Atlantic piece on college word police and Trump's popularity

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Bill Maher and Sam Harris are making a specific point about how the Left reacts to radical Islam. They're not saying what you're saying - that the left is overall becoming too dismissive of racists or politically incorrect verbiage. I really don't think you can extend their point to cover a wider argument about overall political correctness gone awry.

In that specific video clip, yes. And while Islam and criticism thereof is Harris' specific bugbear, Maher does not restrict his criticisms to over-sensitivity toward Islam. I'm not going to speak for him, so you'll have to peruse his videos and content.

Furthermore, I agree with both of them to an extent regarding the specific issue of radical Islam. There's the perception (or at least, I have the perception) that American liberals at least, are more likely to be critical of radical Christianity, while sort of giving radical Islam somewhat of a pass by explicitly contextualizing the actions of extremists within the context of a wider Muslim world that isn't extremist. Harris's point is that the "wider Muslim world" actually is a bit more extreme than we're comfortable admitting. And I agree with him.

I'm glad, particularly since I think it's a more serious issue than 'mere' censuring of bad words on college campuses and the like. But surely you must realize that both issues are inherently intertwined? What Harris says is interpreted as being highly offensive to many Muslims (hence Affleck's moral outrage), to the point where he was getting dragged through the mud because people were more concerned with the "offense" he was causing than what he was actually saying. Who decides what is offensive, the speaker or the listener? According to the Left, the listener gets to decide. So how do you differentiate between "good" offensive speech, like Harris talking about Islam, and "bad" offensive speech like Westboro Baptists saying "fags burn in hell"? I mean, that's obviously an extreme example and it seems clear in that particular instance, but I'm pretty concerned about this idea that only the listener gets to decide what is and is not offensive, and the rest of society must now abide by this decree.

To take another example, Channel72 is Jewish. Should he have to listen to people using "jew me down" as slang for the act of excessively greedy bargaining, regularly, and watch everyone else casually accept this as though it was normal, as though nobody had any problem with the idea of thinking of Jews primarily in terms of the stereotype as greedy moneylenders and penny-pinchers?

Yes.

Call me an asshole, but yes, in a free society you do have to listen to things you don't like. I don't like kids these days calling things they think are stupid "autistic" - well, actually, I find it bizarre and amusing, and that's the key thing. I choose how I feel about words. That's my right. And if you want to be offended by people slinging around Jewish slurs, that is absolutely your right. But I'm not launching into a crusade to end the pejorative use of "autistic" in schools. As silly and stupid as using that word as a pejorative is, the notion of de facto banning it through social shaming, judgement, and political pressure on private companies is abhorrent to me.

Again, this is not a defense of assholes on a personal level. I believe people should try to be nice to one another and get along. It's a defense of assholes on a wider, socio-political level, because while individual assholes are annoying and unpleasant, the right to be an asshole is vital to our society in a larger sense.

The bigger problem comes when we take this principle and crank it up to eleven by applying a massive complex of institutional hypersensitivity. There's clearly a limit, it is not healthy to try and remove every person and every word that might, conceivably, give offense or be harmful.

But complaining "why can't I say 'faggot' anymore" is NOT a good way to illustrate the existence of this limit.

On the contrary, it is exactly and perfectly demonstrative of this limit. It's not a nice word these days. It has few, if any, "legitimate" uses in American English. That's why it's so important to take a moment to think about effectively banning it. It is so "obviously" bad that no one except evil, bad bigots could possibly object to its effective censoring, right? After all, it exists only to insult a historically oppressed minority... so clearly the word should be removed from the lexicon?

I do not accept that. I do not accept this notion that we must "protect" this country's gays from ever having to hear something they might not like. It's fucking patronizing, for one thing. "Oh those poor gays, they're so fragile, we can't let them hear this word anymore." I realize gays have historically gotten a raw deal, and I'm not contesting that - but policing a word strikes me as the most bizarre, unproductive and even insulting thing one could do to rectify historical injustices against gays. And I'm sure there are gays who are quite happy - understandably so! - to jump on the dogpile of anyone who says "faggot" these days, but they have no more business dictating what I or anyone else can or cannot say than I have any business dictating who they can or cannot fuck.

And again, because I feel the Shitpost Squadron rearing up in preparation, I feel compelled to point out that that this is just an example. Replace "faggot" with "nigger" "kike" "cunt" or "autist" and the argument is the same.

If this comment is directed at me or anyone who approaches the issue as I approach it, then I will vehemently deny your claim.

It's directed at the part of the Left who was cheering Ben Affleck in the video above, the part of the Left who the OP's article is talking about, and anyone in general on the Left who thinks that whether or not you say a word is more important than what you actually believe underneath a silly syllable or two. That's who it's aimed at, and if that's not you, then great.

Never mind that science and liberals go hand-in-hand these days; that scientist wore a bad shirt! He must be punished for his evil shirt choice (that dirty misogynist!). It's ridiculous. It's unhealthy.

Now see, this supports your position better.

Because the argument "it's ridiculous to scream at someone about a shirt" is more reasonable than "it's ridiculous to scream at someone about racial slurs."

It's the exact same argument. It's the exact same mentality, even if being upset at racial slurs is a little more understandable on an emotional level (racial slurs being largely intended to cause emotional distress). But I would certainly hope that we're not arguing on emotion here, and I would also hope that we're not in the business of policing society based on the offended party's emotional response.

The countervailing argument is... until very recently, almost no one was talking about certain issues. Like women being displayed in an oversexualized way. Or women being afraid of violent men who stalk them and threaten to attack them (which came up a lot in the Gamergate stuff).

Thirty years ago if you complained about all the bikini babes demeaning women and promoting an attitude of disrespect and objectification, you were going to get a "you are a humorless idiot and probably need to get laid" response. THAT is an opinion which can be censored TOO.

And to stop that opinion from being censored, you may need to uproot some weeds- some toxic arguments and attitudes which prevent us from actually having a serious conversation about whether we are indirectly hurting women or racial minorities or whoever by the way we set up our society.

