The vision that we on the Left need to have is to see how important is the narrative. And the Right have dominated the narrative in recent years. And with the Charlie Kirk death they are attempting to take up more of the stage. Some of narrative is misinformation or disinformation, some of of is not Christian in any way, a lot of it is hateful, divisive and damaging to our society. For all Kirk’s failings he was not afraid and was willing to engage in debate. We must continue to be willing and to retake more of the stage. Remember the falling never hurts, but the landing can sure mess up your day. Not time to land yet, not until I am dead.
Death? Charlie Kirk didn't just die, he was murdered, assassinated for daring to listen to people in the public square and respond. You can't even bring yourself to admit he was murdered by an adherent to the doctrines that have dominated the public stage for decades.
Bring back Civics and Debating to Highschool. We don't even teach the truth about the Vietnam War. How is anyone going to understand that there are different types of "reasonings"? If the most powerful office in the world is engaged in true propaganda against truth, blessed by the "checks and balances, and nearly half of our neighbors,
do we seriously expect anything differently from the youth? Coupled with the aggressive tactics of grade school bullies, and now advanced with laws or sanctioned by the SCOTUS it's a wonder the USA hasn't imploded already. We have thousands and thousands of prisoners who can't fathom why they're jailed and real felons are set free by a felon selling democracy to the highest bidders while pocketing millions, perhaps billions of dollars for himself and his family and friends!!
Bullies? Who was forcing experimental medical treatment? Who was forcing the abandonment of parents and grandparents? Who cancelled two years of education for our young people?
Absolutely, please let's teach our children to think, and to debate.
Serious question: how many people got fired, as opposed to "scolded" ? The stories I've seen came up with only a handful of examples, most notably David Shor whose account was disputed and who landed very much on his feet.
Brendan Eich (founded a new company) and Gina Carano (starred in two films by ideologically friendly producers and settled a wrongful dismissal suit) come to mind.
EDIT: But the complaint was just as much about the chilling effect as it was about the people actually getting fired.
But AFAICT (and consistent with comments here), the chilling effect came primarily from dislike of being "scolded" rather than from any actual threat. That was explicit in the famous Harpers Letter for example.
Both of these are public figures in positions where controversial statements of any kind have always been likely to cause trouble - see for example, Colin Kaepernick. Are there many examples of ordinary workers losing their jobs, as large numbers are doing now? I can remember one guy at Google and that's about it.
Centrist complaints about cancel culture (like the Harpers Letter) helped the right more than any actual manifestations of that culture.
The comment I've seen on this is that there were people at the January 6 riot, who did not get violent (maybe they entered the Capitol at some point but only after the violent breach, in which they did not participate), but still had their lives ruined by their mere presence when they might not have expected or even personally endorsed said violence. Meanwhile, as Biden's DoJ prosecuted those cases, they submitted for a reduced sentence in the case of Montez Lee, who during the George Floyd riots lit a pawn shop in Minneapolis on fire and a man, Oscar Stewart, trapped inside died in the blaze. (Whether Lee knew about Stewart's presence is another matter.) That sure looked like a double standard.
But that still misses the essence of the right-wing complaint here, which is that it didn't matter whether people lost their jobs over it or not; there were just enough cases of it happening (even if it was to people in high-profile positions, such as Eich) that a lot of people just shut up and were effectively silenced for fear of losing their jobs. So now they're turning that around and saying, well, you made us afraid of losing our jobs if we said anything mean about <insert lefty issue of the day here>, so now you've said something mean about Charlie Kirk that we're reading to be you effectively saying "actually it's good that he's dead" so now we're going to visit on you the consequences you implied you would visit on us if we stepped on any of your precious issues.
Every time one side gets outraged about something the other side does, all it ever means is that the former wishes they could do it themselves--and, given the opportunity, they do.
This applies with equal force to everyone.
EDIT: Or, to put it another way, "We're not mad that you're doing it; we're mad that we can't."
I appreciated this post, although I don't know that I take any issue with "it's not my job to educate you". Oftentimes in my experience when people are asking questions or demanding explanation, what they're really looking for is to argue, not to hear you. It's ok to set boundaries. No one should feel forced to to engage with people who aren't participating in good faith. It's becoming more clear to me that one major issue is that people are arguing but not seeking to understand and I wonder how that can change, especially in the era of TikTok attention spans.
