state by state "solutions" to national problems will not work, especially when states choose to criminalize the movement of people to those other states to seek remedies. Until states stop doing that, federal solutions - even crammed down ones - are far preferable.
Ans SCOTUS - in its current configuration - already decides things in ways I don't like. That's why I vote the way I do, among other things.
My belief is that people who choose to use social media to share or espouse their views then they should be prepared to deal with the reaction to those views, instead of expecting those views to be held in some compartment somewhere so their other view or experiences can be heard. We should expect - and frankly demand - that the whole person be present and be accountable of the whole person presents themselves.
If 5 people don’t want someone to speak but 50 people do the 5 just win, sucks to be everyone else?
No. The 5 get their say, and then the 50 make a responsive case as to why they speaker needs to continue. If its persuasive, whether it agrees with the 5 or not, the speech goes forward. You want to let the 50 off the hook. I'm not going to do so.
And last I checked, protests were and are not about expressing decorum - they are about creating discomfort to call attention to something. Which those students did. Should I ever find myself in need of legal services I'd be far more inclined to seek those students out. They were willing to zealously advocate for their cause. One presumes they would do so for their clients. We need more of that, not less.
One of the many, many great fallacies of our day is we no longer believe what people tell us is the reason they are doing a thing. Even when that reason aligns with the thing being done, and even when its consistent with prior actions.
The issues that Republican politicians want to push down to the states are issues that involve state sanctioned oppression or authoritarian actions to enforce. Abortion, suppression of LGBTQIA+ rights, suppression of voting rights. And many of those states are developing enforcement mechanisms that seek to prevent citizens from seeking redress by leaving and going to another state which permits the activity in question (e.g. Texas and Missouri's abortion legislation).
I doubt any state would attempt to outlaw interracial marriage.
I used to believe no state would place bounties in the heads of people helping other obtain abortions. I no longer believe this.
This entire debate has become a motte and bailey where the existence of a small handful of rightly taboo topics is used to chase perfectly mainstream ideas out of venues well suited to discuss them.
Before Twitter and other social media I might have agreed with you, in as much as Shapiro's other views would have been less well known and thus not likely seen as impinging on his alleged expertise in the nominations process. But we have social media, he chose to use it, and claims of inartful posting which don't refute or redress the actual content of the post are no longer a shield to bad ideas. Nor are those bad ideas able to be taken and compartmentalized. Shapiro got called out by future lawyers - perhaps even including a Supreme Court justice who might have benefitted from his perspective - because he put his own ideas in play in the public square, while thinking his "expertise" and his "professional standing" entitled him to spout off as he saw fit and be free of consequence.
As I pointed out in the other thread on the NYT editorial - we no longer live in a world where people (me included) are free from the consequences of their speech, much less the ideas and beliefs underlying that speech. Shapiro thought he was free from those consequences.
And as Burt notes - the people wanting to hear him speak had the obligation to make a convincing argument that his expertise on SCOTUS nominations was worth listening to despite his tweets - and the underlying beliefs they represent. So far as I know, they have yet to do so.
They are no longer afraid to say the quiet parts out loud. Which makes it easier to know who the enemies of pluralistic democracy are. So yay, I guess.
This is sheer nonsense from the jump. Americans don’t have, and have never had, any right to be free of shaming or shunning. The First Amendment protects our right to speak free of government interference. It does not protect us from other people saying mean things in response to our speech. The very notion is completely incoherent. Someone else shaming me is their free speech, and someone else shunning me is their free association, both protected by the First Amendment.
Sounds eminently reasonable, and aligns with what I've said above grievances centering on people finally being held to account for their bad behavior.
Doesn't take him long to go off the rails however:
I’m going to offer a working definition for the purposes of this essay: “cancel culture” is when speech is met with a response that, in my opinion, is very disproportionate.
Really? Cause that's not inviting the very cancellation he claims to deplore? He's not inflicting HIS standards on other? Because HE doesn't want to be disquieted by protest?
Of course it gets better:
We also err if we pretend that norms don’t have political resonance. Boycotts, loud denouncing protests, shunning, shaming, ridicule — these have been cited as cancel culture, but have often been tools of less powerful people against more powerful people.
Normally I'd file that under "yes, and?" Except again above he says cancel culture is a DISPROPORTINATE response. Which these very things he alludes to are often labeled as, particularly by Conservatives.