That uprooting sentiment can get misdirected or be excessive (the shirt thing probably did get out of hand). But if we try to outright remove it we are likely to go back to a world where we have nominal "equality" for minorities, but where any serious discussion of actual equality for minorities is pooh-poohed into oblivion by most of the audience. Roughly where race and gender relations were in 1970, in other words.

I agree to a point, and I'm not advocating that we adopt some reactionary view on culture. That we are talking about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc is good, and looking at the past decade in particular, I'd say it's been pretty successful. But the Left is starting to lose the fight on these issues, because too much of it is concerned with bad words, bad shirts, bad images, bad attitudes, and bad "sensitivity," as if the targets of discrimination aren't adults who can't possibly bear to hear something mean. We have gotten so worked up over little, trivial "grievances" that can be construed as offensive to some party or another that we're forgetting to engage our brains in discussion of these issues.

(Out of time, got to run. Back later)

[Simon_Jester]

To take another example, Channel72 is Jewish. Should he have to listen to people using "jew me down" as slang for the act of excessively greedy bargaining, regularly, and watch everyone else casually accept this as though it was normal, as though nobody had any problem with the idea of thinking of Jews primarily in terms of the stereotype as greedy moneylenders and penny-pinchers?

I had a friend who sincerely didn't realize that "Jewed him down on the price" had any connection with the religious and ethnic group. He had simply heard the term his whole life as a synonym for bargaining. If he had tweeted it these days, it could have gotten him fired.

I'm not unsympathetic to cases like that- but it kind of serves my point. The reason your friend thought "Jewed him down" was a synonym for "bargained with him" is because he grew up in a society full of people who thought it was okay to appeal to the stereotype of the greedy always-haggling penny-pinching Jew.

And now he was using it, and all the actual Jews around him were, very probably, wincing inside every time they heard him talk about bargaining.

And the world will be like that forever unless we actively dig in for a few generations and say "you can't say that about people casually, it's not just another word, it's offensive.'

Isn't this a false dichotomy? Either let boors get away with boorishness without comment or wage public shame campaigns against people expressing an unpopular opinion? I don't have a problem with twitter campaigns against unrepentant racists or boycotts against companies with hateful or discriminatory policies, but when the lynch mob is allowed to run amok and discussion goes out the window, social progress is going to be tossed out with it.

Well, it depends whether you're talking about the 'word police' going after racial slurs, or whether you're talking about stuff like that Rosetta probe scientist who was getting yelled at over his shirt.

When it comes to racial slurs and calling people 'gay' as an insult and stuff, we really should be able to enact zero tolerance.

When it comes to stuff where even the target group can't agree that it's a wrong thing... I think we should still be prepared to have public conversations ("is this shirt sexist?") and to have people who are within their rights to say "I think your shirt is sexist." But this is a far cry from saying "drown out everyone who thinks the shirt isn't sexist."

When calm discussion is being drowned out, the people that always win the ensuing shouting match are the bigots, the ignorant, and the intolerant. When the average voter feels that free speech is being infringed and the left is to blame...

Well yes, but the average voter doesn't seem to have a problem with the idea that you can't shout racial slurs at people. If it did there wouldn't be an issue with mass popular outrage going after people who do that.

Stuff like the shirt thing is potentially more of a threat, but I don't think it's anywhere near actually running amok on a significant level. The problem is that the right will always, always choose to believe it has run amok. Because they want to believe that the left is secretly a bunch of statist communists who want to mind-control everyone, when that is, frankly... objectively not true.

I'm not so sure. There's a difference between hate and ignorance. A lot of straight white males truly don't understand why it's not OK for them to say the F-word, the N-word, or various others. They don't understand the built-in advantage to applying for a job when your name is Scott and not Jerome, so they see attempts to correct those imbalances as special treatment.

Yes, and you are supposed to explain to them about this.

The problem is that if you do not make an issue out of it, if you pretend nothing is happening, that it IS okay for them to say the F-word or the N-word or that there's no special reason to say "Black Lives Matter..."

Again, the world ends up looking eternally like it did in the 1970s. Nominal legal equality, extensive de facto discrimination and inequality, nobody actually addressing the issue, and the targets of that inequality having no real recourse except to riot and freak out and do weird crazy shit just to get the attention of The Man.

They really don't know what's wrong with saying "All Lives Matter", or "Police Lives Matter". It's not that they're bigots, it's just that they have no perspective and haven't been educated. Shouting them down, shaming them, and getting them fired is not going to help matters. Very much the opposite.

There's a certain amount of balance and common sense that is called for here. But realistically, we are still far, far from the point where we can actually say that society has overcorrected in favor of protecting the rights of minorities too hard.

[Channel72]

On the contrary, it is exactly and perfectly demonstrative of this limit. It's not a nice word these days. It has few, if any, "legitimate" uses in American English. That's why it's so important to take a moment to think about effectively banning it. It is so "obviously" bad that no one except evil, bad bigots could possibly object to its effective censoring, right? After all, it exists only to insult a historically oppressed minority... so clearly the word should be removed from the lexicon?

I do not accept that. I do not accept this notion that we must "protect" this country's gays from ever having to hear something they might not like. It's fucking patronizing, for one thing. "Oh those poor gays, they're so fragile, we can't let them hear this word anymore." I realize gays have historically gotten a raw deal, and I'm not contesting that - but policing a word strikes me as the most bizarre, unproductive and even insulting thing one could do to rectify historical injustices against gays. And I'm sure there are gays who are quite happy - understandably so! - to jump on the dogpile of anyone who says "faggot" these days, but they have no more business dictating what I or anyone else can or cannot say than I have any business dictating who they can or cannot fuck.

And yet, as I already said, you can say "faggot" all you want. It's not a banned word, and gays are not being protected from hearing it. I am allowed - right now - to go down to a gay bar in the East Village, and scream "Faggot". (Don't expect to hear from me after that, however.) The point is, it's totally legal.