"When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another, such injury that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live—forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence—knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains." (Friedrich Engels, "The Condition of the Working Class in England")
My own view is that, regrettably, THERE IS NO LEFT to speak of in the U.S. At least not in any meaningful way. I have to laugh whenever I hear the MAGA types warn about the dangers of the left. If only we had anything like the numbers and influence they allege. Identity politics and cancel culture were ideally suited to the neo-liberalism of the past 50 years. Dreams of social transformation that once typified left politics were foreign to people who felt that the most urgent matters were gaining "a seat at the table" of power, whether public or private, and policing language with a diligence that would have made the Puritans proud. Maybe the rise of actually existing fascism will finally shake the left out of its half-century stupor. We are about to find out.
The paranoid warnings are a tribute to what we knew how to do. Reimagining it in new political circumstances is an unexpected, if predictable, challenge. Consumerism crept in, caught us off-guard, expecting Harris to win. Neoliberalism really is the devil's work, a sneaky opiate.
> "Cancel culture was always a tactical disaster masquerading as moral progress."
Indeed. Generally solid points, though kind of moot on whether the Left, the Democrats, can make their way back from the cliff. Though a good starting point might be to consider who they had cancelled in the past, and how the "cancellees" may have had a point or two.
Big task, maybe akin to cleaning out an Augean stable, but these posts might be a useful point of reference:
It's Too Late to Cry "Cancel Culture"
Why is MAGA always expected to take the high road?
And, as you suggested, a rather large number of others were cancelled because of "transphobia" -- as Christopher Hitchens might (never) have said, "“a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons":
Mike, you are so right. I have some near-personal experience on how the left can sabotage their own opportunities with purity testing, scolding about “privilege,” and even that same “It’s not my job to teach you …” foolishness.
I won’t go into detail in a brief comment, but will just finish with the unsurprising report that the approach of the progressive scolders was dismally unsuccessful.
The vision that we on the Left need to have is to see how important is the narrative. And the Right have dominated the narrative in recent years. And with the Charlie Kirk death they are attempting to take up more of the stage. Some of narrative is misinformation or disinformation, some of of is not Christian in any way, a lot of it is hateful, divisive and damaging to our society. For all Kirk’s failings he was not afraid and was willing to engage in debate. We must continue to be willing and to retake more of the stage. Remember the falling never hurts, but the landing can sure mess up your day. Not time to land yet, not until I am dead.
Death? Charlie Kirk didn't just die, he was murdered, assassinated for daring to listen to people in the public square and respond. You can't even bring yourself to admit he was murdered by an adherent to the doctrines that have dominated the public stage for decades.
Bring back Civics and Debating to Highschool. We don't even teach the truth about the Vietnam War. How is anyone going to understand that there are different types of "reasonings"? If the most powerful office in the world is engaged in true propaganda against truth, blessed by the "checks and balances, and nearly half of our neighbors,
do we seriously expect anything differently from the youth? Coupled with the aggressive tactics of grade school bullies, and now advanced with laws or sanctioned by the SCOTUS it's a wonder the USA hasn't imploded already. We have thousands and thousands of prisoners who can't fathom why they're jailed and real felons are set free by a felon selling democracy to the highest bidders while pocketing millions, perhaps billions of dollars for himself and his family and friends!!
Teach The Children Well
Bullies? Who was forcing experimental medical treatment? Who was forcing the abandonment of parents and grandparents? Who cancelled two years of education for our young people?
Absolutely, please let's teach our children to think, and to debate.
Serious question: how many people got fired, as opposed to "scolded" ? The stories I've seen came up with only a handful of examples, most notably David Shor whose account was disputed and who landed very much on his feet.
Brendan Eich (founded a new company) and Gina Carano (starred in two films by ideologically friendly producers and settled a wrongful dismissal suit) come to mind.
EDIT: But the complaint was just as much about the chilling effect as it was about the people actually getting fired.
But AFAICT (and consistent with comments here), the chilling effect came primarily from dislike of being "scolded" rather than from any actual threat. That was explicit in the famous Harpers Letter for example.
Except that in some cases the threat actually did become real. That's why I brought up Eich and Carano.
Both of these are public figures in positions where controversial statements of any kind have always been likely to cause trouble - see for example, Colin Kaepernick. Are there many examples of ordinary workers losing their jobs, as large numbers are doing now? I can remember one guy at Google and that's about it.
Centrist complaints about cancel culture (like the Harpers Letter) helped the right more than any actual manifestations of that culture.
