Americans are increasingly afraid to express themselves honestly
city-journal.org
city-journal.org
While I do agree there is more calling out of people for saying things (for better and worse) it also seems there is an increasing sense of entitlement to be able to say whatever you want and not be held accountable for it. This article seems to be falling into the latter bucket.
Some say the election of Donald Trump is in part due to the backlash against the intolerance of the left. He definitely does not say things to be "politically correct".
(For anyone who hasn't seen the acronym before.)
It is similar to policies that made access to home ownership easier (for some) because having a mortgage (and equity) is implicit buy into the system which lowers the likelihood that you’ll fight against it.
Those without equity have nothing to lose.
"Good" discrimination, a worldview that requires racial essentialism and stereotypes.
Reduce everyone to their immutable attributes and tailor your behavior accordingly.
Since in the minds of social justice people, one group is unconditionally placed below another group (think of the vocabulary they use when they say "the work is never done"), we must actively discriminate to fix things.
???
I think it's definitely the opposite.
The evidence seems clear - dozens of the centre-left's most foundational global thinkers (i.e Noam Chomsky et. al.) have had to take out a page in Harper's to literally tamp down the authoritarian tendencies of those suppressing speech, mostly more extremists of 'their own side'. [1]
This represents a profound shift in sentiment from just one generation ago whereupon thinkers (such as Chomsky!) would have been fighting the 'other side' for the ability to speak their minds - as in the case in more classical authoritarian societies (i.e. Belarus).
We are not entering a world where 'those evil racist using the n-word are finally being called out' - frankly - this was already the case for at least generation.
We are now entering the phase where people are destroyed for having slightly controversial, but nevertheless respectable opinions that fit within civil discourse.
Student unions are banning comedians, and thinkers with whom they disagree.
Aside from 'public statements' - there is of course the reasonable act of contextualization. What people say while they are partying, drinking it up, among one another, as friends, is not 'public discourse'. This notion that people must live 'professionally sanitized lives every waking moment' is rubbish. The whole point of 'privacy' is the ability to speak freely.
I'm concerned by your statement, because as your professional life encroaches upon you with 'greater degrees of responsibility' - you may be projecting that narrow perspective onto society at large, and risk authoritarian moralizing from a sanitized executive bubble 'where even thoughts are guarded'.
So yes, there are a few dirtbags being called out, but for everyone one of them there's a long list of legit thinkers being blacklisted, and a much longer list of regular plebes unable to just act normally, within their own context with the moral beam of globalism like a spotlight upon them at all times.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_on_Justice_and_Open_D...
>> While I do agree there is more calling out of people for saying things (for better and worse) it also seems there is an increasing sense of entitlement to be able to say whatever you want and not be held accountable for it. This article seems to be falling into the latter bucket.
> ???
> I think it's definitely the opposite.
> The evidence seems clear - dozens of the centre-left's most foundational global thinkers (i.e Noam Chomsky et. al.) have had to take out a page in Harper's to literally tamp down the authoritarian tendencies of those suppressing speech, mostly more extremists of 'their own side'. [1]
You're both right:
On the right, there seems to be a growing view that "free speech" means that you should be able to say whatever you want (even if it's literally a factually untrue lie), and not experience any social censure and be welcome on any platform or venue. For an example of this, see the nonsense around the false claims of election fraud and people quitting Twitter for Parler because of Twitter's labels on that misinformation.
On the left, there's the extreme form of political correctness that's metastasized into "cancel culture," where in some quarters there's an unwillingness to tolerate differing opinions and perspectives on many topics.
This is a good point, however, it's worth pointing out that 'free speech' definitely covers 'untrue and false facts'.
I guess, if you're the President of the US, lying about election outcomes, the the results of the lies are so outrageous, that there may be some 'sanction' on a private platform.
I'm not sure what the 'censure' should be for private individuals, sometimes regular people have difficulty with the facts.
> This is a good point, however, it's worth pointing out that 'free speech' definitely covers 'untrue and false facts'.
I suppose so, but such things are often not protected by the First Amendment, and expressions of falsehood have no positive value except when corrected. The point I was making was actually the clause after the one you quoted.
> I guess, if you're the President of the US, lying about election outcomes, the the results of the lies are so outrageous, that there may be some 'sanction' on a private platform.