Oh right - you're not making a legal argument. You already said that. You're arguing that it's "de-facto" banned - because saying it might get you fired, or ostracized, or punched in the face, or otherwise ruin your life somehow. But no matter how I parse this argument of yours, it always effectively reduces to you complaining that "being an asshole can have serious social consequences."

It's not like the word "faggot", or any of those other word in that George Carlin-esque list you included in your earlier post, have some kind of magical powers. And in that sense, I understand - to a certain extent - why you think it's ridiculous to try to ban them (I'm sorry, de-facto ban them.) But again, this de-facto banning that you're so worried about still ultimately reduces to "being an asshole has social consequences".

I mean forget about racial slurs, suppose I just want to be an utterly contemptuous, insulting, disrespectful fuckhead all day long. I mean, it's my right to do so. But do you really expect that I should somehow be guaranteed (by um... who exactly? President Obama?) that going around being an asshole all day shouldn't have consequences like losing friends, or getting fired? Because ultimately that's what you're arguing here. Since saying "faggot" or whatever isn't illegal, you're simply concerned that saying it can have serious negative social consequences. Well, so what? So can calling your boss's wife a stupid cunt, or going up to random strangers on the street and criticizing their haircut. What exactly do you want here?

[Darth Yan]

Part of the reason I don't agree about Sam Harris and Maher is that in the past Maher has done things like be scared of how many muslims are named Muhammad are being born in the US while Harris has said things like "the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.” or "we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam." “We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it” “there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like ‘water-boarding’ may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary”The only future devout Muslims can envisage — as Muslims — is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed.”


Based on Harris's past record I'd say that Affleck was actually in the right in that case.

[Metahive]

If you are fighting for "social justice" without using such tactics, then technically, you are NOT an SJW.
To one of those reactionary assholes (like myself) the fight for 'racial, sexual, and class equality,' is like fighting for unicorns, Elves and Leprechauns.... a little silly, but as long as you don't involve me in the struggle for things that do not exist, then I have no problems.

A, so I presume this is you admitting to support racism, sexism and income inequality in your usual convoluted way, CONFEDERATE PATRIOT. You must be a real fun guy at parties. Those cross-burning parties where everyone comes dressed in pointy, white bedsheets of course.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I had a friend who sincerely didn't realize that "Jewed him down on the price" had any connection with the religious and ethnic group. He had simply heard the term his whole life as a synonym for bargaining. If he had tweeted it these days, it could have gotten him fired.

I'm not unsympathetic to cases like that- but it kind of serves my point. The reason your friend thought "Jewed him down" was a synonym for "bargained with him" is because he grew up in a society full of people who thought it was okay to appeal to the stereotype of the greedy always-haggling penny-pinching Jew.

And now he was using it, and all the actual Jews around him were, very probably, wincing inside every time they heard him talk about bargaining.

And the world will be like that forever unless we actively dig in for a few generations and say "you can't say that about people casually, it's not just another word, it's offensive.'

Right, it should be made an issue, just not decided that he is an evil person and a pound of flesh must be extracted. I think we're on the same page here, and just crossing past each other on the explanation.

Isn't this a false dichotomy? Either let boors get away with boorishness without comment or wage public shame campaigns against people expressing an unpopular opinion? I don't have a problem with twitter campaigns against unrepentant racists or boycotts against companies with hateful or discriminatory policies, but when the lynch mob is allowed to run amok and discussion goes out the window, social progress is going to be tossed out with it.

Well, it depends whether you're talking about the 'word police' going after racial slurs, or whether you're talking about stuff like that Rosetta probe scientist who was getting yelled at over his shirt.

When it comes to racial slurs and calling people 'gay' as an insult and stuff, we really should be able to enact zero tolerance.

I don't know what zero tolerance means. We should shoot people on sight when they use "gay" as an insult?

When it comes to stuff where even the target group can't agree that it's a wrong thing... I think we should still be prepared to have public conversations ("is this shirt sexist?") and to have people who are within their rights to say "I think your shirt is sexist." But this is a far cry from saying "drown out everyone who thinks the shirt isn't sexist."

Agreed.

When calm discussion is being drowned out, the people that always win the ensuing shouting match are the bigots, the ignorant, and the intolerant. When the average voter feels that free speech is being infringed and the left is to blame...

Well yes, but the average voter doesn't seem to have a problem with the idea that you can't shout racial slurs at people. If it did there wouldn't be an issue with mass popular outrage going after people who do that.

Stuff like the shirt thing is potentially more of a threat, but I don't think it's anywhere near actually running amok on a significant level. The problem is that the right will always, always choose to believe it has run amok. Because they want to believe that the left is secretly a bunch of statist communists who want to mind-control everyone, when that is, frankly... objectively not true.

This is why it's so hard to fight against from inside the left. You get accused of being a secret conservative and pushed out. The right has had this problem for decades and it's turned them into a such a caricature of themselves that it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between an Onion article and an actual quote from a mainstream Republican official. The problem is that the left is so marginalized in this country that if it follows a similar path of polarization, it will go back to being the political whipping boy that it was in the early 2000's. The right-wingers will continue to inflate their fantasy of left-wing authoritarianism despite zero evidence, but when people are getting fired and shamed on the public stage for saying relatively innocuous things, it can cause some fence-sitters to come over to their side, and that would mean that the period of tentative social victories we've enjoyed in the last few years will be over.

I'm not so sure. There's a difference between hate and ignorance. A lot of straight white males truly don't understand why it's not OK for them to say the F-word, the N-word, or various others. They don't understand the built-in advantage to applying for a job when your name is Scott and not Jerome, so they see attempts to correct those imbalances as special treatment.

Yes, and you are supposed to explain to them about this.

The problem is that if you do not make an issue out of it, if you pretend nothing is happening, that it IS okay for them to say the F-word or the N-word or that there's no special reason to say "Black Lives Matter..."

