Quo Vadis GOP?

[The Brain]

I think the argument that things were bad before therefore it's OK if things are bad today is fairly weak.

But that's not what he said.

The "free speech has always been restricted so STFU" argument has made the rounds, and the people making it read stuff like this as support.

[garbon]

I think the argument that things were bad before therefore it's OK if things are bad today is fairly weak.

But that's not what he said.

The "free speech has always been restricted so STFU" argument has made the rounds, and the people making it read stuff like this as support.

I guess if people only want to partially read what he said (or what anyway says), they are always free to do so.

[Sheilbh]

Two thoughts.

I'm not sure which front of the woke wars "don't say gay"/section 28 style laws are on. It seems straightforwardly retrogressive rather than in a reaction to any particular woke outrage.

On cancel culture, the thing I've been thinking about recently is whether it works on its own terms? Does it achieve what it is trying to?

[DGuller]

We are talking about simply not being a dick to people for being LGBT, black, women, etc...

I guess it depends on how you define being a dick.  The woke often seem to take great liberties in defining who the dicks are, and even questioning what makes one a dick can get you classified as a dick.  It's almost like it's used as means to suppress discussion and protect their monopoly on defining what makes one a dick.

In addition to that, note how you said nothing about not being dicks to people who are not "LGBT, black, women".   That's also very revealing, it's not "don't be a dick to people based on their ethnicity, race, gender, etc.", it's don't be a dick to certain categories. 

Lastly, it's not just about classifying whether you're a dick, but also about accepting what punishment is appropriate once it is established.  To the woke, it seems like a person who slipped up and revealed themselves to be racist is fair game for destruction, regardless of what actual actions they committed or didn't commit.  The thought is the crime, not the action.

[crazy canuck]

I wonder if those who think that "wokism" is as much of a threat to liberal liberal democracy as Orbanism can tell us what wokism is.

[Josquius]

I wonder if those who think that "wokism" is as much of a threat to liberal liberal democracy as Orbanism can tell us what wokism is.

fine being a dick.  The woke often seem to take great liberties in defining who the dicks are, and even questioning what makes one a dick can get you classified as a dick. 

No it can't.

It's almost like it's used as means to suppress discussion and protect their monopoly on defining what makes one a dick.

Who are 'they' holding this monopoly?
This is an interesting facet of the views of some on the right as its viewing the left through a firmly right wing scope.
One of the defining characteristics of the left. Mocked since time immemorial. Is that they can't agree on anything. The Judean Peoples Front bit was hilarious as its so very true.
Yet the left gets presented as this all powerful centralised united group plotting what part of western culture to destroy this week.

In addition to that, note how you said nothing about not being dicks to people who are not "LGBT, black, women".   That's also very revealing, it's not "don't be a dick to people based on their ethnicity, race, gender, etc.", it's don't be a dick to certain categories. 

I'd say this is more revealing about the anti-woke crowd than it about those they deem woke.
They see being told not to be a racist, homophobic, chauvinist as somehow an act against straight white guys. Its like respect is a limited resource and treating everyone decently suddenly means less respect for those who already have it.
Obviously being racist against white guys, sexist against men, or straightphobic would be bad too. But in the western world of today these aren't issues on anything remotely like the same level as the stuff I mentioned.
If Neil Patrick Harris suddenly started going off on how straights should be herded into death camps you can bet his cancellation would be swift.

Lastly, it's not just about classifying whether you're a dick, but also about accepting what punishment is appropriate once it is established.  To the woke, it seems like a person who slipped up and revealed themselves to be racist is fair game for destruction, regardless of what actual actions they committed or didn't commit.  The thought is the crime, not the action.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
If you're a popular singer and you decide to talk about how more men should beat their wives and then suddenly nobody is coming to your concerts anymore.... Well boo hoo for you. Pretty logical and straight forward outcome for this person revealing themselves to be a massive dick.
It absolutely is the action, not the thought which is a problem.
Maybe Tom Hanks really really hates Mexican people?- He's certainly said nothing about this though so he has faced no consequences.

[The Minsky Moment]

I've said this plenty of times before, but I'll say it again: the chilling effect of free speech suppression is not measured by the bodycount, it's measured by the amount of speech suppressed.  Sometimes the chilling effect is so effective and so credible that you don't actually have to set a lot of examples to make everyone comply.

I know you (and others e.g. Berkut) have said this before, but as I see it the chilling effect isn't measured at all.  It's just stated through assertion.  My own impression from interacting with the corporate world is that laddism is still quite alive and well and considerable more prevalent than the attitudes of Garden Court Chambers.  But that's just more argument by anecdote.

I would guess that in the Soviet Union, not a whole lot of people got executed for telling Stalin to suck his own dick.  That doesn't mean that Soviet citizens were free to tell Stalin to suck his own dick.  An alternative explanation could be that they understood that it would be a dangerous thing to do even without seeing other people being executed for telling Stalin to suck his own dick, and they decided self-censor instead.

People self-censored under Stalin because Stalin DID have enormous numbers of people killed or sent to gulags.  It's a bad analogy for this argument because it just highlights the lack of comparable Wokist victim body count.

If you look at "elite" US universities today, the notion that conservatives are cowed and silenced just doesn't hold water.  The US Senate is filled to the brim now with far right zealots with Ivy League credentials, joined by Commissar DeSantis.  Sheilbh's buddy Vermueule is openly promoting neo-Falangist propaganda at the heart of Harvard Law School, with the only consequences being book deals and speaker invitations.

[Solmyr]

I know you (and others e.g. Berkut) have said this before, but as I see it the chilling effect isn't measured at all.  It's just stated through assertion.

