True and more often than not, the degree to which someone is committed is inversely correlated to the head being screwed on straight.

My head is screwed on straight but I have a "screws loose" issue. ;)

No, not just "as divisive identity politics" but as ideas that can't separate themselves from anti-semitism. Intersectionality can't, especially when it's applied through critical race theory, which intersectional "feminism" is (allegedly at least since I see nothing feminist about it.).

That and the whole naive power dynamics thing.

I'm not blinded by anything Israel. I see anti-semitism I go after it. I don't care if the target is some far right asshole or the Women's March. Most lefties get a bit squeamish attacking the latter. Not me.

If I think Linda Sarsour is a fucking bigot, and I do, I'll gladly take charges of Islamaphobia from the more squeamish left types. They'll accuse me of supporting everything and anything Israel while imposing their own preferences on the situation there.

"So there aren’t a lot of good places to turn."

If you can't find a place, make one. I'll help. Point me to the bigots.

"I am going to also assume you think #metoo was a good thing, so your thesis seems to be that while it’s good for abusive men to get their comeuppance, if non-abusive men take steps to make sure there is never an impression of bad behavior, then they are ridiculous. So basically, you want us to do nothing and hope for the best?"

You asked Chris not to get lawyerly and you put this in front of him?

Come on, you know that's not what's going on here. It's risk assessment and the response to said assessment. Overstate the risk and set your responses accordingly, expect the pushback.

"After #metoo and the avalanche of new HR training we received, it also became about my career. If that makes me an asshole, so be it"

When did you enter the workforce? I entered in 1996. Policies governing workplace conduct and sexual harassment have always been a part of my work experience so it's always "been about my career". Twenty three years later, it's still about my career. Nothing about metoo or HR training has ever changed that.

I guess it's no surprise that there are workplace cultures so fucked up that they're taking metoo as a threat. I'm in real estate and finance so there's plenty of that. Still, ignorance of risk doesn't excuse it.

And intellectually dishonest, the kind I've deal with from the butthurt triggered Trumpster set. Speaking of which, where's Koz tell me I have to submit?

Need a tissue?

Unlike the Tea Party, which very consciously tried to make itself an identifiable group, “SJW” is so loose and amorphous a label, and inevitably applied from outside by those hostile, that virtually anyone to the left of trump is an “SJW”.

Pillsy and I had a good conversation about this and I was very clear about what could constitute a SJW while not using that specific term.

I'll let you go find them, but the only person making the designation meaningless is you either out of ignorance or willful distortion.

Pot meet kettle on the motte and bailey, as you seem to do it so well.

This is one of those issues where I've never understood the need to use as a hill to fight on if only because there's almost no upside and all downside, even with articles I've read that treat the material and subject fairly.

Seriously, it's to the point where I disagree with your characterization but don't see a point in engaging it. We probably have more important things to discuss.

Individuals aren't sovereign in the constitutional framework. Sovereignty is a collective people hence the reason why collective rights make more sense in the federal constitutional framework than individual rights, which, to the extent those existed, were simply limitations on federal power.

This is what I like to call Madison's originalism, especially since the whole Madison-based compact theory best explains the original Constitution and why any originalist-type interpretive structure fails.

The modern day conception of free speech began in the early 1960's with NYT v Sullivan followed by Brandenburg v Ohio and the Pentagon Papers case. However, these are legal constructs not social constructs. From a socio-cultural standpoint, this debate gets messy...real messy.

Yeah, that was my feeling on the main post.

This is going to be a long reply to the OP and maybe a few comments in between. I skimmed the comments and I thought it necessary to pull everyone back, refocus on a few things and see this post in a more appropriate light - Grievance Politics.

Loosely named after the recent Grievance Studies Hoax, Grievance Politics employs a form of critical theory to "problematize" an issue, which in this case is giving speaking platforms to "unapproved" persons. The problem with this kind of critical "analysis" is that it lacks the analytical bite of real analysis as well as the direct recommendation of a solution. The idea is that the critical analysis leads to changed minds leading to social change - like supporting no-platforming people.

Personally, I'm the kind of guy that cuts through the bullshit and makes the argument straight up so this "critique" amounts to whining and bitching. The game goes a little something like this:

- "I the author am going to give you thoughts that I think are lacking in the discussion" only to follow up with things we already knew - kernels of truth blown up and exaggerated in order to make it fresh and insightful.

