatever reason, I'm being sexist against men, even if their being male had nothing to do with my reasons for harming them?

No doubt it infuriates people who think it's something else, but the point is they have an inadequate view. They are too busy worrying over whether someone said to be sexist, whether they wanted to intentionally use sex to make some kind of exclusion, to recognize sexism is a social relation which. affects individuals. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is just too fast and loose.

The charge of sexist action without a sexist mind is not fully coherent. You're just borrowing the term in order to be provocative, which then devalues it when we need to apply it to actual sexists... This is the Ouroboros I keep warning you about. You could make all of your points be 100% coherent and agreeable if you didn't insist on redefining terms like racism and sexism. Your heart is in the right place, but you've chosen the wrong strategy/tactic.

That's exactly why we attack their ideas. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Insisting on the label of sexism is a far cry from attacking ideas (it's semantics at best). You've laid out your position on sexual objectification, and for what it's worth I think there is some merit to that framework, but this has failed to address the crux of the passage you're objecting to (it's anti-masturbation roots).

You've established that his views are bad because they repress sexed individuals (sex is irrelevant), but you've not established that the source of those particular views are his hatred of women, or his desire to treat women differently because they are women (misogyny and sexist discrimination against women).

When you export this particular attack (under the broadened and weakened definition of sexism) into average political discourse you actually wind up confusing people, entrenching their disagreements in emotion, and doing an overall disservice to your primary goal (to address outcomes). To fix outcomes, especially under your view, we need to change systems. And as you will surely agree, such systems are buried deep in the minds of every individual, where interaction allows our conscious and unconscious biases to impact or determine the unequal distribution of boons and burdens or outcomes between visible social demographics (deep breath). But here's the problem: you can't change that system without changing minds, and you can't change the minds by merely addressing the system or its outcomes. You need to address the minds; not groups, not institutions, not demographics, not outcomes, but minds and their ideas.

If you persuade nobody, you achieve nothing, so why do you insist on the polemic language for such a weak address of Scruton's weak position? You should strongly and directly address Scruton's strong position (steel-man his arguments if you need to). If you can dismantle those, you dissuade his followers and maybe even the man himself. By using your own confrontational and charged language, you're just making yourself incomprehensible to them. The only people who can navigate the nuance of your position are already in the choir, so you're basically persuading no one.

I think you have a big heart Willow, and I really wish that you would be more careful and persuasive in your writing. Just remember that a J'accuse! attitude is a great way to escalate a conflict, and you should understand that it's almost never going to work except through sheer social force. The more rigidly we stick to criticism of a person's ideas, and the less we involve criticism of the person, the easier we make it for people to dissociate away from them. I think you are trying to criticize the ideas, but the language of "sexism" overshadows your actual critique and makes it about Scruton the man.

Whatever the case, I contend we should be concerned with the actual beliefs, not the person, or how to characterize them.

That people can change and reform is a pretty compelling reason to resist attacking anything but their ideas...

Yes, for the sexist impact here is upon the the individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Negative impact on the individual is just called "harm" sexism is when it happens on the basis of sex.

Sexism does not mean "harm to an individual". It just doesn't.

If you change the definition of sexism to "harm" and go around using it in that way, you're just going to confuse and infuriate a bunch of people who will have no clue what you're talking about.

The problem isn't a comparison of men and women, it's the devaluing of the personhood of an individual. If one is finding a women (or man) disgusting for not being an an object within one's control, since that is the social relation thewomen (or man) ought to be in, one is engaged in a sexist objectification. The disgust is present at the woman (or man) being a person who is more than one's object.

I've not changed the meaning of anything. All along the problem has been that Scruton is advocating a position we ought be disgusted by women (or men, if applied to them) if they dare be more than an object under our direct control. It's precisely the viewpoint which is the problem.

Disgust with sex isn't the issue here, it's the disgust with women who are more than a body for a husband's dick or hands. The issue I'm talking about here isn't a sexual disfunction. It's one of power in relationships — TheWillowOfDarkness

There's a difference between "sexual objectification" and "sexism".

Get it right!

And the problem started with institutions like corporation etc. creating PR departments. Political parties are naturally even more prone to this. And if someone thinks that this is only right-wing biased view (because the thread is about Roger Scruton), just think about the typical event where a muslim liberal or leftist politician criticizes Israel and get the wrath of being an anti-semite. — ssu

It's definitely a problem endemic throughout most political camps, but different camps tend to wield their own flavor. From the left it's typically inter-sectional grievance politics, and from the right it's typically fear driven nationalism and isolationism. We've reached a situation where defensive (substantive) politics is no longer relevant, and all that matters is your ability to attack and destroy the other side.

