A movement that cannot be criticized cannot achieve positive goals

This is a sad turn of events where asking for evidence is evidence of maliciousness rather than revealing fraud or vacuousness on the side of the person making the claims. If someone makes a claim they certainly should be capable of response. And the institution using outrageously euphemistic language when calling for discipline. What fragile institutions.

This is terrible and taking us to nowhere fast.

Even victims of rape and assault are called as witnesses and aren’t spared, but here, questioning a poor argument is grounds for discipline because it called into question the basis for an ideology with weak underpinnings.

Conversely, if you don’t provide specifics, you’ll be accused of making stuff up.

This is an issue I have thought a great deal about. It isn't peculiar to any particular issue. I think it is a product of the internet age, where we can talk about and also talk with virtually anyone on the planet in real time.

I have wrestled with this a lot because I find social stuff interesting. If I talk about a particular person in order to have a concrete example, I'm in danger of doing real harm to that person. If I don't cite a real world example, people may not believe it or may not be able to comprehend my point.

One of my solutions is I talk about myself a lot. The result: I get accused of being a narcissist and attention monger who "makes everything about me."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Exactly what was said at the hearing following the event was not recorded and the events following are a he said, she said according to the judges opinion.

I believe there shouldn’t have been a hearing in the first place. If it’s true that he was argumentative and disrespectful towards those in authority that’s always a good way to get yourself in trouble regardless if you’re right or wrong.

My thoughts are that there probably shouldn’t have been a hearing and that he handled it poorly even though it shouldn’t have happened. Should that be blamed on “the left’s” intolerance? Idk.

Personally I'm exposed to loads of talking about malignant trends on the broad left, or at least the woke bit. Maybe it's just who I follow on twitter etc but I see far more criticism of woke than I see actual wokeness. Titania McGrath (satire) is quite funny if you enjoy jokes about that. https://mobile.twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath

Where I think this article goes wrong, however, is when by conflating the two. The "Left" is a broad category. Certainly, some might conflate criticism with "violence", but I think it is a markedly conservative trend to try to conflate corporate D&I training with the Left writ large.

1. it at no point mentions what the fellow is actually alleged to have said. I'm sure I could find out with a few clicks, but what's up with that?

2. This is mostly an anxiety-rant about an entire political movement-of-movements that, for the most part, has nothing to do with the specifics of this anecdotal case.

How is this front-page HN material? Sample size?? Connection with something other than ~feelings~ to leftist tendencies more generally? Like, IDK, this does not seem up to our normal burden-of-proof standards.

Not to put too fine a point on it, I think we are showing our bias, allowing mediocre content that we like here....for ~reasons~.... to bubble up without due scrutiny. Wisdom-of-crowds requires a wise crowd. I doubt ours here.

But it could well be a selective presentation of the evidence in order to make your case.

There's a reason journalists are at least supposed to attempt to show the other side: so the reader doesn't get snowed, and the writer can keep some small measure of objectivity. Since that hasn't happened here, one should assume this portrayal is not accurate.

Does anyone know if there have been more recent developments? t the very least, has UVa issued a response of any sort?

Couldn't agree more. As someone very liberal that is also exhausted of wokeness, of the constant normalization of racism against whites, and against asians (as model minorities), this hits the nail on the head.

The first graph is about how criticism on and of the left is akin to literal physical violence

Thats a fox news talking point

ITT: a bunch of people talking about malignant trends on the left and somehow not being accused of genocide!

So much of what the article says makes me want to pick up the pitch forks, but it’s also clear this article has an anti-left goal in mind, so I’d like to understand more before letting myself get emotional about it.

I say it has an anti-left goal, because it’s framing the issue of community ostracization on the basis of different beliefs as a specifically left issue. Go try talking about the benefits of socialism in a far right community and see how that goes.

From the left-wing mass media you have your typical comedians like stephen colbert. In the podcast scene you have folks like Joe rogan. On the right wing you have folks like steven crowder. They are all comedians.

Only comedians are allowed to criticize or discuss politics. Which is only true in the USA. Outside the USA? Hell Canada just to the north actively fines comedians for jokes. RCMP arrest book authors. Canada once had a ton of fantastic comedians but they have basically been forced to leave the country.

In the paper he suggested areas for further study that could affirm the idea, but I've not seen any, based on the Google Scholar search I set up.

edit: welp, this comment is now completely irrelevant.

Still, sadly there's too many on either side... Hopefully the pendulums will swing back to the center.

Such boogyman victim complex that also only singles out only one particular ideology, showing it's colors, most likely.

Yes, I've certainly engaged those too absorbed in politics to be able to handle criticism, whatever the political allegiance might be, but most persons are far more reasonable than what the article makes anything out to be.

A minority of persons does what the article describes, and this certainly isn't isolated to this so-called “broad left”. — that the writer singles out that alone is reason to be suspicious.

> You’d think a group that obsesses over power differentials and their own marginalization would have some grasp of this. Regardless of which side you fall into with this particular culture war, it should fucking terrify you that a movement that’s been tasked with addressing pressing social problems is designed in such a way that any substantial criticism is met with aggressive punishment.

Many groups obsess over power differentials and everyone who argues politics from such “groups” seems to consider himself the victim and oppressed. They all have their cherry picked statistics to show it, and they all ignore the statistics of the other side and the statistics deal with matters that are so divergent from one another that it's really impossible to tell who has it “worse”, but all are convinced it is they.

This isn't isolated to the so-called “broad left”; this is a function of special interest group politics.

Also, it has to be said, I estimate a 95% chance this article is both written by someone inside of the U.S.A., who also failed to even consider that a world outside of the U.S.A. exists when writing it. — it carries the stench of this style.

This line of reasoning doesn't seem logical to me, but perhaps someone can explain it to me. I don't see how responding with "aggressive viciousness" leads to a conclusion that one knows their position doesn't make sense and that they are in the wrong. This reminds me of reasoning I might associate with a children's playground: "you got mad when I said it, so the rumor must be true!"