How Democracy Dies

[Berkut]

But right now, it results in them losing elections (not just the Presidency, there are lots of OTHER elections in this country, and the fucking oh so brilliant elite woke left loses most of them) to a populist party of douchebags dominated by faux religious dumbasses and truly radicalized anti-intellectual bigots.

You mean like the 2018 elections, where AOC and her ilk have achieved extreme popularity and the left won handily?

Oh, well, the Dems won a mid term election out of cycle. I guess we can all just relax.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/10/upshot/republicans-dominate-state-politics-but-democrats-made-a-dent.html

""Over the last decade, because there's no policymaking in Washington, the state of policymaking in America has been set at the state level, and it's been set by Republicans," said Drew Morrison, the co-founder of EveryDistrict, a group helping Democratic candidates. "And it's been set with a pretty aggressive conservative vision of what the world should be.""

Good for the AOC crowd. I am cheering for them.

It is nice that she can win in a insanely left wing dominated demographic. That doesn't help them win Wisconsin, or Michigan, or Georgia. Which is actually up for grabs, believe it or not.

Trump is a once in a generation opportunity for the Dems to reverse a couple decades of losing over and over and over again at most political levels. He is the best candidate the Dems could ever hope for, and they are going to do well because he is so despised by most people.

IMO, it would be a huge mistake on their part to think that means the most radical parts of the left wing agenda or the silliest identitiy politics crap is being embraced by the electorate. It is not. It is just people realizing that Trump is actually that bad.

I keep repeating this, and people keep carefully editing it out of my posts when they respond. 13% of those who voted for Trump voted for Obama in 2012. That is a huge number, and those are people who can be convinced. The left should be focusing on how to convince them. And those same people, I believe, are people who find a lot of this woke/social warrior silliness ridiculous, and have concerns that the left, right now, is ignoring. One of those concerns being immigration.

The left is not ignoring all of those concerns - the other biggy for them is health care, and most of those middle voters in swing states who can and will vote for either party want to see some kind of public health care option, and Trump has spectacularly failed there.

This isn't about what *I* think about these issues. The Dems have me locked up. They can trot out whatever fruitcake left wing socialist they want, and they will get my vote.

[Solmyr]

I keep repeating this, and people keep carefully editing it out of my posts when they respond. 13% of those who voted for Trump voted for Obama in 2012. That is a huge number, and those are people who can be convinced. The left should be focusing on how to convince them. And those same people, I believe, are people who find a lot of this woke/social warrior silliness ridiculous, and have concerns that the left, right now, is ignoring. One of those concerns being immigration.

So these people are asked to choose between people who ask them to occasionally use correct pronouns and to be okay with trans people using bathrooms according to their gender identity, and people who espouse racist and white supremacist views. And they have to think about which one to vote for?

Also, addressing immigration concerns requires there to be something to be concerned about. Is there an actual immigration crisis (that wasn't there before) that requires drastic action, or is this just a talking point pushed by the right? How is the left supposed to address it?

[Eddie Teach]

It's the economy, stupid.

[Berkut]

I keep repeating this, and people keep carefully editing it out of my posts when they respond. 13% of those who voted for Trump voted for Obama in 2012. That is a huge number, and those are people who can be convinced. The left should be focusing on how to convince them. And those same people, I believe, are people who find a lot of this woke/social warrior silliness ridiculous, and have concerns that the left, right now, is ignoring. One of those concerns being immigration.

So these people are asked to choose between people who ask them to occasionally use correct pronouns and to be okay with trans people using bathrooms according to their gender identity, and people who espouse racist and white supremacist views. And they have to think about which one to vote for?

Also, addressing immigration concerns requires there to be something to be concerned about. Is there an actual immigration crisis (that wasn't there before) that requires drastic action, or is this just a talking point pushed by the right? How is the left supposed to address it?

Those people don't actually believe you when you tell them over and over and over again that they are racists for caring about immigration or think that people being fired from their jobs for saying words that are objectively not offensive is ridiculous. Nor do they just accept that because the entire left sits back and pats each other on the back because everything that *could* be racist is painted as *definitely* racist that in fact every single thing is racist.

I don't even think most of them care about gendered bathrooms.

