The last statement strikes me as too strong(maybe too broad a brushstroke)... — creativesoul

It is not my position. I tried to reconstruct the implied consequences of the concept of institutional
(systemic) racism. Here is the exact example:
"Systemic racism is forms of oppression and privilege that affects almost every aspect of our society...The white majority often preserve and perpetuate this racism unconsciously through Complicity and Complacency. Racism Complicity: To consciously or unconsciously support, contribute or benefit from racism or racist systems. Racism Complacency: To support racism and racist systems by not challenging it."
https://saultonline.com/2020/06/letter-systemic-racism/

It seemed liked you almost agreed with me in a way here, but don't worry, I won't tell anyone. :D — Pro Hominem

No, I disagree with you. I think that your position is inherently controversial and inconsistent. First, you acknowledge the existence of institutional racism. The notion implies the institutional, systemic discrimination of a particular group of people. They are targeted and singled out as a specific community of colour.
Further, 'institutional' means the function of society's various institutions. They are culturally contextual; they are embedded in the social fabric and conventional everyday practises. It is the function of society as a whole. One may not be a racist consciously, but as a member of society, one unintentionally takes part in the discriminatory practices and benefits from their outcomes. Next, since one has not been discriminated, but has been benefited, as a member of the majority of the unjust and oppressing society, one necessarily bears responsibility for the beneficiary results of discriminatory practices. Even if you point out to the group of poor white people, it could be countered that in general, they would not have experienced the same obstacles as non-whites to achieve better financial or educational conditions.
Consequently, we come to the "white privilege" concept. You cannot embrace the notion of institutional racism and, at the same time, argue that "white privilege" is counterproductive and unnecessarily.

Yet, it is quite common now to define systemic racism as a set of
institutional practises that function to favour certain racial groups over others:
— Number2018

I understand that this is common, but that doesn't make it correct. — Pro Hominem

Systematic racism is maintained for the perceived benefit of racists and elites, not all whites. — Pro Hominem

You may insist that your understanding is correct, appropriate, making sense, and you may bring the best arguments in favour of your version. However, in our environment, public discourse's agenda and content are not shaped due to academic or intellectual discussion. It is primarily formed and controlled by the coherent actions of the media, the leading groups of political, cultural, academic elites, corporations, and the most active political activists. Only the singular conjuncture of the acute political and ideological struggle could bring such heterogeneous forces together to impose the discussion of the "white privilege" as a vehicle for social change.

To the extent that ordinary middle-class whites receive a "benefit" from it, it is a byproduct (although I still say characterizing freedom from abuse as a benefit or privilege and not a norm that all should expect and receive is a terrible conceptual precedent to set). — Pro Hominem

I acknowledge that there is inequity between both the opportunities and outcomes of generally all whites versus generally all blacks. — Pro Hominem

It is the only factual basis for claiming a causal correlation between institutional racism and white privilege. Likely, given the complexity of the contemporary society, it is impossible to show that there is a kind of cause and effect relation here. Yet, there is almost no need for such research. The processes of the creation of dominant public opinion utilize facts and researches as secondary and subordinate means.

if someone can demonstrate the efficacy of the "white privilege" concept as a vehicle for positive social change, then I'm on board. Ultimately, the goal is the destruction of race (not culture) as a meaningful category in public thought. — Pro Hominem

Probably, the different groups that promote the "white privilege" concept as the urgent object of the public debate have different intentions and aspirations. Likely, some of them strive for positive social change (by the way, it is the very arguable concept itself). Others want to bring the maximum possible change, to disbalance the homeostasis of the existing social system, and then manage and control the spectrum of accelerating processes.

you are trying to make the case that it is impossible to convince a person of the reality of systemic racism without convincing them of this privilege. I totally disagree. I do not believe that white privilege exists. I am supremely confident in the existence of both individual and institutional racism, and its many areas of impact beyond criminal justice, including housing, employment, education, and many more.

So, since it is completely possible to understand the institutionalized framework of racial oppression without resorting to the use of this admittedly non-descriptive term, I ask again, what value does it have? . — Pro Hominem

Your position is based on the ultimate separation between the reality of systemic racism and the existence of white privilege. Yet, it is quite common now to define systemic racism as a set of
institutional practises that function to favour certain racial groups over others:
"Solid Ground defines Institutional Racism as “the systematic distribution of resources, power and opportunity in our society to the benefit of people who are white and the exclusion of people of color.” Present-day racism was built on a long history of racially distributed resources and ideas that shape our view of ourselves and others. It is a hierarchical system that comes with a broad range of policies and institutions that keep it in place."
https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/institutionalracism.pdf
The definition states that systemic racism is the practice to disadvantage communities of colour in favour of people who are white. Therefore, both notions are essentially interrelated.