- "I the author demand we have boundaries, boundaries I say!" ignoring that there are already boundaries in place, and pertaining to this particular discussion, quite good ones. In fact, where issues could arise has more to do with legality something not even introduced.

- "I the author will help us do away with "banal" perspectives" by ignoring them, dismissing them out of hand or just by being a dishonest hack. Read the fourth paragraph carefully and tell me if this is not what's going on here:

"Current controversies surrounding platforming have included everything from hosting prominent white supremacists and alt-righters, to hosting figures with connections to them. Other issues involve trolls, sketchy research, Assad apologists, militancy, and dubious relevance. I will avoid any clear examples for the sake of the conversation, as I am attempting to address overlooked point, not highlight current (or overlooked) controversies. Plenty of people have done great work discovering and condemning said incidents."

To translate - current controversies surrounding involve very bad people that don't deserve a platform but I'm not going to name names because I want to address the overlooked points that aren't actually overlooked while overlooking that the points that aren't actually overlooked involve current controversies and the people involved in them. The reason? They are bad people - and the cycle goes around and around.

Sorry readers, it made my head hurt too.

When someone makes extravagant claims and conveniently shifts away from the dirty work of defending or clarifying one's position with specifics, my bullshit detectors are going to go off. I'll dispense with the guessing game and put forth a list of the people that I am confident would be on his list and to hell with it if they aren't because they fit the profile:

Jordan Peterson
Dave Rubin
Sam Harris
Charles Murray
Ben Shapiro
Christina Hoff Sommers
Milo Yiannapolous
Ann Coulter
Charlie Kirk
Candace Owens

I've seen plenty of people of John-Pierre's SJ ilk refer to these people as "detestable", "mean-spirited", "extremist", "bigoted", "malicious" and other colorful labels. Not a fan of most of them myself but at the very least, let's not think we're talking about Nazis, pedophiles, Holocaust deniers, flat earthers and other speakers and ideas outside of the Overton Window.

Like I said, there are no overlooked points, just overlooking the fact that people have made the same points only much better. To demonstrate:

1. “Hearing both sides” is not a virtue - Correct, there are cases where it isn't. Any astute reader of Jonathan Rauch's Kindly Inquisitors will point to the Afterword section of the book where this very point is stated - some things aren't up for debate. We don't need to re-litigate ideas after they've been thoroughly debunked and pushed outside of the Overton Window. We need not get both sides of racism, white supremacy, sexism, the Holocaust, 9/11, President Obama's birth certificate, etc. That's non-controversial to me.

2. What platforming communicates about the host - This is very common sense and reputation is very much a concern for any university especially those that don't want to piss off their alumni that donate. However, there's a wrinkle with respect to public universities - if public universities offer limited public forums for speakers and student groups can invite speakers to use those forums, college administrators can not discriminate based on viewpoint, as it violates the First Amendment.

3. Platforming as a function of the Overton Window - this is a bit of a fancypants way to describing the epistemology in Rauch's Kindly Inquisitors. Criticism/acceptance matters as it contributes to the ability of ideas getting mainstream acceptance or tossed outside of the Overton Window.

However...there's a problem with this...

"By platforming malicious voices the respect and seriousness of thought you have garnered rubs off on them."

The use of the White Supremacist as an example doesn't jive with the reality of the types of speakers in these controversies. Therefore, the people you tag with the "malicious" people mean people you disagree with and still fall within the Overton Window. That's where you're going with this. You claim to talk about these "malicious" people and use cover like white supremacists but you leave openings wide enough to drive a truck through.

Also, in the environment like a public university, the respect and seriousness label isn't a necessary condition for university administrators especially since the students tend to do the invites.

The one thing about a right to a platform - no such thing. I described a privilege. That's the way to look at it.

4. A voice’s ideological bent is not the sole basis of judgment: include rhetoric, personal behavior/tone, associations, etc

To a point but a smart person that comes off like an asshole to people that disagree with them with bad intentions are the people I most enjoy seeing because they don't put up with people's crap. My problem with this is that it allows so much subjectivity that the most squeamish among us can use that to deplatform speakers they don't like - just ask Christina Hoff Sommers, hardly a white supremacist that one.

5. Actions, not words, should guide our judgment of platformers - See this is where naming names would help but I'm sure that's asking too much so I'll just assume this whole point was made in bad faith despite there being some common sense to it but I wouldn't go as far.