> I'm not sure what the 'censure' should be for private individuals, sometimes regular people have difficulty with the facts.
What I meant by "social censure" was criticism, condemnation, correction, social rejection, etc. The people on the right that I was talking about seem to believe the free speech means they should be immune from those things, or that their statements should be presented with a false balance (e.g. as a he-said-she-said, "Trump says the sky is green, but Biden disagrees and says the sky is blue"), or that others should be obligated to repeat them without further comment. The Parler things show that clearly, since their main objection was that their false statements on Twitter were being paired with corrective warnings and sometimes even hidden behind them.
It might be more inclusive to chose something like “expectation” or “assumption”.
One can be frankly horrible as easily as one can be forthright.
What most people actually value is probably better referred to by terms like "fidelity" or even "trust." We care most how accurate and forthcoming people's statements are when we're putting together agreements on how to behave and cooperate. On some occasions (like, say, court proceedings) we need to gather a picture of reality and we ask people for fidelity as witnesses.
None of these situations are about frank self-expression.
FSE does matter in some situations, usually involving personal relationships, though even there most people eventually learn that has its limits too. For example, unless you have an unusual relationship with your SO, you might be cautious about frankly expressing any passing attraction you have to other people.
Most people should be cautious about FSE. And that caution, as it turns out, is a productive systemic warning. You have in your head a model of other people. It's not perfectly accurate any more than your probably not particularly well-formed opinions are, but both may have some merit, and the former tells you something about the problems of the latter that you should probably listen to.
There are people who don't have to listen to that as much. You can probably think of examples you've observed. They seem to have certain privileges in certain contexts relative to you which enable them to get away with behavior you find distasteful or even wrong.
It's likely enough that could be you with only minimal social checks on FSE.
If "afraid to express yourself honestly" means "fear of violent retribution", it's possible things have gone off the rails. If "afraid to express yourself honestly" means "I feel like there might be consequences to my social standing if I frankly express my thoughts and feelings without polite moderation", then it might be that what you value is the privilege of indulgent expression without challenge.
Old phrase that pulled me out of an old phase. Tact is as much about communicating in a way that people will learn from, as it is protecting other peoples' feelings.
The Oscars were unable to obtain a host at the last minute, literally for this reason, it's unprecedented.
People are destroyed for opinions, or mere tweets.
This is a major snafu for 'major event' and is obviously a function of cancel culture.
They could not get a replacement, partly because many are afraid of the added scrutiny.
"So exactly who/what was cancelled?"
?
JK Rowling is under blistering attack from New York magazine, just two days ago [1] for having a nuanced opinion about feminism and trans people.
Gal Gadot is under fire for daring to portray Cleopatra (Egyptian Queen of Macedonian decent). [2]
That's just in the last two days.
The headlines are never ending, it's a clear and present issue.
[1] https://www.thecut.com/article/who-did-j-k-rowling-become.ht...
[2] https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/gal-gadot-cleopatra-castin...
And Gal Godot is still a working actor. Her films haven't been banned or boycotted, she hasn't been fired or replaced in any roles.
Neither of them have been deplatformed from any social media sites, been denied the ability to speak or to earn income.
The right's definition of "cancel culture" seems to have degenerated to the point that it encompasses any criticism of anyone for any reason. Having someone disagree with you and express that disagreement isn't cancel culture, it's free speech.
But thanks for more directly making my original point that, as the GP’s post shows, many people’s working definition seems to be “criticism == cancel culture”
???
Vindictive campaigns, which you've tacitly admit exist - are clear evidence of cancel culture - that said campaigns don't always work, is not evidence that they don't exist.
These hate campaigns have a chilling effect on institutions. They tried to 'cancel' Stephen Pinker, hardcore Harvard secular humanist [1] - who will survive the ordeal but much erstwhile reasonable science won't get published.
"The definition of "cancel culture" seems to have degenerated to the point that it encompasses any criticism of anyone for any reason. "
... this is obviously false given the examples above.
It's an easy lie: "Some people use the n-word, so cancel culture is acceptable in all cases" is the logic implied.
But this:
"Having someone disagree with you and express that disagreement isn't cancel culture, it's free speech. "
... is the crux of the lie.
It's fine that people disagree. That's probably a good thing actually. 'Cancel culture' is not about disagreement, it's about sanctioning people for having opinions.