All I am interested in is how the truth gains a distinct privilege in how it is not to be challenged on any basis but validity. — Judaka

we need to scrutinise over whether we couldn't or shouldn't introduce new truths, new interpretations, emphasise different points to get to a different outcome and then determine when we should aim to do this and when we shouldn't. I think how truths are arranged might challenge our understanding of what is true — Judaka

Probably, what you describe is a kind of an idealized, abstract model of truth. In our contemporary socio-political reality, this model does not work. For example, let's consider the two latest debates about systemic racism and white privilege. Both strive to define US society as a whole, and the discussions' outcomes can become vital for our future. Are the debates managed according to your model? Do participants start from some basic facts (objective, mere, bare facts, etc.)
and further arrange and evaluate them in particular ways, so that final truth is obtained? No, it does not look like this. And, it is not about selecting a set of suitable facts to get a preferred outcome. Most often, people start the debates having the ready final answer. They are not looking for the unknown truth; they are trying to defend what they already have in mind and shape it as the objectively obtained truth. It is the typical setting for all our public socio-political debates. Therefore, when one tries to organize the arguments in the best possible way, it almost does not matter anymore. The truth is still important, but it plays a secondary, subordinate role in many domains today. Arrangement of truth is not the constitution of the final, binding truth. It is the way of transforming the semblance of truth into what we finally could accept as the conventional factual truth.

My interest in the subjective/objective framing is to distinguish between what Number2018 has called "brute facts" and pretty much everything else. — Judaka

When I wrote about Searle’s distinction between brute facts and social facts, I have already noted that any brute facts have resulted from social construction. It is possible show that brute facts do not exist. Yet, epistemically, didactically, and phenomenologically this concept is entirely justified. Likely, social actors live lives as if it is firmly grounded on brute facts, without noting their socially constructed organization. A set of stable conventional facts (brute facts) is necessary for maintaining individuals’ social routine, social order, and the development of various models and theories of truth. When a relative balance between apparently stable facts and socially constructed is disturbed, we experience that 'the time is out of joint'. Models of truth collapse, individuals lose any common ground to debate the contemporary issues (for example, in the US right now). That is why Deleuze writes that the narration becomes fundamentally falsifying.

I mostly thought of the arrangement of truth as being more explicitly stated, consciously understood. Logically, I see what you're saying, the same explanation you gave of the social fact of money and how acknowledging the item means acknowledging the system. Truths are acknowledged and must also acknowledge a system and that system can be called an arrangement of truth. Is that correct? — Judaka

because one's worldview depends on social facts and social facts depend on an implied arrangement of truth and this arrangement of truth is determined by various social, economic and political factors, we can see these factors as restricting our capacity for types of worldviews? Influencing how we see things? Is that correct? — Judaka

Yes, now you understand me much better. Probably, I could not articulate my points clear enough, so thank you for your patience! :smile: You are right; in your OP, you involve a more explicit and logically coherent conception of truth than what I suggested. All in all, your outline is precise, logical, and intelligible. I tried to broaden it
to better deal with the latest debates and situations. Still, we are so concerned about truth… But what if at the heart of our discussions is not the truth, but the image of truth? “Narration ceases to be truthful, that is, to claim to be true and becomes fundamentally falsifying. This is not at all a case of ‘each has its own truth,’ a variability of content. It is a power of the false which replaces and supersedes the form of the true, because it poses the simultaneity of incompossible presents, or the coexistence of not-necessary true pasts…The truthful man dies, every model of truth collapses, in favor of the new narration.” (Gilles Deleuze, ‘Cinema 2 The Time-Image’). In many domains of social life (politics, the media, marketing), the construction of social reality has been so accelerated and shirt-circuited that the distinction between brute facts and social facts has been vanishing. As a result, the whole system of reference has been deformed, and we encounter
“the simultaneity of incompossible presents, or the coexistence of not-necessary true pasts’.

if we decided to rate a mutual acquaintance's intelligence, even with the same information, you might rate them lowly due to how you recall them being bad at maths and I might judge them highly because I think they're articulate. Even though I knew that this person was bad at maths, that wasn't something I thought was relevant to their intelligence, so it was excluded from my interpretation.

So when you combine these two concepts (and undoubtedly more which we aren't talking about), you have your arrangement which is implicitly personal and then your usage of your arrangement to come to conclusions based on what you think is interpretatively relevant in the specific context. I think information goes through such a process to become a functioning opinion or perspective that examining this process becomes more important than anything else. As their opinion, while using their arrangement of truths and based on what they consider to be interpretatively relevant is possibly correct. So whatever impact the opinion or perspective has on their thinking, there is no reason for it to be challenged, regardless of what behaviour becomes logical or justified. — Judaka

I think you completely misunderstood or misinterpreted what I tried to outline. My intention was to prioritize impersonal, collective social processes. In principal, I do not think that the process of formation of one’s opinion functions like processing ‘bits of information’. Bits of information, mere or brute facts, proceeding bits of information, are just virtual concepts, abstractions, isolated pieces of various conceptualizations, taken out of the determinant social contexts.

What I understand is that interpretations, characterisations and the like certainly mesh with facts by being so closely attached to the fact being interpreted or characterised, they become indistinguishable to some. — Judaka

They are usually indistinguishable in the case of ordinary language. If so, we already deal with a few syntheses, even in the most straightforward everyday speech cases. Though interpretations, characterizations, etc. are quite common discursive devices, they are inseparable from various unintentional operational arrangements.