6. Platforms as gateways - Totally. Someone could come to our platform here at Ordinary Times, read a post about platforms and complicity and unconscious bias, take a few hits from the SJ crack pipe and before we know it he or she will be singing the praises of Robin Diangelo's White Fragility and will be ready at moment's notice to deploy Allison Bailey's privilege preserving epistemic pushback as the Kafka trap to show that protest is evidence of the very claims it makes.

Holy shit, come to think of it, I think it's irresponsible for the editors to allow this platform to be used as a gateway to crackpipe epistemology. How can we tolerate people to spend their time learning how to make their views impervious to argument by ignoring criticism rather than learning how to engage in good faith. I better make sure that we remove the offensive content immediately!!!

Joking aside, if this were the 1980s and you were talking about heavy metal, you'd make the PMRC proud and Dee Snider would have to whoop some ass.

7. Platforming for “entertainment?” - I'm entertained. If I wasn't entertained, I wouldn't have written all of this.

Seriously, there's nothing here I didn't already know and the "problematic" aspects of platforms aren't being described by people of John-Pierre's ilk for the people outside of the Overton window but rather the kind of people John-Pierre wants out of it. It's all there laid out and easily discernible to those that can get past the window dressing and the perfume hiding the smell of the bullshit.

Political activism like this rubs the wrong way. Makes me want to tear it apart to show what little is behind it. If I have to take an author down a few pegs, so be it. It wouldn't be the first time I've done it.

If this is a bit much for a comments section, I'll be glad to publish this is a response post.

Pillsy,

I don't think they fit the intersectional paradigm at all, and the pushback from the story that broke about the Women's March was all the evidence I needed. Most of them aren't being seen as Jewish women but as WHITE Jewish women.

In the zeal of those that tried to make feminism more inclusive, they succeeded by eliminating any trace of what made feminism good and then added an anti-semitism problem it can't solve for.

I read my Jewish friend's commentary when it's on my Facebook feed and yeah, I have to say their pain infuriates me. Maybe I'm being too morally righteous for my own view but it is what it is.

Pillsy,

I watched the students protesting Christina Hoff Sommer's speech at Lewis and Clark. It was in a typical classroom type, not in a high profile or high traffic type place that could have created a captive audience situation. There were maybe 30-40 people attending at most?

I'd have to think about your point as applied to more high profile people but I have bigger fish to fry.

Kind of bummed that the other comments section was shut down before I could respond. It's like we were bonding...you may even lift after all :D

It's an interesting post, especially in light of some of the reading I'm doing - especially Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition.

"The thing about Gen X is that something went terribly wrong on us. The regularly scheduled programming didn’t take. Whatever confluence of hippie sentiment and cynical overcorrection roiling through America from the late ’70s through early ’90s curdled us. Even though no one actually raised us, and we were told there was nothing worth believing in, we were raised with a belief, and that belief was that there was merit in cynicism, in questioning everything, in pointing out how stupid things were. We were raised to believe there was merit in embracing controversy and walking the knife’s edge and pushing the envelope right off the edge of the table sometimes."

Looks like a kind of source code to me. Feels like it's timed right too.

Harm = discursive violence

"3. At some point you need to support policies that are actually good instead of merely popular"

At no point should anyone support policies that are "merely popular". There are plenty of those that don't end well.

"getting rid of the EC is good."

No, it's popular among people that would prefer popular rule so they can tell the interior of the country to go fuck itself.

Let's be honest about what you're really supporting here.

You too.

"As demonstrated by the exchange the other day, no conservative can ever quite explain what harm will occur due to “far left” proposals. Its always some sort of frothy concoction of buzzwords and slogans, always some mirage which is right there, just beyond our vision but sure as shootin’ is real."

Do you care to debate the benefits of Medicare for All against someone that eats, breathes and sleeps the healthcare business?

The smart money says you don't.

"However, it is disingenuous for liberal lawmakers of their states pushing full term abortion knowing only 13% of the country supports it."

The mindset in NJ and federalism go quite well together. We do what we choose to do and don't give a flying fish what the rest of the country thinks.

Tracy,

My comments below notwithstanding, I like posts like these. You can read the detail below if you want, but I'll summarize my view here:

I identify as a left-of-center liberal. Lord knows I can't stand the identitarian Left and the shit show the toddler-like progressives in Congress are putting on. However, what you left out of your post that under Trump, the Republican Party is true to its ethics, which is why I'll never compromise my principles.