Again, I think we agree on this issue, as this is what I meant by rational discussion, as opposed to either sitting mute or deciding that the person is an irredeemable bigot and trying to exact consequences upon them for daring to speak such things.

Again, the world ends up looking eternally like it did in the 1970s. Nominal legal equality, extensive de facto discrimination and inequality, nobody actually addressing the issue, and the targets of that inequality having no real recourse except to riot and freak out and do weird crazy shit just to get the attention of The Man.

I don't think we've come very far from that when it comes to race and class (although sexuality has improved quite a bit). No one wants to sit down and discuss the real issues, they just want to circle the wagons and tell each other stories about the other side, and so ordinary people end up with horrendously distorted ideas about what it means to be a minority in America and no one ever corrects them because they're never aloud to voice those ideas outside of family get-togethers and similarly homogenous venues where no one has the perspective to be able to shed light on the subject. We all need to be a little less quick to assume that someone is one of THOSE PEOPLE (whether that's a racist, a statist, or whatever) if we're going to get anywhere.

They really don't know what's wrong with saying "All Lives Matter", or "Police Lives Matter". It's not that they're bigots, it's just that they have no perspective and haven't been educated. Shouting them down, shaming them, and getting them fired is not going to help matters. Very much the opposite.

There's a certain amount of balance and common sense that is called for here. But realistically, we are still far, far from the point where we can actually say that society has overcorrected in favor of protecting the rights of minorities too hard.

Agreed. I never advocated for the "too far, too fast" point of view, but I think that being overly aggressive toward people who slip up and use the wrong words or express an ignorant (but not hateful) point of view is the wrong way to advance equality.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

And yet, as I already said, you can say "faggot" all you want. It's not a banned word, and gays are not being protected from hearing it. I am allowed - right now - to go down to a gay bar in the East Village, and scream "Faggot". (Don't expect to hear from me after that, however.) The point is, it's totally legal.

Oh right - you're not making a legal argument. You already said that. You're arguing that it's "de-facto" banned - because saying it might get you fired, or ostracized, or punched in the face, or otherwise ruin your life somehow. But no matter how I parse this argument of yours, it always effectively reduces to you complaining that "being an asshole can have serious social consequences."

It's not like the word "faggot", or any of those other word in that George Carlin-esque list you included in your earlier post, have some kind of magical powers. And in that sense, I understand - to a certain extent - why you think it's ridiculous to try to ban them (I'm sorry, de-facto ban them.) But again, this de-facto banning that you're so worried about still ultimately reduces to "being an asshole has social consequences".

I mean forget about racial slurs, suppose I just want to be an utterly contemptuous, insulting, disrespectful fuckhead all day long. I mean, it's my right to do so. But do you really expect that I should somehow be guaranteed (by um... who exactly? President Obama?) that going around being an asshole all day shouldn't have consequences like losing friends, or getting fired? Because ultimately that's what you're arguing here. Since saying "faggot" or whatever isn't illegal, you're simply concerned that saying it can have serious negative social consequences. Well, so what? So can calling your boss's wife a stupid cunt, or going up to random strangers on the street and criticizing their haircut. What exactly do you want here?

I hear what you're saying, and I largely agree with it.

I'm not defending being an asshole on a personal level. If you walk up to a gay man, spit, and call him a faggot, I will shed precisely zero tears for you when you get punched. That is a stupid, awful, and pointlessly shitty thing to do, and I'm not saying assholes shouldn't necessarily face consequences on an individual level.

Rather, I am concerned - both in an abstract, ethical sense, and a realist, political sense - that we are way too quick to rip into someone just because they said something we deem offensive - or, even more problematically, something we have protectionistly deemed offensive for another party's benefit (such as Affleck nobly riding his steed into battle for all of Muslim-kind, in the video I posted above). This is very different from offending someone, one on one, and being disliked or getting insulted or offended back by the party you've offended. We are de facto banning words when uttering them - no matter the intention or context - gets you lynched by the court of public opinion. However well-intentioned one might think it is to beat up on someone for once making a joke that was disparaging of gays or Jews or blacks or whoever, all we're really accomplishing is tyranny of the majority.

As deranged and ass-backward as it may sound, we have to be doubly protective of unpopular, offensive shit. I'm not arguing that an asshole shouldn't face scrutiny or disapproval for saying asshole things. Someone who's deliberately being a dick deserves whatever dickishness comes back his way in turn. I'm arguing that society - specifically, a significant portion of the political Left - is endangering its own moral integrity and authority by hastily and viciously censuring anyone it deems to be saying "wrong" things. Who deems what the "wrong" words are? Perhaps I can tell you a story about how the word "and" is deeply hurtful and offensive to me, and your use of it constitutes a crime against dignity and civil society, making you an asshole of the highest order (how dare you! I'm demanding your employer terminate your employment immediately!). Of course, you would rightly deride this claim as ridiculous, but you don't know me, you don't know my history, and you cannot prove with absolute certainty that I'm not deeply hurt and offended by your use of the word "and."

I would like to believe that the (adult) population of the US or any other civilized country are, indeed, adults, and don't need to be protected from a bad word or two by the shrieking moral crusaders that find shelter amidst the Left. If someone says something, and you decide to be offended by it, then you don't have to like them, or associate with them, or whatever - though I'd hope that perhaps you would associate with them, and try to have a conversation with them, and see why they said what they said, and what their underlying beliefs are, and then challenge or deal with their beliefs from there.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

If you are fighting for "social justice" without using such tactics, then technically, you are NOT an SJW.
To one of those reactionary assholes (like myself) the fight for 'racial, sexual, and class equality,' is like fighting for unicorns, Elves and Leprechauns.... a little silly, but as long as you don't involve me in the struggle for things that do not exist, then I have no problems.