The "angriness" of the man as I said in my OP becomes the angry man but that he is a man is a fact while his angriness is a characterisation of something - his behaviour, tone of voice, whatever else. — Judaka

You assume that terms (a man) are primary, and relations (angriness as a relation between a man and his behaviour) is secondary. On the contrary, I think that the terms of the relation are completely undetermined until they enter into a particular relation: a man without emotion is a nonsensical being.
Further, if we start from a man as an essential fact, we should suppose a man's identity as a matter of an Ideal Essence, which is then somehow instantiated on the worldly plane.

I do think that it might be sufficient to just say that brute facts + (add subjectivity) + widespread acceptance could = social fact and the social fact is not distinguished from a brute fact. After all, I don't think people often do distinguish between social facts and brute facts, that's not a widespread concept from my experience. So I may have misunderstood something because I wouldn't have said a particular arrangement of truth was crucial for this process. — Judaka

In general, people do not distinguish between social facts and brute facts, but the identification of a complex social fact as a mere fact, and the processes of recognition are impossible without the inscription of the status of truth. When you state a fact, you (most often implicitly) effectuate some system (arrangement) of truth. Even when one states a simple fact, there is no apparent natural truth. I think that unless we deliberately isolate some mathematical, or logical systems, we never start with a set of essential truths, and then develop or deduct consequent truths. In math, the presupposed truth arrangement cannot be separated from essential statements (axioms) or concepts. Arrangement of truth (the reasonable and correct logical ways of deduction and induction, various analytic strategies, etc.), direct and manage one’s thinking essential mathematical facts. For social actor, her worldview dominates over her system of values and beliefs. The worldview cannot be separated from the results of socially determined processes of normative recognition. One lives life as grounded on a set of essential (true) social facts. Yet, any recognition or identification results from operations of socio-political institutions and apparatuses, incorporating and applying various regimes (arrangements) of truth. Louis Althusser called them ideological state apparatuses: “all obviousnesses, including those that make a word 'name a thing' or 'have a meaning’ (therefore including the obviousness of the 'transparency' of language) and that does not cause any problems - is an ideological effect. It is indeed a peculiarity of ideology that it imposes (without appearing to do so, since these are 'obviousnesses') obviousnesses as obviousnesses, which we cannot fail to recognize and before which we have the inevitable and natural reaction of crying out (aloud or in the 'silence of consciousness') : 'That's obvious! That's right! That's true!'” (Louis Althusser ‘Ideology and State Ideological Apparatuses’). Any social fact that we accept and recognize as an accurate and correct is the product of particular arrangements' operations. When you merely start with the facts' truth, you run a risk of the unintentional effectuation of the hidden 'ideological' assemblage.

I do think that by recognising how or whether the truth was arranged, we can detect the presence of "human institutions" and how the choices made by people were necessary for the "truth' to exist or function. Which would apply to language also, I certainly prefer to look at it this way as opposed to the objective/subjective conceptualisation. — Judaka

There are probably various kinds of truth, ultimately different from a conventional understanding of this concept. Suppose we agree that social facts are in the cyclic relations with mere facts, and a particular arrangement of truth is crucial for the maintenance of this cycle. In that case, we could consider how different this arrangement could be from what you outlined in your OP. Likely, when individuals are stating social facts, the arrangement of truth works as a momentarily temporary synthesis. Previous critical stages and moments of the process are condensed and compressed; we observe just the final moment of truth. The synthesis is impersonal. Mainly, it works independently from personal intentions. Trump (and so many other politicians) has been often accused of lying, contradicting his previous statements or positions. Yet, if we change our system of reference, we could find that there are culminations of arranging the truth at particular moments, independent of results of previous arrangements. What matters is not a reference to reality or mere facts, but a synchronic particular constellation, ultimately in-forming the resulting outcome. Different regimes (arrangements) of truth or the changes of variables of the same arrangement could lead to logically inconsistent statements of the same individual.

the resulting explanation makes the process appear far more efficient and difficult to handle than I had already believed. — Judaka

I agree with you. The task is challenging. It is possible to assume that arrangement of truth does not merely govern our discursive practices but is also related to our behavioural patterns. Probably, we deal with productions of subjectivities, and the arrangement of truth is a part of specific socio-economic and semiotic assemblages that produce and reproduce dominant clusters of repetitive impersonal and personal effects. Subjectivities frame, organize, and manage the field of our agency. To what extent do they determine the limits of our choices?