Sorry bro, but you can't have that much looseness in your thinking while allegedly decrying the looseness in other's thinking. Either these loud protests - including the Yale Law kids - Are the tools of the downtrodden and oppressed (and thus have support) or they are not and you oppose them as being disproportionate. Clearly he wants them to be both, which is ANOTHER tactic used by old white conservative men to appear toe supporting a thing they don't really support for people whoa ren't them.
You do realize you are making my point by assuming I'm looking down my nose intellectually at them (and you) as opposed to looking across the table and disagreeing about the likely outcomes of the policies? Last I checked we could - and do - disagree with policies without thinking the other person is inferior.
I don't consider them to be my inferiors. I do consider many of the policies they advocate and legislate for to be damaging to the nation in many ways, in no small measure because they appear to be based on a hoped for nostalgia as opposed to what actually is.
I know its tough for you and everyone else to believe, but I entered this conversation and all its derivatives trying to achieve an understanding of the truth. I also know you an dother want to recoil from the notion, but a lot of this drama is about people not liking their lack of control over their lives and the lives of people they consider their inferiors. While I have some sympathy for the former state, I have zero sympathy for the latter.
And once again we are back to the bottom line - conservative white males can't stand living in a world where they are called out in the public square for their sh!tty behavior.
We are not talking about the War on Drugs, we’re talking about employers.
You may be talking about that - I'm talking about intellectual approaches, philosophy, social norms. And I'm pointing out that the words used to make attacking hippies OK back in the day was (and sometimes still is) used to oppress any number of other groups historically.
That drug use was only criminalized as a way to fight back on the anti-war left and Blacks. That was the entire origin of the war on drugs. Prior to Nixon wanting to clamp down on the vocal opposition, both drugs (and a host of others) enjoyed wide use and tacit acceptance. Still do if you are rich and white.
My point is that language disparaging one group has been and can easily be again used to actively oppress another. And Hippies - in the eyes of many at the time - were the social justice activists of today. You insist - as did those doing the hiring at the time - that they conform to a set of social norms produced largely by conservative white men, and then note that once they did so they were "rewarded" with economic opportunity.
And yet you clearly fail to see - or actively want to avoid - the why and how that language is easily and equally pernicious applied to pretty much anyone else. Its fine to trash hippies because they weren't black or women, or gay . . . even when the same words were once used to trash women, and blacks and gays . . .
As my parents (who are of that generation) would happily intone - Hippies referred to both the free living free thinking sometimes drug using counterculture practitioners of the 1960's AND political leftists that the "establishment" didn't approve of. I also don't think its a coincidence that the drugs most heavily criminalized at the beginning of the War on Drugs (TM) were marijuana, and LSD, which enjoyed significant usage in both Black (marijuana) and hippie (LSD) communities.
Is there any set of circumstances under which a media platform of any kind could can people like Bennet or McNeil that you wouldn't regard as cancelling them?
I could understand it if a place of business didn’t want to hire, or serve, blacks. If people started pressuring a business to not hire or serve blacks, it would be the business’s right to decide on their own.
I could understand it if a place of business didn’t want to hire, or serve,gays. If people started pressuring a business to not hire or serve gays, it would be the business’s right to decide on their own.
I could understand it if a place of business didn’t want to hire, or serve, hispanics. If people started pressuring a business to not hire or serve hispanics, it would be the business’s right to decide on their own.
Funny how those two sentences contain so much bigotry even with the original wording.
On “Ketanji Brown Jackson Confirmation Hearings: Live Stream and Discussion”
state by state "solutions" to national problems will not work, especially when states choose to criminalize the movement of people to those other states to seek remedies. Until states stop doing that, federal solutions - even crammed down ones - are far preferable.
Ans SCOTUS - in its current configuration - already decides things in ways I don't like. That's why I vote the way I do, among other things.
On “Discretion Has No Substitute: Lessons In Moving The Overton Window”
My belief is that people who choose to use social media to share or espouse their views then they should be prepared to deal with the reaction to those views, instead of expecting those views to be held in some compartment somewhere so their other view or experiences can be heard. We should expect - and frankly demand - that the whole person be present and be accountable of the whole person presents themselves.