A, so I presume this is you admitting to support racism, sexism and income inequality in your usual convoluted way, CONFEDERATE PATRIOT. You must be a real fun guy at parties. Those cross-burning parties where everyone comes dressed in pointy, white bedsheets of course.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

There is no attempt to engage the "offensive" party in conversation, debate, discussion. There isn't even a benefit of the doubt being extended - only immediate, outraged hostility and the supposition of intractable social evil. All argument is shot dead before it ever has the chance to be born - Party A expresses something that can be construed as not conforming to Party B's social mores, and BLAM, trigger pulled. If someone says stupid shit, fine, scold them for it - I'm not saying you have to be nice - but this quote right here is just an example of exactly the sort of knee-jerk, trigger-happy Outrage Police that is the problem.

[madd0ct0r]

But you aren't extending the benefit of the doubt either. You are just demanding to be able to continue acting the same way under a smokescreen of wilful ignorance.

Somebody polite would not be using those words back in the eighties. I also don't see the point of extending the benefit of the doubt to somebody who talks about sjw and censorship. With that level of awareness you know what is wrong with what you're saying, you just choose to impose on other people anyway, like a car parked across two spaces

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Part of the reason I don't agree about Sam Harris and Maher is that in the past Maher has done things like be scared of how many muslims are named Muhammad are being born in the US while Harris has said things like "the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.” or "we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam." “We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it” “there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like ‘water-boarding’ may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary”The only future devout Muslims can envisage — as Muslims — is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed.”


Based on Harris's past record I'd say that Affleck was actually in the right in that case.

This is getting off topic, but you're falling right into the trap that the people interested in silencing Sam Harris want you to fall into. You've cherry-picked a handful of quotes taken out of context (the water-boarding one's context is particularly important, because in that piece he is making a strictly objective ethical argument. I happen to disagree with it, but you can't very well argue against it if you're ignorant of its context). If you want to disagree with Sam Harris that's fine (as I do on a few points here and there), but you need to actually listen to what he says to do that. That means sitting down and watching his interviews, videos, etc., and reading his writings; not relying on what a few rather underhanded critics want you to think of him.

If you can find me an example of Harris actually saying something which is racist (in a manner which is ethically indefensible, lest one try the pedantic route of citing something which is racist in a technical sense but not a moral or ethical one - "Black people have wider noses," for example, could be construed as 'racist'), I will eat my hat.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

But you aren't extending the benefit of the doubt either.

Where am I not extending the benefit of the doubt? Indeed, I thought I was quite clear - I'm quite sure this notion of hammering people for racism/homophobia/misogyny/whatever is well-intentioned. Are you suggesting it's not? Should I not be assuming liberals are trying to do good, and rather join the Right in blanket condemnation of everything liberal?

You are just demanding to be able to continue acting the same way under a smokescreen of wilful ignorance.

In what way have I always been acting, pray tell? I am very curious to know, now.

I also don't see the point of extending the benefit of the doubt to somebody who talks about sjw and censorship.

Then you're only impoverishing yourself through your refusal to hear something. It's small-minded and stupid, and until recently, I thought it a mindset confined mostly to Republicans (and their ilk in other countries). As loathe as I am to admit it, I am grudgingly forced to accept that US conservatives may have a point when they say liberals are just as bad when it comes to the toxicity of political discourse. I mean good lord, you've just freely admitted to shutting off your own brain just because you read "SJW" in a post.

[ray245]

But you aren't extending the benefit of the doubt either.

Where am I not extending the benefit of the doubt? Indeed, I thought I was quite clear - I'm quite sure this notion of hammering people for racism/homophobia/misogyny/whatever is well-intentioned. Are you suggesting it's not? Should I not be assuming liberals are trying to do good, and rather join the Right in blanket condemnation of everything liberal?

I think it's problematic when we are accusing anyone of racism/homophobia/misogyny without making some effort to explain to them why we think their actions is wrong. The way I see it, the term racist has started to lose its meaning when it's applied too widely to a large number of people. Most people do not like to be accused to being racist, nor do they agree with racism the 19th-mid 20th century. There's few people who would agree with the idea of segregating people based on ethnicity, or the idea that people can't vote based on ethnicity. To many, that's what racism is all about as opposed to discrimination that isn't as clear cut.

A big problem is there seems to be too many people who are stuck with notions of discriminations based on the past as opposed to the present. Not being able to explain this idea to people unfamiliar with these kind of concepts is becoming a major problem.

[Metahive]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

There is no attempt to engage the "offensive" party in conversation, debate, discussion. There isn't even a benefit of the doubt being extended - only immediate, outraged hostility and the supposition of intractable social evil. All argument is shot dead before it ever has the chance to be born - Party A expresses something that can be construed as not conforming to Party B's social mores, and BLAM, trigger pulled. If someone says stupid shit, fine, scold them for it - I'm not saying you have to be nice - but this quote right here is just an example of exactly the sort of knee-jerk, trigger-happy Outrage Police that is the problem.

Huhuhu, y'know, my clueless friend, I'm not calling CONFEDERATE PATRIOT AKA cmdrjones such as an insult but because he fucking called himself that in all caps no less! He also isn't exactly an unwritten leaf and has a history of racist, misogynist (he bemoans his inability to rape his wife legally, yes) and otherwise shitty posts, including telling me that Korea is a nation of traitors that belongs under japanese rule and who threatended terrorism against people bothering the confederate flag.

Also, he says it out loud, he's a reactionary who opposes racial, gender and income equality and calls those seeking it delusional idiots. What't there to debate? Fun thing that you pick this as a moment to bemoan the "outragre police" when you are right now acting as an outrage policeman yourself. I guess irony is lost on you.

[madd0ct0r]

But you aren't extending the benefit of the doubt either.

Where am I not extending the benefit of the doubt? Indeed, I thought I was quite clear - I'm quite sure this notion of hammering people for racism/homophobia/misogyny/whatever is well-intentioned. Are you suggesting it's not? Should I not be assuming liberals are trying to do good, and rather join the Right in blanket condemnation of everything liberal?