I don't wish to accept social facts which make claims that are guiding people towards ways of thinking which lead to misfortune or negative social effects. Social facts seem to be an umbrella to a great many different kinds of claims. — Judaka

How could one distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' social facts? Generally, there is a tendency
of unconsciously accepting a social fact without realizing all hidden presuppositions and effects. When I recognize this piece of paper as a five-dollar bill, there has to be the institution of money, maintaining my belief's naturalness. I may not like the tremendous complexity of the contemporary globalized financial system, but I do not think of it any time when I spend my bill. Usually, social facts disguise themselves as mere facts or brute facts. To understand it, one should endeavour the process of deconstruction, and the disclosure of the arrangement of truth could be one of the possible strategies. Recent discussions about systemic racism and white privilege could provide us with examples of the mobilization and function of particular dispositions of truth. Also, they can exhibit the cyclic process of transforming brute facts into complex social facts and then back into the mere facts.

We presuppose that reality exists and that truth is that which is in accordance with reality. Whether something is true or not is based on whether it is in accordance with reality or not. Therefore, the only thing for an intellect to do is to determine what is true or not true and they are either right or wrong about it.

We could begin by saying that the meaning of a fact can be true and it can also be untrue. That is to say that one can interpret a fact to mean another thing is true and be correct or incorrect about it but it is still separate from the fact that was interpreted. Nonetheless, there is coherency in asking "is the meaning of the fact in accordance with reality? — Judaka

Probably, we can agree on the existence of things external to human consciousness. Yet, we need a more comprehensive account of realism. A spherical object such as a bundle of newspapers held together by a string, or a piece of foam rubber, is a thing that exists. But it is a 'football' in the context of a particular rule-governed practice, such as playing football; in other words, its meaning and significance are relative to a specific set of meaningful practices. A thunderstorm could be a physical phenomenon in our culture and the expression of Zeus's anger for ancient Greeks. Things can acquire different meanings and functions in different historical contexts and situations. Likely, our conceptual and discursive forms can ever exhaust their objectivity and meaning. Yet, if we do not apply Lacanian conceptualization of 'the Real,' when we talk about 'things,' we inevitably imply a network of social and discursive practices and embedded meanings. Is that possible to separate facts and their interpretations? John Searle distinguishes between 'brute facts' and 'social facts': "Brute facts require no human institutions for
their existence: Mount Everest has snow and ice near the summit or that hydrogen atoms have one electron, these facts are independent of any human opinions. 'Institutional (social) facts' are so-called because they require human institutions for their existence. In order for this piece of paper to be a five-dollar bill, for example, there has to be the human institution of money. Of course, to state a brute fact, we require the institution of language, but the fact stated needs to be distinguished from the statement of it." (John Searle, ‘The construction of social reality’) Doesn't Searle unreasonably determine his concept of a brute fact? "Mount Everest has snow and ice near the summit" could be considered as an example of a social fact, the product of various institutional practices, inscriptions of meanings and interpretations.

What it means for something to be true is separate from the actual truth itself. We can reasonably disagree on the interpretation without disagreeing on the fact. — Judaka

I want to point out to what looks like one of your central presuppositions:
one inevitably starts with what has been objective, neutral, or natural facts. (Please correct me if I misunderstood you.) Consequently, there is a gap and controversy between ‘actual truth itself,’ which is a set of particular conventional fixations of the meaning of apparent facts, and the truth that we come to after ‘arrangement of truth’ has been applied. That is why Fdrake argues that your OP could be considered as the expression of nihilism:

The point of saying it is that an intellectual commitment to nihilism that severs facts from interpretations is like a powerful acid.
So such a hard wedge between fact and interpretation; even if true in principle, is useless in the practice of reasoning about things. Except as a selectively applied powerful acid. — fdrake

Probably, to avoid the dichotomy between facts and interpretations, your concept of ‘arrangement of truth’ could be broadened to show that ‘facts’ do not merely belong to the descriptive order. The factual cannot be separated
from sedimental practices and a practical relationship to the world. The factual meanings require
norms governing our behavior. So, there are not two orders—the normative and the descriptive—but normative/descriptive complexes in which facts and values inextricably interpenetrate each other. Further, normativity is not a universal category given from nowhere.
It is a historical product of struggles, conflicts, and politics. The fixation of the meaning of the
essential factual is ‘an objective illusion,’ necessary to maintain a stable social order. The truth of the facts is no less subjective (or objective) and contingent (or necessary) than the truth of interpretations. Actually, both are produced and governed by the complex interplay of the social determinants.

Thank you for your OP.

Even without ever disagreeing on what is true, you can arrive at a near infinite number of different conclusions by arranging the facts differently. Thus the question becomes, how do I judge a good conclusion from a bad one. — Judaka

Can it be the effectiveness of one’s arrangement? If I understand you correctly, when one expresses her positions, views, or perspectives, the implicit ‘arrangement of truth’ has been inevitably involved. It brings many opportunities to disagree, oppose, contradict, or challenge the conclusion or the final statement. Yet, if the object of consideration is not
some particular truth, we could find common ground on discussing the rules of the game.
An effective, interesting game (arrangement) works if it produces specific effects and if it can be reapplied in different situations.