[Valmy]

Well we can't just throw ethnic minorities and LGBT people under the bus. They are key pillars of our party.

So "wokism", whatever the fuck it is, will just continue being a gift for them.

We can protect them with persuasion rather than sledgehammer.  In fact, we'll probably protect them better that way, because we can't protect them if we help getting GOP elected.

Ok. What are the sledgehammer laws being passed? They were certainly not passed in Florida which has been under Republican control for almost 30 years, and prior to that the Democrats were quite socially conservative at least by today's standards. So are these federal woke sledgehammer laws?

Or are there woke sledgehammer laws in other states that are scaring Florida? I don't know. Which laws are being passed and implemented do you consider "sledgehammer" laws?

Also you have to define "woke" for me because it can mean mean you have opinions slightly to the left of militant conservatives in some contexts and a participant in insane twitter discourse in others.

[Valmy]

I guess I would also suggest these reactionary laws being passed, or at least introduced, in places like Florida are also a political gift. But we'll see.

[Valmy]

I think liberals understand that government is not the only source of power that can be projected onto the individual.  In fact, wokists do as well, which is why trying to get someone fired is their default method of setting an example on the few so that the many will get the hint.  At least with the government you have some recourse, whereas there is no appeals court for getting canceled.

I agree that nutballs trying to get people fired and other idiocy is very bad. But this is a tiny number of people who are accountable to nobody. One of the great "gifts" of social media is that it can make a small hardcore number of idiots very powerful indeed.

If they are accountable to nobody and get their power via a platform that is privately controlled and managed and also accountable to no elected official...what can be done about it? Hunting everybody down?

And by the way it is not like this is just a leftwing deal. When I was on twitter I certainly saw plenty of remarkably brutal harassment by rightwing people. Interesting that none of that is considered "wokism" or "cancel culture."

Presuming by "wokism" you mean this kind of mob justice. Mob justice is always bad justice even if I agree with the cause.

Do the Democrats need to hunt down and silence people in the name of free speech so they will not be unwittingly used by Republicans?

[Sheilbh]

If you look at "elite" US universities today, the notion that conservatives are cowed and silenced just doesn't hold water.  The US Senate is filled to the brim now with far right zealots with Ivy League credentials, joined by Commissar DeSantis.  Sheilbh's buddy Vermueule is openly promoting neo-Falangist propaganda at the heart of Harvard Law School, with the only consequences being book deals and speaker invitations.

To be clear I don't agree with or like Vermeule - I just think he might be what's coming next in the conservative legal movement and worth watching and understanding now.

Although on that - it doesn't necessarily apply to Vermeule - but I think there is a difference in impact of "wokism" for conservatives. This is part of why I wonder if the strategy is working on its own terms. I think especially in the US the conservative movement/right has created a material, financial basis for proclaiming their views.

They don't really need to worry about being "cancelled" because there is a well funded conservative ecosystem with plenty of sinecure their media, the speaking circuit, think tank gigs, impressive sounding "schools" and "institutes" at well credentialed universities that are all flush with cash. Again it's why I ask that question is that it seems like the only people who are "cancelled" or need to worry about it are people who don't have access to that ecosystem (partly prompted by seeing someone who was a very strong Corbyn backing, "dirtbag left" UK writer who was "cancelled" over sexual misconduct allegations now popping up in the American "post-liberal" right).

[Valmy]

I guess one thing I might be out of touch with by not being on twitter is that it is possible that left wing institutions and people are bowing down to the twitter nuts in a public way on that platform. That makes it look like this group has more power than they should and/or do have.

So maybe the ultimate solution is just: not be on twitter.

But on the other hand prominent Democratic leaders like Jefferies and Pelosi and Biden are at best cool, at worst antagonistic, to even polite and kind far left voices much less bowing to the angry mobs. I don't know. Many Democrats lined up to condemn socialism with barely any blowback from the left. And if the actual politicians, who need votes, can get away with it I don't see why a tenured professor or some other less accountable person wouldn't be able to.

[frunk]

I agree that nutballs trying to get people fired and other idiocy is very bad. But this is a tiny number of people who are accountable to nobody. One of the great "gifts" of social media is that it can make a small hardcore number of idiots very powerful indeed.

Which points out the real problem.  It's not about free speech, it's about the weak labour laws in the US.  Corporations have too much power to fire people without cause, and so it's easy to make even minimal furor go away by letting someone go.  If the cost was higher to fire it would at least give them pause.

[Barrister]

I wonder if those who think that "wokism" is as much of a threat to liberal liberal democracy as Orbanism can tell us what wokism is.

Obviously there is no single definition of "wokeism".  The term woke started up on the left, got raised up as a pejorative by the right, and obviously means different things to different people.

At it's most agreeable, being "woke" means being made aware of the persistent inequality and systemic discrimination against minority groups across western society.  This is something "the right" should agree with, and promote conservative solutions to, although sadly often don't.  And yes some on the right oppose this version of wokeism.

But at it's most disagreeable, "wokeism" means using social pressure to enforce very left-wing/progressive social views, even when those views are not the majority across society.  Think of journalists being fired for discussing whether it's appropriate to use the N-word, professors being reprimanded for showing historical portraits of the Prophet Mohammed, calls for Harry Potter to be boycotted.  There are lots of examples of such behaviour, mostly involving social media, and mostly involving universities or journalism (though not limited to such areas either).

Look we can all argue who is worse - the left or the right.  That's all fair game.  And Minsky can argue that Ron de Santis is a greater threat to democracy than "wokeism".  That's all fair.

But I don't think you can deny that what I'll call "disagreeable wokeism" isn't a real thing, and that it is, well, disagreeable.