Nobody is 'up in arms' that people are 'disagreeing with JK Rowling - they are concerned because of attempts to stop her books from being published, to stop her films from being made, to stop her public opinions from being published. [2] And if she were any less powerful, the campaign would be more successful, in 2020 you need to be a billionaire to have an opinion.
Couching the aggressive dismissal and deplatforming of people's who's opinions are different from yours merely as 'disagreement' is really a devious and wilful ignorance of the rhetorical goalposts.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/steven-pin...
[2] https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/b...
Have you considered that:
1) It's quite difficult to assert what actually does hurt people and;
2) more likely that these powers are merely going to be used for arbitrary political vindictiveness.
If someone is saying 'ban the KKK from Facebook', sure, that's fine.
But banning speech such as 'trans women are like women, but still different' - is totalitarian. 'Deadnaming' a trans person is also not very nice, but it's also not 'hate speech'. It will technically get you banned from Twitter, which is ridiculous.
Side Note: the oddest thing about the people who want to suppress speech, is that I find they tend not to be 'overt, assertive people'. This is not the alpha-style nationalist authoritarianism of the gilded class, oddly, it's the opposite - it's the authoritarianism of the ostensibly vengeful transgressed and hyper-sensitive. It has Jacobin kind of element to it: populism of a kind of underclass, with shades of angry revenge.
Dealing with anything american is the same liability like dealing with anything chinese.
It's not a matter of "if" but "when" you will be cancelled.
Just to be clear… I don't like Trump, and didn't vote for him. Being a conservative does NOT mean you're a Trump fan.
But here's the real issue… if you're not someone progressive (or on the hard left) the VAST majority of people will not even converse with you. Game over. Discourse is dead, if you don't fall between the lines.
You don't have an acceptable thought, your viewpoints are not welcome here.
Every conservative I've talked to has been willing to discuss and differ and disagree, and peacefully coexist with those with whom they have differences with.
The left? My experience has been that they will scream in your face. Your opinion does not matter unless you agree with them completely.
You get shouted down.
You get fired from your job.
You get branded as a racist.
JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE CONSERVATIVE.
It's no wonder people are afraid to express themselves.
<edited to remove the profanity>
From the article. How odd that a partisan issue would occur at the exact same rates on both sides.
I am actually starting to see a backlash against the politicization of the workplace and think Coinbase got it right, personally. At the end of the day, companies are not college campuses. Trying to turn it into one makes the company uncomfortable, less productive and just... weird. See the recent flare ups at Google, which is hardly a bastion of conservative thought, as an example.
I edited my post.
I'd like to think conservative doesn't necessarily come with the persecution complex and lack of coherence on display in your comment. I can think of a few counterexamples.
A few.
(Mind you, I'm skeptical; in general I find a lot of $POLITICAL_DESIGNATION thought falls short, and `conservative` thought more than average. But there are exceptions and they often turn out to be really illuminating, so I try to keep an eye out.)
Realize that this cuts both ways. This sentiment, and the various more extreme versions of it, are why I don't typically say things that sound left/liberal in real life.
I think that's fundamentally a side-effect of the "regulate decency by voting with your wallet and advocating others do the same" mantra of neoliberalism and libertarianism.
People's attitude towards this has always bugged me - "if you really believed that, you'd put your money where your mouth is", and yet somehow e.g. vegans (no, I'm not vegan) are the butt of jokes instead of held up as people who are morally responsible with their spending.
Like, which is it? It seems to me like people adore the concept, but love to hate on any actual people who meet that concept.
I have not noticed as much militant veganism in the last few years, perhaps because the people I associate with are older and wiser, or maybe I am just going deaf.
Eg: “if one of your dinner guests is a vegan crossfitter, which do they tell you about first?”
But thank you for your efforts in attempting to mock my argument rather than address it.
Virtue signaling is like tryinf to help people see in the dark by shining the flashlight you're carrying in their eyes.
It's no longer safe to have an opinion that's not mainstream.
It's held against you.
If a company is trawling your private opinions on social media, then they're not just opinions, they're public statements. Maybe they ought not to be, but they are.
Of course, your main point stands that companies generally shouldn't hire based on an employee's political opinions (unless it's a PR/representative position or such), outspoken or not, but let's use the correct terminology here:
publicly stating political stuff under your real name is more than just "having an opinion".