And you are responding to me, and the points *I* am bringing up - it is not very fair to turn around and cite as counter examples points I have not brought up. I don't think asking people to "occasionally use correct pronouns" is a problem, nor do I think that 13% does. When they see people getting all ballistic because someone refers to a group of human beings as "hey guys" they most certainly do care, and the right gets to trot that out and say "See, see! This is what OAC and Bernie want for all of us!" It's a stupid own goal that is politically dumb AND is actually pretty scary if that is the future of where the left wants to take us.

And there is certainly something to be concerned about with immigration. And again, you are making the same damn error. No, there is no crisis as the dumb ass right claims. But of course immigration is a concern for middle and lower class people. It has an effect, and people are in fact worried about that effect. And when the right blows it 100x out of proportion, but the response form the left is to insist that there is nothing to worry about at all, then people who are concerned are forced to choose between one side that is exaggerating the problem and the other that is ignoring it because the left will crucify them if they even acknowledge it at all. Why force that choice on anyone?

Same thing with islamic terrorism. One side blows it grossly out of proportion, the other side pretends it doesn't exist because to do so means the radical left will label you a anti-muslim bigot and you get your name on a list at the SPLC. Again, I know where *I* come down on that choice, but its still ridiculous PC bullshit that the left cannot just be honest and measured about these problems, rather than having to tip toe around them because of the fear of offending the twitterati left.

You are, with me, making the exact same logical error that the left as a whole is making. There are legitimate problems to be discussed in some areas, and the right has owned the supposed solutions with bigoted, racist, and just plain stupid answers. Build a wall. Ban muslims. Destroy Obamacare. But the left has gotten themselves into a place where to respond in any way other than to deny that any issue exists at all is social suicide. They have stifled the ability to actually have a discussion on the topic, because the moment it is brought up, you are assumed to somehow own the arguments of the idiotic right.

This entire exchange is a perfect example of it. I didn't argue that people should not use some particular bathroom, so why are you demanding that I defend that?

[Solmyr]

Okay. Well, I guess we are dealing with different lefts, because I certainly don't see any stifling of discussion, only condemnation of outright racist and offensive rhetoric.

[DGuller]

Somehow I doubt this is actually as widespread and major a problem as you claim. Sure, when it happens it's stupid. But it does not give any cause to equate "the left" embracing controlled speech and the right enabling racism and white supremacy.

When it comes to things like that, the damage is not just measured by number of people losing their jobs, but also the number of people self-censoring themselves out of real fear of unwarranted consequences.  The Twitter left is holding as self-evident a number of beliefs that are actually false or essentially false due to lack of subtlety, because it's impossible to argue against them without being shunned (and no, I'm not going to say what those beliefs are).

[DGuller]

Okay. Well, I guess we are dealing with different lefts, because I certainly don't see any stifling of discussion, only condemnation of outright racist and offensive rhetoric.

I don't think many people believe themselves to be stifling discussions, they just all have different definitions of what it means to be racist or offensive.  The problem is that a lot of true things are racist, sexist, or offensive these days among certain crowds.

[Berkut]

Okay. Well, I guess we are dealing with different lefts, because I certainly don't see any stifling of discussion, only condemnation of outright racist and offensive rhetoric.

Then you are not paying attention.

A Netflix exec was forced to resign because he used the N-word during a meeting.

The context? He was the communications director of the company, and Netflix had aired a stand up routine where the comedian had used the word "retard". This was found objectionable by many people and they complained to Netflix. So far, so good.

He and Netflix decided to be more careful about vetting the content of shows they produce, and during the meeting where this was being discussed, the exec basically said something like "The use of the word 'retard' is seen by many in the disabled community as being just as offensive as black people finding the word <insert n word here since I don't need someone slicing and dicing this quote to claim I did the same thing he did>".

So he actually used the word to illustrate how objectionable it was - this is as benign and un-offensive a context as one could imagine - indeed, it is actually the opposite of offensive. He didn't call anyone that, and his entire point was to illustrate just how they needed to be more careful about how they consider the use of offensive language. Nobody at the meeting felt offended or targetted by his use of the word, or asked that he be disciplined. Nobody in the room found the use of the word worthy of firing. He probably should have just used our socially agreed upon substitute, but he actually wanted to invoke a sense of shock in his audience so that they could understand why they were going to take the same attitude towards terms like "retard". Oops.

But that doesn't matter. Word got out, and the twitterverse exploded or this white guy using the word at all, and he was forced to resign. The president of Netflix issued the left wing form letter of abject hari kari and the world moved along.