I agree that what is truly at stake has become hard to discern. What we are presented with in the media are two caricature extremes - woke cancel culture against meathead rednecks. — apokrisis

For some observers, there is a clash of incompatible sets of values and ideas, the situation of
culture war that can involve into a real civil war. Andrew Sullivan defines woke cancel culture as " It sees America as in its essence not about freedom but oppression. It argues, in fact, that all the ideals about individual liberty, religious freedom, limited government, and the equality of all human beings were always a falsehood to cover for and justify and entrench the enslavement of human beings under the fiction of race. It wasn’t that these values competed with the poison of slavery, and eventually overcame it, in an epic, bloody civil war whose casualties were overwhelmingly white. It’s that the liberal system is itself a form of white supremacy — which is why racial inequality endures and why liberalism’s core values and institutions cannot be reformed and can only be dismantled."
Andrew Sullivan "Is There Still Room for Debate?"

could the US now crumble because of a few riots, a bit of woke activism, a lot of redneck moronicism? The US has always been characterised by its freely vitriolic approach to social discourse. That can indeed be a competitive national strength as much as a flaw.

Society ought to be a contest of interest groups. That is how differences eventually get settled and a society stays well adapted to the challenges and goals as it understands them. So is the current level of discord an actual problem or evidence of stuff being sorted? — apokrisis

It is the main point! If we answer this, it could help us to understand where is the US right now. Is there a contest of interest groups? What are the group's goals? What are the current riots about? One could say that what is on stake is not a set of particular policies reflecting different groups' interests. There are different visions of America, and this existential conflict cannot get settled in a 'regular' way.
To exist, 'system in which interest groups can contest and sort out their differences to arrive at a mutual accommodation' requires the set of fundamental and non-reflexive believes in the system's reality.

Communism collapsed because it is brittle. It isn't a system in which interest groups can contest and sort out their differences to arrive at a mutual accomodation. It lacked a marketplace of ideas. — apokrisis

What about China? This communist country has not collapsed so far.:smile:

What actually happened was Gorbachev - in a moment of desperation - made a fateful decision to allow free speech. His hope and expectation was that this would allow some kind of graceful transition. The people would be so grateful that the Communist Party would win in open elections. The voters would ignore the economic stagnation.

But unmuzzled, the population took its opportunity. Every republic wanted to assert its own identity. The grip on the entire Eastern Bloc was lost. — apokrisis

Alexei Yurchak in his book “Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More” offers a different account. He argues that during the late socialism “The reproduction of the forms of authoritative discourse became powerfully constitutive of Soviet reality but no longer necessarily described that reality; it created the possibilities and constraints for being a Soviet person but no longer described what a Soviet person was. As a result, through its ritualized reproduction and circulation, authoritative discourse enabled many new ways of life, meanings, interests, relations, pursuits, and communities to spring up everywhere within late socialism, without being able to fully describe or determine them.” Gorbachev did not merely allow free speech. Mainly, he initiated the fundamental change of the soviet discursive regime, the critical part of which was the system of beliefs in Soviet reality. When the population stopped to rely on a set of existential social presuppositions, the Soviet Union collapsed.

My argument is that the system can tolerate a Trump because it is basically uncollapsable. — apokrisis

Your argument could be understood as a piece of evidence that there is indeed a deep fundamental belief in America as an a-historical, eternal entity. What can happen if the waste majority of the population would challenge this existential value?

The US has a base within spitting distance of every possible enemy. And none of its enemies can claim the reverse applies. That is what empire looks like.

The US through dumb leadership can misuse that investment. But it doesn’t face a serious rival for its dominance on that score. — apokrisis

The stable existence or the decline of any society should not be measured just by its material resources. The decisive factor is social capital. It can be defined as the system of a particular set of informal values, norms, and beliefs shared among members of a society that permits cooperation.In the US, there has been the deepening corrosion of trust in political and social institutions. The lack of belief in what constitutes America can undermine its social capital. Similar processes had led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Once when young people get the habit of confronting the police and they have nothing to do, riots can erupt. I remember in Sweden few years ago the media was totally clueless why there were youth riots with absolutely no movement behind it. In the end, they just died down. Sociologists had a lot of explaining to do. — ssu

There were a few accounts of the riots in Sweden. Professor of political science at the University of Uppsala, Tommy Möller wrote in an op-ed:
"Unless the integration of the newcomers succeeds better, in the long run, the social glue that makes a democratic welfare society of our kind possible risks being torn apart." Accordingly, there are huge gaps in the social fabric, so that various groups create alienated communities. Is that reasonable to hypothesize that similar processes take place in the US right now? Maybe it could explain why courthouses have become the targets of systemic attacks.

People are laying siege to a federal courthouse in Portland. Looks like a war zone. — NOS4A2

If this is a true report, and since the protest in Portland is going on for 60 days, most likely that it has
a kind of a clear cause, differently from what ssu thinks.

that rioting doesn't even have to have a clear dedicated cause. Once when young people get the habit of confronting the police and they have nothing to do, riots can erupt — ssu

The narrative any media follows is the what the audience wants to hear and what the owner wants to promote. Anything that challenges one or especially both is simply left out. You can observe that many news media that do classic investigative journalism do have the ability to make objective and high standard journalism and reporting, however in today's climate that is rare. So better for Fox News to report on "Joe Biden supporters" rioting in Portland. — ssu

It is difficult to find out what is actually going on in Portland right now. What is your view?
As far as I see, there are two major narratives in the media: peaceful protesters vs. rioters; both are completely incompatible.