You are just demanding to be able to continue acting the same way under a smokescreen of wilful ignorance.

In what way have I always been acting, pray tell? I am very curious to know, now.

I also don't see the point of extending the benefit of the doubt to somebody who talks about sjw and censorship.

Then you're only impoverishing yourself through your refusal to hear something. It's small-minded and stupid, and until recently, I thought it a mindset confined mostly to Republicans (and their ilk in other countries). As loathe as I am to admit it, I am grudgingly forced to accept that US conservatives may have a point when they say liberals are just as bad when it comes to the toxicity of political discourse. I mean good lord, you've just freely admitted to shutting off your own brain just because you read "SJW" in a post.

Mate, I'm not impoverishing myself by not listening to yet another crawling apologist for the right to be an offensive jerk. I've heard it all before, time and again, year after year. Of course, I also grew up seeing the affects of jerk unthinking racist or "sorry I'm not racist it's just a figure of speech, what are you the word police? Can we say anything anymore?" sort of thing on my grandparents, parents, wife and got a taste of it myself after emigrating.

Anyone who is using the term sjw and Simeltenously claiming ignorance.as a defense is frankly lying. You are free to speak your mind, other people are free to applaud or mock you, that's the sort of feedback that helps people figure out what is socially acceptable behaviour. I really don't see what is so difficult about that concept.

[Wild Zontargs]

If you are fighting for "social justice" without using such tactics, then technically, you are NOT an SJW.
To one of those reactionary assholes (like myself) the fight for 'racial, sexual, and class equality,' is like fighting for unicorns, Elves and Leprechauns.... a little silly, but as long as you don't involve me in the struggle for things that do not exist, then I have no problems.

A, so I presume this is you admitting to support racism, sexism and income inequality in your usual convoluted way, CONFEDERATE PATRIOT. You must be a real fun guy at parties. Those cross-burning parties where everyone comes dressed in pointy, white bedsheets of course.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the crazy claim that it's possible to support the legal and moral equality of groups that are not qualitatively or quantitatively equal in an empirical sense.

Now, if cmdrjones comes out and says [group] shouldn't have the same protections under the law, aren't really people, etc. then I'll join you in calling him a [category]ist. Until then, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. (And no, "CONFEDERATE PATRIOT RAAAAGH!!!11one" isn't a sufficient "admission of guilt" for me.)

[Starglider]

I mean forget about racial slurs, suppose I just want to be an utterly contemptuous, insulting, disrespectful fuckhead all day long. I mean, it's my right to do so. But do you really expect that I should somehow be guaranteed (by um... who exactly? President Obama?) that going around being an asshole all day shouldn't have consequences like losing friends, or getting fired?

Actually yes, there is a specific guarantee that we should make, which is saying things that offend someone (but are not illegal) in a context completely divorced from your job should not be a cause for termination. Conservative bosses should not be able to fire people for making liberal comments on twitter and liberal bosses should not be able to fire people for making conservative comments on twitter. The model we are sliding towards of all organisations (schools, companies, governments) trying to blanket monitor all of their staff is very chilling to freedom of speech and ultimately will further divide society into ideological groups which don't mix.

[Metahive]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the crazy claim that it's possible to support the legal and moral equality of groups that are not qualitatively or quantitatively equal in an empirical sense.

Meaningless word salad.

Now, if cmdrjones comes out and says [group] shouldn't have the same protections under the law, aren't really people, etc. then I'll join you in calling him a [category]ist. Until then, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. (And no, "CONFEDERATE PATRIOT RAAAAGH!!!11one" isn't a sufficient "admission of guilt" for me.)

I don't give someone the benefit of the doubt who threatens terrorism over his neo-confederate leanings, bemoans that he can't force sex on his wife at any time and thinks my country of origin should wallow under japanese slavery. But hey, cut him as much slack as you want, I won't and I hope you don't expect me to.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Where am I not extending the benefit of the doubt? Indeed, I thought I was quite clear - I'm quite sure this notion of hammering people for racism/homophobia/misogyny/whatever is well-intentioned. Are you suggesting it's not? Should I not be assuming liberals are trying to do good, and rather join the Right in blanket condemnation of everything liberal?

The hypocrisy is strong in this one.

The problem here is that you aren't recognizing the right of people to call out shit they find offensive. Instead, as soon as someone gets offended, for any reason, and complains about it, it's "DA EVIL LIBERAL WORD POLICE". You CLAIM that you want a rational discussion, but the problem is that you immediately jump to accusations of oppression of freedom of speech when someone says that they didn't like the way you used a certain word. Instead, you appeal to a mythical broad cultural movement (one that you have appealed to multiple times, of course, without presenting any evidence beyond your say-so that it actually exists) aimed at suppressing freedom of speech.

If you want a discussion on the issue, you have to let people tell you why they are offended, and why they think you shouldn't say this or that. (And that's another problem ... you are continuously refusing to understand the different between "shouldn't" and "can't").

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Mate, I'm not impoverishing myself by not listening to yet another crawling apologist for the right to be an offensive jerk. I've heard it all before, time and again, year after year. Of course, I also grew up seeing the affects of jerk unthinking racist or "sorry I'm not racist it's just a figure of speech, what are you the word police? Can we say anything anymore?" sort of thing on my grandparents, parents, wife and got a taste of it myself after emigrating.

Anyone who is using the term sjw and Simeltenously claiming ignorance.as a defense is frankly lying. You are free to speak your mind, other people are free to applaud or mock you, that's the sort of feedback that helps people figure out what is socially acceptable behaviour. I really don't see what is so difficult about that concept.

Well, mock away then. I've pretty much said my piece at this point, and if you disagree with it, that's your business.

The hypocrisy is strong in this one.