I didn't pick my spot on the spectrum, but I'm left of center. I don't care for illiberal mindsets and I'll have no problem going full-on scorched earth if I encounter it. The best I can say about the Right is the left is going to keep me busy for a while, but your party is just as much in my cross hairs. You'll see a bit of that below...maybe not a bit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Details:

Note that I haven't read the comments yet and I'm going to have myself a little fun here. I enjoyed the post -

"a disastrous green new deal mouthed by insufferable, unmanageable, anti-Semitic, fringy freshmen."

Very nice. I would have thrown in a few more adjective like reality challenged and brain dead and used the term "toddlers" instead of freshmen. In fact, because most of the nitwits making the noise are women, I feel obligated to remind you that "freshman" is gendered, which you probably don't realize due to your internalized white privilege. Make sure you check all of that next time...or not... ;)

But yea, there's a "bit" of an anti-semitism problem on the Left. Seems like people are afraid to call bigots for what they are. The right has no problem though because the far right types are not only not afraid of calling it like it is but some back it up with violence. Let's not forget that. Therefore...this...

"nor will principled Zionists support a party where their own tribal leadership defends anti-Semitic diatribes from two of their own representatives"

I'm as sure as I'm as short that this is addressed above so all I say about that is that it's complicated - my own feelings notwithstanding.

"After three years of Trumpism, one would think the Democratic Party held some kind of common sense regarding the dangers of radical populism. And yet, their proclivity for identity politics and sugary dalliances with their fringe-box is the ultimate self-own for Nancy Pelosi."

But playing "hold my beer" is so much more fun. Identity politics? No such thing. Everyone should know that there are no fundamental differences in opposing racism, sexism, etc. from a liberal position (moral, ethics, politics) and anti-racism and intersectionality. Just ask Robin Diangelo...better yet...avoid that one like the plague...

"Marxism doesn’t mesh with kitchen table values, and the constant flinging of monkey-poo at the center-right by the left’s wanna-be-cast members for DC’s Clueless reboot may be a deal breaker for on-the-fence-conservatives."

As a liberal, I find most of what's to the left of me to be at best tolerable but on average infantile and obnoxious. However, while I prefer to use the term "bullshit" and not monkey-poo, terms like Marxism and socialism also qualify as bullshit, creating a scenario where people taking shit are themselves full of shit. Not good. Besides, grand narratives are a thing of the past...or so I've heard.

"Far-right populism isn’t conservatism."

Who cares? Unlike left-wing identity politics, right-identity politics can in fact manifest itself as a political force because it "mostly" deals with a single identity (white, nationalist) and seeks sovereign power to protect itself. Left identity politics assumes a different framework of power, which is why it seems so keen on addressing cultural issues. Sure, that's a crude framework but the point is that left identity politics is not able to translate to a political movement that can achieve let alone influence sovereign power. That, and the GOP will gladly turn a blind eye to it if not sell themselves out like they have. It's always been part of the right.

This is why right identity politics will ALWAYS be more dangerous.

"Across the U.S., Democrats are pushing full-term abortion legislation."

I'll check the comments on this one. My sense is that there's a reality vs. representation of reality difference going on. Your language kind of gives that away.

"Nearly two decades ago, Bush’s presidency ushered in a new era of pro-life voters, a monumental shift, and another losing message for Democrats."

Not that monumental. They failed miserably to get a Federal Marriage Amendment passed in light of the legalization of same sex marriage in MA. They also made complete fools of themselves interjecting in the Terri Schiavo case and trying to drag into the federal courts what was a state case based on state law.

"That should also include either party’s inability to reign in their own. To be quite honest, I’m not witnessing much of that on the left."

I commend the Republicans in Congress for reigning in the man-child in Chief.

"Planned Parenthood’s death grip and out of control lobbying is just as toxic as the NRA’s stranglehold on the GOP"

Here's the scary thing about this statement - I've been spending a ton of time diving into the whole identity politics thing and not just as the political pundit level where people talk broadly about groups and call-outs etc. etc. etc. That stuff is easy.

I've been diving into the "scholarship", the actual stuff behind it - in many cases in peer reviewed papers (i.e. Kimberle Crenshaw). For the good of the community, I've even suffered through reading the "whiteness" stuff (Diangelo, McIntosh, etc.).