Now, I don't really care that much about some uber rich netflix exec. I am sure he is going to survive. But these stories make their way into the social firmament, and they most certainly change the way we talk to one another, and not in a good way. We have to be careful to not say the wrong thing, even if saying it is objectively and clearly NOT offensive in any rational analysis - even the form of offense is taboo.

And there are plenty of examples of this. The Harvard profesor getting shouted down, the admin in southern California getting fired, etc., etc.

Each of these is ammo in the right wing "See, the left is intolerant and will censor you and are a bunch of crazy identity politics warriors!". You might dismiss that as so much bullshit, but there are plenty who do not. And they care, and they vote.

[DGuller]

Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

[Razgovory]

Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Freedom from having the state restrict speech.

[DGuller]

Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Freedom from having the state restrict speech.

Freedom of speech is a principle, not just a constitutional protection.  Constitutional protections guard against the state infringing on your freedom of speech, but you're not going to have a free society if private lynch mobs still successfully shut people up without state's help.

[crazy canuck]

Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Freedom from having the state restrict speech.

Freedom of speech is a principle, not just a constitutional protection.  Constitutional protections guard against the state infringing on your freedom of speech, but you're not going to have a free society if private lynch mobs still successfully shut people up without state's help.

Back up a bit.  Of course people must accept the consequences for that they say.  Freedom of speech and expressive rights are constitutionally protected from state interference.  But there are all kinds of ways one can suffer adverse impacts and even legal liability in the course of exercising those expressive rights.

[The Brain]

A large part of the population do not think that it's OK to have opinions different from their own. Which sucks, and I don't think this will change any time soon since at least in Sweden people and institutions that should stand up for an open dialogue-based society are either silent or baying with the hounds.

[DGuller]

Back up a bit.  Of course people must accept the consequences for that they say.  Freedom of speech and expressive rights are constitutionally protected from state interference.  But there are all kinds of ways one can suffer adverse impacts and even legal liability in the course of exercising those expressive rights.

There are limits to the freedom of speech, because that freedom conflicts with other important freedoms, that is true.  The issue is with the Orwellian word salad that draws a distinction between freedom and consequences, as if freedom means being physically enabled to do something rather than being allowed to do something without retaliation.

[Berkut]

Oh, and one more thing:  it's hard to find a phrase more Orwellian than "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".  That's the justification used for why it's okay for people to be fired for saying dumb things in their personal life. 

If freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, then what the fuck does it actually mean?  Freedom from having your vocal cords severed?  The whole point of having freedom of speech is to not discourage people to voice things that may not be popular, and that doesn't end at First Amendment.  First Amendment is just a US government recognition of the concept, but the concept is universally applicable.

Frankly, I find people wishing for people to be fired and celebrating when it inevitably happens to be very scary.  The people in history who have the most innocent blood on their hands have usually being authoritarians who believed themselves to be righteous in their violence.

Freedom from having the state restrict speech.

Freedom of speech is a principle, not just a constitutional protection.  Constitutional protections guard against the state infringing on your freedom of speech, but you're not going to have a free society if private lynch mobs still successfully shut people up without state's help.

Back up a bit.  Of course people must accept the consequences for that they say.  Freedom of speech and expressive rights are constitutionally protected from state interference.  But there are all kinds of ways one can suffer adverse impacts and even legal liability in the course of exercising those expressive rights.

And some of those ways are clearly in opposition to the culture and society we should want.

Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it a good thing. Surely gun control would teach us that.

*Progressives* of all people should be militant about protecting peoples ability to speak freely and express ideas without fear of having your livelihood or personal integrity attacked, rather than the ideas that speech expresses attacked.

We are seeing examples of people being forced out of their jobs at univerisities of all places because they said something that some minority decided to take objection to - if you cannot speak your mind in academia, where can you? That should be the LAST bastion of free exercise of ideas, even bad ideas!

I don't disagree that you have to deal with the consequences of your speech. But I think as a society we need to be, we MUST be, careful about what we decide those consequences ought to be, and be much less tolerant of a vocal and impassioned minority deciding that the way to win the battle of ideas is to simply make ideas they don't like (or even ideas that meet some form of ideas they don't like even if the ideas themselves are harmless) too dangerous to articulate because you will lose your job, rather than lose the debate.