The problem here is that you aren't recognizing the right of people to call out shit they find offensive. Instead, as soon as someone gets offended, for any reason, and complains about it, it's "DA EVIL LIBERAL WORD POLICE". You CLAIM that you want a rational discussion, but the problem is that you immediately jump to accusations of oppression of freedom of speech when someone says that they didn't like the way you used a certain word. Instead, you appeal to a mythical broad cultural movement (one that you have appealed to multiple times, of course, without presenting any evidence beyond your say-so that it actually exists) aimed at suppressing freedom of speech.

If you want a discussion on the issue, you have to let people tell you why they are offended, and why they think you shouldn't say this or that. (And that's another problem ... you are continuously refusing to understand the different between "shouldn't" and "can't").

You misunderstand me. Of course someone is free to complain about being offended, just as I am free to find such complaints to be offensive myself and voice that displeasure. I don't object to that, not on an ethical level at least. In fact I'm quite pleased that some rational discussion has come of this thread as a result; whether I've actually changed anyone's mind, I don't know. Clearly not yours, which I view as unfortunate as I generally find your posts here to be insightful.

I've already said pretty much everything I have to say on the subject. I mean, if you want to disagree with it that's fine, but your continued insistence that it doesn't exist is a little bizarre. How many examples do you need? Mike Taylor, Daniel Tosh, Michael Richards, Justine Sacco, Tim Hunt, Jerry Seinfeld, Sam Harris, and on and on, and those are just high-profile examples (which make the news) of how this societal insult-police really does affect people's livelihood (and vital geo-political policy debate, in Harris' case). Even that is only one very particular facet of it - the OP's article goes into vastly more detail on this effect specifically within college campuses. Anecdotally, I have to deal with it myself (and no, I'm not the one saying the mean things. I'm the one who hears about how x said y which was mean and offensive to me personally because z so can you please fire x. No, sorry, I can't fire someone valuable just because they allegedly said something you found personally offensive). And the Left has to own up to this one.

[cmdrjones]

If you are fighting for "social justice" without using such tactics, then technically, you are NOT an SJW.
To one of those reactionary assholes (like myself) the fight for 'racial, sexual, and class equality,' is like fighting for unicorns, Elves and Leprechauns.... a little silly, but as long as you don't involve me in the struggle for things that do not exist, then I have no problems.

A, so I presume this is you admitting to support racism, sexism and income inequality in your usual convoluted way, CONFEDERATE PATRIOT. You must be a real fun guy at parties. Those cross-burning parties where everyone comes dressed in pointy, white bedsheets of course.

That doesn't follow... if income inequality exists then the races are not economically equal, if affirmative action exists then the races are not legally equal, if the pay gap exists then the sexes are not economically equal, classes by definition aren't equal... are you following this yet? These are observations, not suggestions or desires. I guarantee that the KKK doesn't regard those struggles as "a little silly" so therefore your insinuation that I am a member of that organization is wrong.
So therefore I DEMAND THAT YOU RETRACT YOUR STATEMENT YOUR HURTY MCHURTERSON!! YOU HAVE TRIGGERED MEEEEE--- ha ha ha nah just kidding.

[Channel72]

I mean forget about racial slurs, suppose I just want to be an utterly contemptuous, insulting, disrespectful fuckhead all day long. I mean, it's my right to do so. But do you really expect that I should somehow be guaranteed (by um... who exactly? President Obama?) that going around being an asshole all day shouldn't have consequences like losing friends, or getting fired?

Actually yes, there is a specific guarantee that we should make, which is saying things that offend someone (but are not illegal) in a context completely divorced from your job should not be a cause for termination. Conservative bosses should not be able to fire people for making liberal comments on twitter and liberal bosses should not be able to fire people for making conservative comments on twitter. The model we are sliding towards of all organisations (schools, companies, governments) trying to blanket monitor all of their staff is very chilling to freedom of speech and ultimately will further divide society into ideological groups which don't mix.

There's a conflation going on here between the idea of people getting fired for saying blatantly racist things, versus people getting fired for expressing unpopular political opinions. I really don't think that Corporate America has really yet turned into an Orwellian cubicle farm where a single Tweet expressing support for Prop X can get you fired. There are a few high profile examples of this happening, namely the Firefox example, where a company leader (and thus - a figurehead representing the entire organization - not some average employee) was fired for supporting "traditional marriage". Of course, there are also examples where the opposite happened: the head of R&D at the Wikimedia Foundation once wrote a blog entry which seemed to vaguely support the normalization of pedophilia. Outrage ensued, yet he wasn't fired.

The point is, I don't think you can take these high-profile cases, where company figureheads and leaders (people who are, essentially, equivalent to a "mascot" and thus need to be particularly representative of some set of values) have been fired for saying unpopular things, and extend that to this slippery slope fear that thousands of people may end up getting fired for expressing the wrong opinion or liking the wrong sports team.

As for the high-profile cases - some of them are understandable. When you reach a C-level or equivalent position in a company, you're essentially something of a "public" figure, in which case you're being paid (a lot of money) to represent a certain set of company values. So of course you'll get fired if you don't do just that. Other cases are much more debatable - the journalist who got fired for tweeting the racist joke about South Africa is regrettable, in my opinion. But the point is, that seems to be an edge case.

Regardless, there is some major conflation going on here between the problems that arise when people express unpopular political opinions, versus people who express outright racism. I see no problem with an organization or company firing someone for tweeting that all gays/blacks/Jews need to die or whatever. Of course, that rarely happens either - because such a nutcase would likely never be hired in the first place. So we're left with "middle ground" cases: a man doesn't say he explicitly hates gays, but expresses support for "traditional marriage". A man doesn't say he explicitly hates Jews, but tweets something critical of Israel. A man doesn't say he explicitly hates blacks, but writes a blog post about how affirmative action is ruining America. These "middle ground" cases are the problem here, and I agree that employees should not, in general, be fired for doing things like this. But if we're talking about a high-profile corporate executive, who's being paid to promote company values, and company values explicitly include things like same-sex equality, then yeah - fire the guy if he tweets something about how same-sex marriage is ruining America or whatever.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

There's a conflation going on here between the idea of people getting fired for saying blatantly racist things, versus people getting fired for expressing unpopular political opinions. I really don't think that Corporate America has really yet turned into an Orwellian cubicle farm where a single Tweet expressing support for Prop X can get you fired. There are a few high profile examples of this happening, namely the Firefox example, where a company leader (and thus - a figurehead representing the entire organization - not some average employee) was fired for supporting "traditional marriage". Of course, there are also examples where the opposite happened: the head of R&D at the Wikimedia Foundation once wrote a blog entry which seemed to vaguely support the normalization of pedophilia. Outrage ensued, yet he wasn't fired.