You're reasoning as if only "political" speech is relevant, but everything can be made "political stuff". Saying the words "master bedroom" is considered racist now. What will be racist tomorrow? No one knows. What is racist today that I don't yet know is racist? What is considered racist by one group if I say it but racist by others if I don't say it (Silence is violence and all that)?
Of course anyone can get fired for saying "master bedroom" or absolutely anything else if it's said to be racist. I could agree with your take if the dialogue around those terms was that they were merely harmless. But that is not the dialogue. They are being labeled racist, and being racist naturally implies that they must be stamped out along with the people that say "racist" things. The entire point of labeling things "racist" rather than "tactless" is so that the dogma of the week can be enforced with actual consequences. You can't get a Twitter mob together for someone being tactless, but you can absolutely do it to someone that's "racist".
One problem is that the conservatives in national politics or state politics who are not Trump fans have to a large extent gone silent on any issues in which they disagree with Trump, at least publicly, for the last four years. That tends to give people the impression that being a conservative does mean you're a Trump fan.
Deleted comment
From TFA.
The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director.[1] It is an associate member of the State Policy Network....
The Manhattan Institute has received funding from the Koch brothers. The Claude R. Lambe Foundation, one of the Koch Family Foundations, reported giving $2,075,000 to the Manhattan Institute between 2001 and 2012, the last year for which data is available. The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave $100,000 to the Institute in 2012.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Instit...
Generally we try to go by article quality, not site quality: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
The current article probably doesn't clear the bar for a topic that has been repeated so often, but I didn't look very closely.
I'm aware of HN's policy regarding material rather than sources. I disagree: quality assessment costs are significant, HN struggles with this as it is, time and attention finite, and reputation a useful and generally, if not universally reliable mechanism and heuristic for effecting low-cost dismissal of noise.
MI are part of a global network of strongly-motivated, well-financed, ideologically-driven, truth-averse rganisations, "of 461 partners in 97 countries around the globe".
https://www.atlasnetwork.org/partners/global-directory
They've been highly effective in shifting the Overton Window since 1947, to the benefit of their backers, largely monopolists (a topic on which they've most spectacularly influenced discussion, policy, law, and judicial decisions).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Director#Academic_life
The article's principle gripe seems to be that the window is shifting back. Just desserts, served late.
They consider being called on their nonsense to be a personal attack, and the persistent corrections they receive from people they talk to are a sign of a conspiracy against them.
Let's assume that the normal distribution of certain psychological traits differs slightly but in a statistically significant way between the members of the population who share certain biological traits. Should the study of these correlations be allowed or not? It seems an unspoken consensus exists that it is negative, i.e. if you pursue the study of these you might face difficulties when receiving grants and so on.
Is it really good for the society, including the groups that something might be hurt by these studies? One could argue the opposite: only by rigorous studies we can arrive to definitive conclusion as to which correlations exist, and this could be a starting point for understanding better how to deal with them.
So as long as your study is actually rigorous and you aren’t just claiming it is, then you are fine.
If you are like Jordan Peterson and use any difference however minor to form your argument, you are misusing the science and have entered the world of politics and oppression.
James Damore was destroyed for saying essentially men are different than women.
People are destroyed for implying that 'women menstruate' (!) - because of course the position that 'trans men menstruate' excludes them and is therefore 'transphobic'.
Jordan Peterson is banned from campus for questioning the way in which we present and interpret 'equal pay' data etc..
Etc.
These are reasonable discussions to be had.
In reality - some groups are using terms like 'hate, racism, harm and violence' to suppress those they disagree with.
I don't think these have popular support, as generally pro-oppression articles meet with pretty strong resistance in the comments sections of the most reliable progressive online magazines, however, these people have outsized power in the media.
Read his whole manifesto before you go simplifying his argument to one point.
Like at work, we have an inclusive language thing now.(Like words are banned) I wont ever share my opinion about that with coworkers. Same with strangers, some people are unhinged enough to rant and rave in public, i wont share my thoughts on anything until I know whether you are going to have a rational response or not, and i keep it to my self to avoid interjections from people who are passionate enough to complain to a stranger. Like some of my surf spots are filled with regulars who are vocal conspiracy right wing political people and let everyone know it. I'm not sharing my thoughts about anything in that kind of environment
though i agree, this article is kind of weak, the topic it self based off the headline could be interesting