A good point among others is made by Weinstein (starting at 17:52) that under Clinton the left's traditional voting block, organized labor, was replaced as it made some quite expensive economic demands. And it replace was with identity politics was cheaper, or that you could get people with very little relying on identity politics. I think Weinstein's insight is great to answer why identity politics, rights of minorities (sexual or racial) have become the focus rather than the working class in general. — ssu

It is not just a matter of cost. Since capital has become mobile and fluid, an ‘organized labor’ has become outmoded, attached to immobile ‘real economy,’ and cumbersome commodity. Also, there has been a permanent tendency to accelerate consumerism and develop various techniques for the production of suitable subjectivities. The success of identity politics is the vital effect of neoliberal capitalism’s productivity. Moreover, identity politics has become a ubiquitous and flexible tool for framing public opinion agendas.

I've now started to think that the whole "culture war" with it's "identity politics" is really a way to divide Americans and have the voters fight each other than to unite in the oppose status quo and face the real problems in the country . — ssu

It is probably impossible to find logic and common sense reasoning behind the contemporary ‘culture war’ or ‘cancel culture.’ Likely, their primary drives are the reciprocal process of neoliberal deterritorialization and reterritorialization, followed by further mobilization and utilization.

" When someone talks about "political correctness", they usually cannot articulate precisely what it is. It's usually an "excessive version of (undefined allegedly progressive blah)", and everyone dislikes unspecified undefined allegedly progressive blah when it is excessive."

It is possible to try to articulate what “political correctness” is: there are various ways of defining and framing public discourses, resulting in the formation of public opinion and the promotion of
particular agendas. Surveys and polls are just a few of the possible technics to shape, retain, and narrow down what can be counted as a political issue or an essential societal domain.
As Foucault noted, discourses have always been subjects of intensive censorship and regulation. Being a function of effective discursive control,“political correctness” produces the mobilization of public attention and the enforcement of the desirable consensus. Simultaneously, a multitude of alternative perspectives is effectively marginalized and obscured. Bachrach and Baratz in their book“Two Faces of Power” proposed a concept of nondecision-making, so that specific issues are pushed aside and prevented from consideration. They write that if “there is no conflict, overt or covert, the presumption must be that there is consensus on the prevailing allocation of values…In the absence of such conflict… there is no way accurately to judge whether the thrust of a decision really is to thwart or prevent serious consideration of a demand for change that is potentially threatening to the decision-maker”.

The purpose of a survey question should be to elicit someone's opinion on a matter, what that "political correctness" one did is leave any interpreter to fill in the blanks about what their opinions concerned as they like. — fdrake

Another function of ‘political correctness’ is the distribution and reactivation of preferable subjective positions that individuals should assume and confirm. Thus, while taking part in the survey, one can re-affirm herself as a voter, a consumer, an expert, etc. Therefore, surveys
maintain the continuum of articulable discourses, effectuate and limit the range of possible
opinions, and produce the necessary engagement.

Bari Weiss on her resignation and the transformation of the New York Times into the platform of woke culture: "a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again...New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never areThere are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong...The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. "
https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

These people (and some of you posters here) have worms in your brain, just chomping away. — Maw

Could you expand and explain what makes you think so?

Fishfry is correct. There is an American culture war going. And no, it's not like in China. — ssu

I understand Fishfry concerns and appreciate his opinion. As far as I see, there is a principal difficulty: we do not know how to articulate the ongoing crisis in the US. Our clishes and stereotypes
cannot adequately reflect on the situation and help us. You can call it "an American culture war", but
it does not say anything about the singularity of the event. Another point is that 'real facts' immediately got distorted and transformed by various media. Reasonable opinions are marginalized and pushed aside.

Is this all really an urgent problem as fishfry says? I think that it is. — ssu

You see. For most people there is no problem at all. Why?

I see. The worst case scenario.
Lets hope it will not happen! Thank you for your honest
opinions! :wink:

Not initiated but approved.
Sorry. Even if we take your Chomsky’s conceptual
framework: is the ruling elite interested in destroying
the US?

I am not optimistic. I just said that our situation is different. Indeed, the current violence
is not just a kind of symbolic violence. It is also actual violence. I completely understand your position and your
concerns, but who knows what happens next? Your understanding is that all was initiated be Dems and the elites. Are they interested in further escalation?
Getting back to China, in 1968
Mao cancelled his cultural revolution. Right now, if Dems
win the elections, will they try to stop the trend?
Getting back to my view, there a few scenarios, and
I worked out just one of them, in the most general level.

Exactly. Kind of reminds me of how the n-word has been reinterpreted as something that is racism to something that isn't. If we're tearing down racist symbols then why aren't we abandoning the use of the n-word? If we can reinterpret a symbol, then why not reinterpret those statues being torn down as a history lesson rather than a racist symbol? — Harry Hindu

I agree with you.
But reinterpretation of a symbol is just the first step of destroying it.

