I blame Trump's election for this. When he won, many of my friends on the Left lost their fucking minds. They want to put limits on freedom of speech and expression because they believe doing so will prevent another Trump from rising. I believe that's incredibly misguided for all the reasons you mention.
Well said. This gets to the core problem in America that underlies all other problems - we have a two party system in which neither party has any respect whatsoever for the core values upon which the country was founded.
I came of age politically during the post-9/11 era, and my core political values became civil liberties and anti-war. These were the values espoused by the anti-Bush cultural institutions, perhaps most forcefully on the Daily Show.
Those are still my core values. Which puts me out of step with... basically everyone else.
Now the right tends to assert those values more often, but that's only because they're losing (for now). For both parties, civil liberties and anti-imperialism are just rhetorical cudgels they use when they're on the defensive. The actual core value at play is the one you point out - power. Might makes right is the only principle in which our elites, and all the NPCs who mimic elite opinion, stand for.
I don't have any real solution to this problem. People just need to stop being dicks. But everyone seems to be going further and further down the road of dickishness. They can all go to hell. I'm not voting for any of these fucks anymore.
Once again, Jeff nails it. He is, by far, the most cogent "liberal" on planet earth. A bonus; the link to the Senate Hearing spoof made me laugh so hard, that I can skip my 5 minute abs this evening. Bust a gut funny!
Great piece, and the end I think nails things on the head. There's a certain disquiet about the illiberal tendencies of the left that stems from having lived long enough to know that 'it wasn't so long ago that the tables were turned.' But the other disquieting aspect, for me, is that for a political movement/party that is convinced they're the only sane ones in government (probable but also debatable), treating criticism as apostasy is absolutely undermining our ability to discuss policy in a productive manner.
When I was in law school, in our first year Civil Pro, one of my classmates was a scarily brilliant, completely intimidating woman "gunner" (law school lingo for anyone who talks in class) who was as lefty/progressive as it gets. Our prof was similarly lefty, but never disrespectful or dismissive of those with other viewpoints.
Near the end of the semester, after multiple interactions between prof and gunner, often where he gently tried to temper some of her more firebrand progressive proclamations (despite pretty much agreeing with them himself), we wound up on a class about criminal rights - particularly the right of confrontation. This comes up a TON in rape cases, since the victim almost always has to sit, in person, and be cross-examined with her rapist in the same room. And nearly all rape cases come down to credibility, which is why the victim is so often raked over the coals - claiming that the victim is lying is often the only defense the accused may have.
Gunner was definitely not cool with any of this - victim-blaming, slut-shaming, the whole traumatic ritual for victims. Prof was pushing back - hard - about protecting the fundamental Constitutional rights of the accused. Gunner kinda wound up her point with saying, "I think civil liberties are obviously important, but... maybe... not ... when it comes to rapists."
My prof paused, held out both hands with a smile, and said, "class, let it be my legacy that I have not only failed to make any impression on all of you, but I have lost [Gunner] as well." And then he swept from the room. Amid lots of laughter. (Hey, it was law school. That's The Comedy Cellar-level humor for sleep-starved 1L's.)
You raise an important point: distinguishing between criticism and the expression of unpopular views and “hate speech” that crosses the line of libel and beyond just the perhaps individually definable line of “bad taste.” Expressions of criticism, even those in incredibly poor taste and unpopular (see examples of Nazism and white supremacy for examples) can be protected free speech, until they cross the lines of incitement to violence or knowingly false information specially, and intentionally designed to defame and damage another person or group of people. These are lines established by law and judicial precedent but often difficult to decide with precision or enforce.
While we may agree on the real dangers of “culture cancelling” of individuals or condemn it as unwarranted and in poor taste, it seems most of those can be relegated to classification as foolish, unfair, unwise, or dumb criticism. It is often unwarranted and in bad taste, just as perhaps the speech or behavior that generated the criticism or “cancelling.” However, it is generally not libelous, illegal, or prosecutable.
In the immortal words of Forrest Gump or at least as first spoken by his mom, “stupid is as stupid does.”
Tara *Reade* made the allegations against Biden. Tara *Reid* won an Oscar for "Sharknado."
I blame Trump's election for this. When he won, many of my friends on the Left lost their fucking minds. They want to put limits on freedom of speech and expression because they believe doing so will prevent another Trump from rising. I believe that's incredibly misguided for all the reasons you mention.