I would be quite happy to agree with you about that and plead guilty to participation, if only you were as resolute in your criticism of Scrotum's language as you are of mine. His, after all is demonstrably more extreme, and hugely more influential. I say 'sexist', he says 'obscene' and 'disgusting', and you do not seem to think his language needs criticism. — unenlightened

Scruton wasn't attacking any specific individuals (he wasn't really attacking people, as far as I know, he was attacking masturbation and specifically masturbation during sex, not women per se). If his views are legitimately sexist then you've got every onus and right to decry them, and him, as such, but you've got to get it right (otherwise you're personally attacking him for no justifiable reason).

When Scruton states his views about how masturbation is disgusting or harmful, you should be trying to combat those ideas, not his personage. By seeking to impose social sanctions against him for holding political beliefs we disagree with, we become authoritarian bullies who seek to shut down the discourse of our opposition.

So what if Scruton is disgusted by masturbation? Prudish conservatism is nothing new, and just because he has some malformed views tucked away in esoteric books exploring sexual desire, it doesn't mean we should lift a finger against him in any way other than debate and dialogue. (by lift a finger I don't mean engage in violence, but more broadly the kinds of informal social sanctions that pretty much ruin lives (letter campaigns to employers from the professionally aggrieved, misleading smear articles in the media, and a torrent of online harassment, for example)).

These kinds of sanctions are technically within our rights to employ, and maybe in some situations we really ought to, but Scruton represents a sizeable chunk of our diverse political beliefs, and while he does express some backward views, he is not belligerent, he is not (as far as I know) proselytizing anyone with said backward views, I do not see any possible violence emerging from his beliefs, and he delivers his rhetoric to private audiences who pay for the "privilege". He's not an enemy to be vanquished, he's a person to be persuaded or dissuaded. If we start trying to win The Game of Democracy by attacking people instead of ideas, then eventually we'll all be given the business end.

and defending his views as somehow liberal legitimate and reasonable — unenlightened

I would like to clarify and say that it is not my intention to attack you or your views about Scruton. What I do mean to criticize is your choice of words ("sexist"), especially in the context that it tends to drive band-wagons (Scruton may yet be shown sexist, but as it is a charge with gravity it should be delivered with solid evidence, lest we salt and scorch the earth prematurely).

Scruton's views are anything but liberal, and while the specific quotations we've read from him lack reason almost entirely, they're reasonable to him, and they're his legitimate moral/political beliefs (which regrettably aren't themselves uncommon). As the saying goes, I disagree with what he has to say but I defend his right to say it. I realize that gainful employment and a governmental advisory position are not protected speech rights (and I also realize that you do not seek to dictate these away from him), but consider how your own reaction can be amplified and echoed across social media networks to the point that it can completely bury a single individual or institution.

"Distributive justice" is a social system where informal sanctions keep transgressors in line (it's a primitive and instinct based system that is typically found in nomadic groups numbering around 15-30). For instance, if a hunter doesn't share their meat, or is an insufferable boaster, then everyone may shun them or dishonor them (in whichever socially relevant way) until their behavior corrects. But in the globalized digital era something unexpected happens: hundreds of thousands of individuals can all take instinctive action and issue a social sanction against a single person or institution, but their individual instincts don't realize that 100,000 other people might be doing the same thing, so the cumulative ramifications become entirely disproportionate. It's death by a million views. (Posting your views on a philosophy forum doesn't meaningfully contribute to the phenomenon I'm describing. Philosophy forums are not the fast and loose media that twitter, reddit, youtube, and the like have turned out to be, and by definition you're actually explaining and defending your views (I see such discourse/dialogue as critical to democratic progress). The real problem is when uncharitable or inaccurate reactions go viral, because when we react in anger we generally don't stop to fact check (and the ensuing pile-on can amount to crucifixion)).

I'm less trying to actually defend Scruton (I'm just working with what evidence has so far been quoted) and more trying to delineate the dangers of polemics in contemporary (digital) political discourse. We now have a much stronger capacity to socially sanction the other side: on one hand this makes us all want to be less controversial homunculi to avoid the others' stake, and on the other it causes pundits and politicians who embrace, exploit, and thrive in controversy to rise to the top (because they get the most attention, and they're the only characters who can take the heat long-term).

The many-to-many format of social media is quite novel and interesting, but it's not without faults (and to some extent it's already been hijacked by many forces that are depending on our penchant to be motivated by outrage).

Before long, we may even start to like the smell of it...

Learn to like it enough, and there's no limit to how far we can go!

Fake it till you make it? More like, shart 'till you're smart.

Makes me wonder to what extent the physics/metaphysics distinction is bunk to begin with.

The physical - the material - is only so because that's what our senses make of it. Where the limits of our senses end is not the limit of the external world. And many things which are beyond our traditional senses are not beyond the limits of scientific apparatus. We may call those things metaphysical (e.g: the position of an electron), but we may be making a very slippery distinction in doing so.

In the end we follow the evidence (un-intuitive, abstract, and "metaphysical" though some of it may seem). Presumably, reality is reality; physics, metaphysics, and all. It's all the same system.