Your comparison of Planned Parenthood to the NRA as being "a death grip", "out of control" and similarly "toxic" raises eyebrows. I'm surprised to see people admitting that the NRA is toxic, especially from the Right so that's good. Yet, the claim is about as supportable and falsifiable as the activist scholarship that is forever seared into my small brain. It's not an uncommon talking point on the right but that's all it is.

"The left’s ongoing desire to ravage lucidity for their self-destructive identity politics is why moderates in their party are becoming extinct."

Nah...some of us stayed behind and will start dealing with the children in short order.

"She attacked Ronald Reagan, called him a racist, and attacked capitalism."

Anything but that...

"What the clueless, social media acronym fails at discerning is that the Generation X conservatives and moderates from the Reagan era whom she viciously attacks will eventually put her party out of power."

You'd be surprised how many of us won't go right because we think it's a shit hole. It doesn't mean I like the left because...

"Justice Democrats is just a synonym for revenge toward everyone on the right, including NeverTrump."

I think you meant to say "everyone to the right of THEM". Big difference. I"m called alt-right-adjacent at least once a week by these kinds of people. They're children that just happen to be physiologically similar to adults...although none of them even lift.

"It no longer matters how contemptible Trump gets because the Democrats no longer have the moral high ground."

I never thought they did nor do you.

"As long as the president pushes policies for rock-ribbed conservatives, courts center-right once again while Democrats work in concert to obstruct those bread and butter issues, forget about impeachment, or about remaining in power."

Or he can just do what he normally does when he panders to bigots and they'll vote for him anyway.

Ah...part of a broader conversation I'm having with Maribou, which reminds me of an email I must complete. Now if you'll excuse me.

Wait, what?

"Gym lingo and slang turns me off and sounds incredibly dumb to me (Sorry Dave but if I could I would banish “Do you even lift, bro?” culture into 999 trillion atoms across the universe)."

The world would probably be a better place.

Ok...not that I know much about any of this kind of stuff...

"The reasoning is simple enough. Consumers currently don’t know what the calorific content of most restaurant meals are..."

I'm not troubled by this, and even if they may think they know what the calorie counts are, they still won't know for more reasons than I need to discuss here. One reason - think about the calorie count for a serving of salad dressing and if you get dressing on the side, you notice that the amount of dressing looks three to four times the size of a serving size.

"This, we assume, will lead to people selecting lower-calorie and healthier food choices, helping them lose weight.."

Or just helping people with healthy food choices.

"A review of outcomes in 2013 found that “current evidence does not support a significant impact on calories ordered”"

No surprise. Think of comments like Mike's above - they're going to go eat out, enjoy something and not worry about the calorie counts. Very common and reasonable. I wouldn't even call that a "bloodbath" given that puts the wrong kind of connotation with food. Not that it matters in Mike's case, but I've seen that go into dark places.

"Great! But once we go to longer time periods, things get tricky. Calorie counting may help with short-term weight loss, but that’s true of many so-called “fad” diets too. A study in The Journal of the American Medical Association with over 600 participants even found that “there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet”. The same study also asserted that “no one dietary strategy is consistently superior to others for the general population.”"

Weight loss is a function of a caloric deficit, whether or not people realize they're in one. With fad diets, keto comes to mind, as much as they sell people on the fact that calories don't matter, the fact is that people lose weight because they're in a caloric deficit. This is why weight loss results are almost the same across different kinds of diets.

"Further to this, in a recent article for Tufts Nutrition Magazine, numerous quoted nutritional experts with various views on healthy eating could agree on one thing: calorie counting doesn’t work."

This is VERY dependent on context. What I understand from the source is almost a vulgar form of calorie counting where you're told to hit a number and you can eat whatever you want so long as you come in at/below that number. Sure, that can be a disaster and completely unnecessary. People on the standard American diet can cut back on sugar and eat a more balanced diet of whole plant and animal foods and lose weight without counting a damn thing.

I track my calories but I have different goals, objectives and interests.

"The reality is the average consumer isn’t a nutritional scientist, and it’s unreasonable for us to expect them to have the knowledge of one."

It's almost sad to think that my knowledge of nutrition puts me well above the average person in society because what I know isn't rocket science.

"Reducing this to a calorie count may actively mislead consumers into selecting low-calorie but nutrient-poor food over meals that are healthier overall. "

Have you heard of IIFYM?

The thing I like about you the most is the creative and diplomatic ways you go about responding to what I would call bullshit. :D