The comment I've seen on this is that there were people at the January 6 riot, who did not get violent (maybe they entered the Capitol at some point but only after the violent breach, in which they did not participate), but still had their lives ruined by their mere presence when they might not have expected or even personally endorsed said violence. Meanwhile, as Biden's DoJ prosecuted those cases, they submitted for a reduced sentence in the case of Montez Lee, who during the George Floyd riots lit a pawn shop in Minneapolis on fire and a man, Oscar Stewart, trapped inside died in the blaze. (Whether Lee knew about Stewart's presence is another matter.) That sure looked like a double standard.
But that still misses the essence of the right-wing complaint here, which is that it didn't matter whether people lost their jobs over it or not; there were just enough cases of it happening (even if it was to people in high-profile positions, such as Eich) that a lot of people just shut up and were effectively silenced for fear of losing their jobs. So now they're turning that around and saying, well, you made us afraid of losing our jobs if we said anything mean about <insert lefty issue of the day here>, so now you've said something mean about Charlie Kirk that we're reading to be you effectively saying "actually it's good that he's dead" so now we're going to visit on you the consequences you implied you would visit on us if we stepped on any of your precious issues.
So punishments for attempting to overthrow democracy are part of cancel culture? Let's leave it there.
Every time one side gets outraged about something the other side does, all it ever means is that the former wishes they could do it themselves--and, given the opportunity, they do.
This applies with equal force to everyone.
EDIT: Or, to put it another way, "We're not mad that you're doing it; we're mad that we can't."
Isaac Hayes was happy to cash South Park's cheques right up until they decided to make fun of Scientology.
I appreciated this post, although I don't know that I take any issue with "it's not my job to educate you". Oftentimes in my experience when people are asking questions or demanding explanation, what they're really looking for is to argue, not to hear you. It's ok to set boundaries. No one should feel forced to to engage with people who aren't participating in good faith. It's becoming more clear to me that one major issue is that people are arguing but not seeking to understand and I wonder how that can change, especially in the era of TikTok attention spans.
Segregation isn't murder.
"When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another, such injury that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live—forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence—knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains." (Friedrich Engels, "The Condition of the Working Class in England")
My own view is that, regrettably, THERE IS NO LEFT to speak of in the U.S. At least not in any meaningful way. I have to laugh whenever I hear the MAGA types warn about the dangers of the left. If only we had anything like the numbers and influence they allege. Identity politics and cancel culture were ideally suited to the neo-liberalism of the past 50 years. Dreams of social transformation that once typified left politics were foreign to people who felt that the most urgent matters were gaining "a seat at the table" of power, whether public or private, and policing language with a diligence that would have made the Puritans proud. Maybe the rise of actually existing fascism will finally shake the left out of its half-century stupor. We are about to find out.
The paranoid warnings are a tribute to what we knew how to do. Reimagining it in new political circumstances is an unexpected, if predictable, challenge. Consumerism crept in, caught us off-guard, expecting Harris to win. Neoliberalism really is the devil's work, a sneaky opiate.
> "Cancel culture was always a tactical disaster masquerading as moral progress."
Indeed. Generally solid points, though kind of moot on whether the Left, the Democrats, can make their way back from the cliff. Though a good starting point might be to consider who they had cancelled in the past, and how the "cancellees" may have had a point or two.
Big task, maybe akin to cleaning out an Augean stable, but these posts might be a useful point of reference:
It's Too Late to Cry "Cancel Culture"
Why is MAGA always expected to take the high road?
https://www.sashastone.com/p/its-too-late-to-cry-cancel-culture
From the above:
Cancelled People:
https://canceledpeople.org/cancellations/
And, as you suggested, a rather large number of others were cancelled because of "transphobia" -- as Christopher Hitchens might (never) have said, "“a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons":
https://thehumanist.com/commentary/fascists-cowards-and-morons-combating-anti-muslim-bigotry-while-maintaining-free-speech
https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/the-failed-cancellation-of-james
https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/mutually-assured-cancellation
https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/everyday-cancellation-in-publishing/
"Kathleen Stock takes job at anti-cancel culture university that welcomes ‘thought criminals’
Professor shunned by former alma mater for airing ‘transphobic’ views hired by fledgling US institution with a strong ‘anti-woke’ ethos"
https://archive.ph/20211108194620/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/08/kathleen-stock-takes-job-anti-cancel-culture-university-welcomes/#selection-1083.1-1087.136
Mike, you are so right. I have some near-personal experience on how the left can sabotage their own opportunities with purity testing, scolding about “privilege,” and even that same “It’s not my job to teach you …” foolishness.
I won’t go into detail in a brief comment, but will just finish with the unsurprising report that the approach of the progressive scolders was dismally unsuccessful.