The point is, I don't think you can take these high-profile cases, where company figureheads and leaders (people who are, essentially, equivalent to a "mascot" and thus need to be particularly representative of some set of values) have been fired for saying unpopular things, and extend that to this slippery slope fear that thousands of people may end up getting fired for expressing the wrong opinion or liking the wrong sports team.

It is not required for thousands of ordinary people to be fired or otherwise punished to have a chilling effect on national discussion.

As for the high-profile cases - some of them are understandable. When you reach a C-level or equivalent position in a company, you're essentially something of a "public" figure, in which case you're being paid (a lot of money) to represent a certain set of company values. So of course you'll get fired if you don't do just that. Other cases are much more debatable - the journalist who got fired for tweeting the racist joke about South Africa is regrettable, in my opinion. But the point is, that seems to be an edge case.

The problem with high-profile cases is just that, they're high-profile. When people read about Brendan Eich being let go after a massive social media campaign just for supporting the wrong side in a political debate or a speaker is disinvited from a college campus because administrators are afraid the students won't agree with them (hint: college is about hearing the things with which you vehemently disagree), it's another brick in the wall that separates left and right and keeps discussion and understanding from taking place.

Regardless, there is some major conflation going on here between the problems that arise when people express unpopular political opinions, versus people who express outright racism. I see no problem with an organization or company firing someone for tweeting that all gays/blacks/Jews need to die or whatever. Of course, that rarely happens either - because such a nutcase would likely never be hired in the first place. So we're left with "middle ground" cases: a man doesn't say he explicitly hates gays, but expresses support for "traditional marriage". A man doesn't say he explicitly hates Jews, but tweets something critical of Israel. A man doesn't say he explicitly hates blacks, but writes a blog post about how affirmative action is ruining America. These "middle ground" cases are the problem here, and I agree that employees should not, in general, be fired for doing things like this. But if we're talking about a high-profile corporate executive, who's being paid to promote company values, and company values explicitly include things like same-sex equality, then yeah - fire the guy if he tweets something about how same-sex marriage is ruining America or whatever.

And if we give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to explain what they meant? What about a religious person who is fine with gays as people but can't give up his childhood vision of marriage, or one of the millions of people who have nothing against the Jewish people but think that Israel's foreign policy is atrocious, or someone who is against affirmative action because they think it elevates race above merit (as many do)? Burn them at the stake? If we engage these people in discussion and they turn out to be raving bigots, then we'll have confirmation and can decide what consequences (if any) need to be meted out. If they turn out to be normal folks with a misguided or unpopular opinion, maybe we can change their mind. Hell, maybe they can change ours.

Jumping to conclusions in the middle-ground cases and seeking retribution for words is ass-backwards. It will shut down discussion and drive the overtly bigoted opinions underground where they will not be addressed and given the chance to wither in the sunlight before the eyes of the public. I believe it comes from insecurity and lack of trust. We don't trust the public not to adopt racist beliefs, so we shout down well-meaning but ignorant people before their words can reach the precious virgin ears of the unwashed masses who we presume not to have the critical thinking skills that we do. We don't trust our own beliefs enough to let them be debated openly and let the opponents have the floor to present theirs. For a nation of self-styled cowboys, this is little bitch behavior and we should be ashamed of ourselves. This disease has been a part of the conservative movement since the 80's, and has now infected the left. The sooner it shuffles off to die, the better off we'll be.

[Wild Zontargs]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the crazy claim that it's possible to support the legal and moral equality of groups that are not qualitatively or quantitatively equal in an empirical sense.

Meaningless word salad.

Some horses can run faster than others. These racehorses are worth more money than the trail-horses at your local horse-riding attraction. Nevertheless, it is illegal to beat the shit out of both types of horses. Even though they are not empirically equal, they are morally and legally equal. Despite this, the trail-horses will not out-compete the racehorses at any racetrack you choose to name.

Even in the same weight and age class, most men are significantly better at lifting heavy loads than most women. This means that, if a job requires that the employee lift heavy loads, any given man is more likely to be qualified than any given women. Both men and women should have the right to apply for that job, but it is inevitable that more men than women will be qualified to actually do it. We should not expect a perfect 50/50 split of employees, and the lack of that numerical equality does not require sexist discrimination.

At the world-record level, black men generally out-sprint white men, while white men generally out-swim black men, most likely due to genetic advantages. All athletes should be allowed to participate in all sports, but at the top levels, the groups with the most competitive body-forms will tend to be over-represented in their respective fields. This does not require racial discrimination.

There, three examples where groups that are not empirically equal are still morally and legally equal. Even under perfect "equality of opportunity", we will never see "equality of outcome" without artificially handicapping one group, thereby bringing the average performance of the entire field down to the level where the group with statistically-lower abilities in that specific field can compete. (We could genetically engineer the two groups until they are only one group with respect to the quality being measured, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish.)

Is that still "meaningless word salad", or do you understand how groups can be legally and morally equal, while empirical equality remains out of reach?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Here's a recent piece on another shaming campaign, this one from the right-wing:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... psrc=nymag

[Dominus Atheos]

Which part of the discussion is that relevant to? I'm not attacking you, I honestly don't get why that story was posted in this thread, it's not about trump, "college word police", or accusations of bigotry chilling speech.