Well said. This gets to the core problem in America that underlies all other problems - we have a two party system in which neither party has any respect whatsoever for the core values upon which the country was founded.
I came of age politically during the post-9/11 era, and my core political values became civil liberties and anti-war. These were the values espoused by the anti-Bush cultural institutions, perhaps most forcefully on the Daily Show.
Those are still my core values. Which puts me out of step with... basically everyone else.
Now the right tends to assert those values more often, but that's only because they're losing (for now). For both parties, civil liberties and anti-imperialism are just rhetorical cudgels they use when they're on the defensive. The actual core value at play is the one you point out - power. Might makes right is the only principle in which our elites, and all the NPCs who mimic elite opinion, stand for.
I don't have any real solution to this problem. People just need to stop being dicks. But everyone seems to be going further and further down the road of dickishness. They can all go to hell. I'm not voting for any of these fucks anymore.
Can you believe those dumb Republicans are still mad about a few false accusations of rape?
When government is threatening social media companies with regulation unless they censor inconvenient content then it is a free speech issue.
The government (and the left) doesn't get a pass just because it launders their actions via the private sector.
Once again, Jeff nails it. He is, by far, the most cogent "liberal" on planet earth. A bonus; the link to the Senate Hearing spoof made me laugh so hard, that I can skip my 5 minute abs this evening. Bust a gut funny!
Great piece, and the end I think nails things on the head. There's a certain disquiet about the illiberal tendencies of the left that stems from having lived long enough to know that 'it wasn't so long ago that the tables were turned.' But the other disquieting aspect, for me, is that for a political movement/party that is convinced they're the only sane ones in government (probable but also debatable), treating criticism as apostasy is absolutely undermining our ability to discuss policy in a productive manner.
When I was in law school, in our first year Civil Pro, one of my classmates was a scarily brilliant, completely intimidating woman "gunner" (law school lingo for anyone who talks in class) who was as lefty/progressive as it gets. Our prof was similarly lefty, but never disrespectful or dismissive of those with other viewpoints.
Near the end of the semester, after multiple interactions between prof and gunner, often where he gently tried to temper some of her more firebrand progressive proclamations (despite pretty much agreeing with them himself), we wound up on a class about criminal rights - particularly the right of confrontation. This comes up a TON in rape cases, since the victim almost always has to sit, in person, and be cross-examined with her rapist in the same room. And nearly all rape cases come down to credibility, which is why the victim is so often raked over the coals - claiming that the victim is lying is often the only defense the accused may have.
Gunner was definitely not cool with any of this - victim-blaming, slut-shaming, the whole traumatic ritual for victims. Prof was pushing back - hard - about protecting the fundamental Constitutional rights of the accused. Gunner kinda wound up her point with saying, "I think civil liberties are obviously important, but... maybe... not ... when it comes to rapists."
My prof paused, held out both hands with a smile, and said, "class, let it be my legacy that I have not only failed to make any impression on all of you, but I have lost [Gunner] as well." And then he swept from the room. Amid lots of laughter. (Hey, it was law school. That's The Comedy Cellar-level humor for sleep-starved 1L's.)
I read "Hammurabi’s Code" as "Harambe's Code" and had myself a good laugh
Omg, the way your shoulders just sink in that video when Sen. Leahy mentions his “grandchildren--all of them”! So perfect!
You raise an important point: distinguishing between criticism and the expression of unpopular views and “hate speech” that crosses the line of libel and beyond just the perhaps individually definable line of “bad taste.” Expressions of criticism, even those in incredibly poor taste and unpopular (see examples of Nazism and white supremacy for examples) can be protected free speech, until they cross the lines of incitement to violence or knowingly false information specially, and intentionally designed to defame and damage another person or group of people. These are lines established by law and judicial precedent but often difficult to decide with precision or enforce.
While we may agree on the real dangers of “culture cancelling” of individuals or condemn it as unwarranted and in poor taste, it seems most of those can be relegated to classification as foolish, unfair, unwise, or dumb criticism. It is often unwarranted and in bad taste, just as perhaps the speech or behavior that generated the criticism or “cancelling.” However, it is generally not libelous, illegal, or prosecutable.
In the immortal words of Forrest Gump or at least as first spoken by his mom, “stupid is as stupid does.”
Are you saying that Ivanka Trump is not a c-word or Samantha Bee should not have said it out loud?