Buddhas of Bamyan: The Taliban were good at cancel culture — jgill

(Wikipedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taller_Buddha_of_Bamiyan_before_and_after_destruction.jpg — jgill

In principle, I am against destroying statues or any other historical artifacts.Yet, likely, this particular statue cannot play any role in our cultural practices. For most of us the symbolic significance of this monument has been completely lost. Probably, it can explain why so many people do not care about statues anymore.

Do you happen to remember Mao's cultural revolution? You don't see echoes of that in our present situation? — fishfry

Our present situation is ultimately different from China’s state of affairs in 1966. All in all, China was primarily an agricultural country where the vast majority of the population had the traditional, ancient culture and style of life. Mao mobilized “cultural revolutionaries” to accelerate the country and tighten his grip on power. Likely, what we deal with right now, is not ‘a culture war’ or ‘a cultural revolution.’ If our culture, our symbolic order, has not been maintained via ‘traditional symbolic means,’ our ‘cultural revolution’ has already happened. Therefore, it is a struggle to redefine the parameters and limits of free speech, public political debate, the way to initiate, and frame public opinion agendas. Freedom of speech is the subject of the expedite socio-political construction rather than the fixed and timeless entity.
As Kev noted:

It's not maintainable. The mob is not organized enough or smart enough to control the majority, who are not in the mob and never will be because of the inherent exclusivity (narcissism). — Kev

‘the narcissistic majority’ (the similar term is ‘the silent majority’) will survive and feel well enough even if the more significant restrictions of political correctness will be imposed.

I think this interview below with Stephen Pinker makes the case pretty well as he was one of the signatures of the Harper's letter — ssu

On the contrary, I do not think that this interview fully clarify the case. We still do not know if we witness the culmination of the process or it is just the beginning. What will shape the parameters of the allowed debate? How the new political correctness will change the freedom of expression in various fields? This is how Jordan Peterson describes situation in the academic domain: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-the-activists-are-now-stalking-the-hard-scientists

You see that illiberalism which the paper refers to is basically pushed from both sides. Remember that populism, the idea of "the people" who are forgotten and even discriminated by "the elite" is a juxtaposition which creates an enemy, is much used both on the left and on the right. Populism doesn't seek to discuss things, it seeks to dominate and stifle other opinions. — ssu

I understand your points: there are a few arguments that are commonly used in the discussions about
populism, and I am familiar with them. I would not like to discuss Trump in this thread; yet, could you
explain me why

Donald Trump ... represents a real threat to democracy.

?
When he was elected, it was quite common to determine it as 'a fascist upheaval'.
In four years, differently from Hitler, he did not destroy democratic institutions in the US.
I am not going to defend Trump, I just do not understand why it was written in the letter.

Our friend Noam signed a letter today opposing cancel culture and supporting free speech. JK Rowling and many others also signed. — fishfry

It is not clear what are the forces that are fighting for the liberal values. The letter appeals to resist primarily just one wing. I still do not understand: Trump declares that he is the defender of free speech, but he is represented as a real threat. After reading this letter one can get impression that there is just one real threat, and there is also" stifling atmosphere".

These are dangerous times. People think awful stuff "couldn't happen here," but every bad thing that ever happened in the world happened in a place where the people thought it couldn't happen. — fishfry

Probably, people who do not live in the US cannot understand what is going on there.

Thank you for posting this letter. It is a remarkable document.

People usually have some point in what they are saying. Often they describe well certain a problem. Yet especially with what they give then to be the solution, one should be extremely careful and critical. If you can find things that you agree with even if on the whole you disagree with many other points, you aren't falling into the mold of the tribal culture war. One only needs to actually listen what people say to stay above the fray. People seldom do that. — ssu

Real answers, the one's that actually work, are usually long, complex and, well, boring. People get excited about short snappy answers that one can yell out. — ssu

I agree with you. Nobody wants to patently analyze the determining processes. Yet, are there real
answers? Or, are there just the illusions that allow us to pretend that we are above the fray?
The ancient police could represent the ideal of harmony and the realm of rationality. Yet, behind the surface, there were irreconcilable conflicts and antagonisms.

Are you for or against taken down historical statues? — ssu

What about you?:smile: :razz: Do you support taking down historical statues?

And by what non-arbitrary standard is the state not a part of "the people"? The media is the media, the universities are the universities, and the state is the state. They all exist, a priori, for the people and by the people. But to consider "the people" self-determined is to reify the abstraction. There is no such thing as "the people." There is a complex system of individuals that can appear to function as a single unit in particular instances. These instances can largely be understood by accounting for incentives. — Kev

I accept your criticism. Probably, the concepts that I use look like vague, taken out of the context and the appropriate conceptual framework. For Butler, in her book.
'Notes toward a performative theory of assembly,' 'the people' means the spontaneously formed, self-organized group, acting-in-concert: it is the primary source of social agency, able to reconfigure the existing political and social fields. The book's central point is to show that protests movements in the West still have the potential and future. Further, giving the concept of 'the people' the priority means maintaining the old tradition (from Rousseau) according to which 'the people' has the ultimate sovereignty over political and judicial institutions. But what does it mean that 'the media' has become the constitutive part of 'the people'?
'The media' is not just a few mainstream media platforms. There are also social networking platforms, numerous apps, sophisticated infrastructure, animating, and organizing flows of information and images. They function in machinic, automized manners. No essential social event is possible without being processed and amplified by 'the media' initiated events. They produce self-sustained images that are not located in the individual consciousness, and that can shape and manage various mass behavioral patterns and reactions. Agitated and affected by 'the media,' 'the people' directly produce value: the newest digital technologies and platforms constitute the most dynamic field of neoliberal capitalism.

As power becomes more accessible to more people we see sweeping changes in social behavior. — Kev

Power does not become more accessible to more people. It looks like people can make more and more individual choices. Yet, the whole environment of our lives has already been structured and programmed. So, even at the most intimate level, we do not produce, we reproduce.

As power becomes decentralized we also see a shift in how power is used. As the power structure shifts to the left, so does the culture. Politics is not downstream of culture, it turns out. The will of the people changes depending on how much power the people have. — Kev

The will of the people’: you applied Rousseau’s concept. It looks like we witness the tremendous ‘shift to the left.’ Yet, ‘the people’ and ‘the will of the people’ are in the reciprocal relation with ‘the media”. And ‘the media’ is unseparated from the newest neoliberal capitalistic processes. ‘Progress’
means formidable acceleration. The culture is crucially dependent on the financial and media support. Your point is that there is the ongoing ‘shift to the left’ in the US and maybe in the West. Let say that the ‘left program’ has been realized: the statues are pulled down or exploded, the flags are burnt, streets are renamed, history textbooks are rewritten: what would remain? ‘The culture’ would survive. Yet, it would be a different culture. Probably, it would not need recognizable historic symbols anymore. The media events and the capitalistic innovations would produce social and political engagement and support the social order.

part of "struggle" in the "culture war" is to redefine terms like "marxist", "nazi" or especially what being a "racist" means as people are very timid at being called racist. When you take the terms out of the historical context and the original ideology, you can accuse people who don't have anything to do with the ideologies and paint the dark picture you want of those who you oppose. — ssu

I agree with you.This words have completely lost the meaningful historical connotations. And, it is not clear what they actually mean in the context of the current situation.

you will be divided into two camps that hate each other. The white racists against the marxist iconoclasts. Pick your side, pick your tribe. — ssu

How can you stay above the fray? What is your position?

There are only two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. — Athena

So, which one is currently holding social order in the US?

When people refer to Maoist or Marxist or Nazi or whatever, they should really have the actual meaning of the word and use it as a pejorative adjectives. — ssu

Who knows the actual meaning of these words today? Historians should not be counted.
Probably, activists that are using this words do not know the history.

Matt Taibbi explains it well:

It’s the Fourth of July, and revolution is in the air. Only in America would it look like this: an elite-sponsored Maoist revolt, couched as a Black liberation movement whose canonical texts are a corporate consultant’s white guilt self-help manual, and a New York Times series rewriting history to explain an election they called wrong. — ssu

Do you share this opinion? It looks that you are not serious about it.:smile:

But where has society moved, as a whole? To the right or to the left? — Kev

There is no winning option on the right. The culture will continue to change in the direction it always has. Like I said above, there are two options: progress, or slower progress. — Kev

I understand your point. My position is that the traditional articulation of the political spectrum does not reflect the current state of affairs. Ideological platforms and programs diverge from the real exercise of power. Also, what you could call 'left politics' necessarily contains a few incompatible tendencies.

Eventually you get to a point in history where there would be a consensus. That doesn't mean that moving left isn't the right thing to do, but the power structures that shift at all will always shift left, short of a coup or revolution. — Kev

Our society does not exist as a closed system. Globally, it is a part of a dynamic
political and economic landscape. The expedited shift to ‘the left’ may cause systemic disbalances so that the chances of a coup or revolution could increase. There are similar interpretations of Trump's presidency or Brexit as the results of unbalanced shifts.

Official power is given more and more to the people, — Kev

Just to clarify, culture moving to the left is a shift towards accommodating the lowest common denominator, while the power structure moving to the left is decentralizing official power (moving it more and more towards the lowest common denominator). With official power being in the minds of the masses, obviously there is the incentive for any institutions designed for disseminating information to guide those minds. — Kev

It is not clear if we deal with the people as the autonomous, self-determined source of the social agency.
Judith Butler proposed that the media has become an essential constitutive part of the people.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8489/arendt-and-butler-on-political-action-and-subjectivity
Similarly, the media provides the decisive support for the functioning of the culture and other societal institutions. And, it is not just about the role of the media: simultaneously, a multitude of various neoliberal capitalistic processes directly invests and determines the societal processes. As a result, the contemporary society, while ‘shifting to the left,’ accelerates to the state of disequilibrium.