No. The 5 get their say, and then the 50 make a responsive case as to why they speaker needs to continue. If its persuasive, whether it agrees with the 5 or not, the speech goes forward. You want to let the 50 off the hook. I'm not going to do so.
And last I checked, protests were and are not about expressing decorum - they are about creating discomfort to call attention to something. Which those students did. Should I ever find myself in need of legal services I'd be far more inclined to seek those students out. They were willing to zealously advocate for their cause. One presumes they would do so for their clients. We need more of that, not less.
On “From the New York Times editorial board: America Has a Free Speech Problem”
One of the many, many great fallacies of our day is we no longer believe what people tell us is the reason they are doing a thing. Even when that reason aligns with the thing being done, and even when its consistent with prior actions.
On “Ketanji Brown Jackson Confirmation Hearings: Live Stream and Discussion”
So modern Republicans are whinning about Bork because their own side previously defected and voted against him? Really? Really?
"
The issues that Republican politicians want to push down to the states are issues that involve state sanctioned oppression or authoritarian actions to enforce. Abortion, suppression of LGBTQIA+ rights, suppression of voting rights. And many of those states are developing enforcement mechanisms that seek to prevent citizens from seeking redress by leaving and going to another state which permits the activity in question (e.g. Texas and Missouri's abortion legislation).
I used to believe no state would place bounties in the heads of people helping other obtain abortions. I no longer believe this.
On “Discretion Has No Substitute: Lessons In Moving The Overton Window”
Before Twitter and other social media I might have agreed with you, in as much as Shapiro's other views would have been less well known and thus not likely seen as impinging on his alleged expertise in the nominations process. But we have social media, he chose to use it, and claims of inartful posting which don't refute or redress the actual content of the post are no longer a shield to bad ideas. Nor are those bad ideas able to be taken and compartmentalized. Shapiro got called out by future lawyers - perhaps even including a Supreme Court justice who might have benefitted from his perspective - because he put his own ideas in play in the public square, while thinking his "expertise" and his "professional standing" entitled him to spout off as he saw fit and be free of consequence.
As I pointed out in the other thread on the NYT editorial - we no longer live in a world where people (me included) are free from the consequences of their speech, much less the ideas and beliefs underlying that speech. Shapiro thought he was free from those consequences.
And as Burt notes - the people wanting to hear him speak had the obligation to make a convincing argument that his expertise on SCOTUS nominations was worth listening to despite his tweets - and the underlying beliefs they represent. So far as I know, they have yet to do so.
On “Ketanji Brown Jackson Confirmation Hearings: Live Stream and Discussion”
I do find it hilarious that Republicans still groan on about Bork - whom a goof number of their predecessors in the Republican Party voted against.
"
{snark}You missed it entirely JS - this isn't about interracial marriage - its about states rights {/snark}
"
They are no longer afraid to say the quiet parts out loud. Which makes it easier to know who the enemies of pluralistic democracy are. So yay, I guess.
On “From the New York Times editorial board: America Has a Free Speech Problem”
Sounds eminently reasonable, and aligns with what I've said above grievances centering on people finally being held to account for their bad behavior.
Doesn't take him long to go off the rails however:
Really? Cause that's not inviting the very cancellation he claims to deplore? He's not inflicting HIS standards on other? Because HE doesn't want to be disquieted by protest?
Of course it gets better:
Normally I'd file that under "yes, and?" Except again above he says cancel culture is a DISPROPORTINATE response. Which these very things he alludes to are often labeled as, particularly by Conservatives.
Sorry bro, but you can't have that much looseness in your thinking while allegedly decrying the looseness in other's thinking. Either these loud protests - including the Yale Law kids - Are the tools of the downtrodden and oppressed (and thus have support) or they are not and you oppose them as being disproportionate. Clearly he wants them to be both, which is ANOTHER tactic used by old white conservative men to appear toe supporting a thing they don't really support for people whoa ren't them.
"
You do realize you are making my point by assuming I'm looking down my nose intellectually at them (and you) as opposed to looking across the table and disagreeing about the likely outcomes of the policies? Last I checked we could - and do - disagree with policies without thinking the other person is inferior.
"
I don't consider them to be my inferiors. I do consider many of the policies they advocate and legislate for to be damaging to the nation in many ways, in no small measure because they appear to be based on a hoped for nostalgia as opposed to what actually is.
"
In this instance, what did Team Blue make up?
"
Which seems to be the case for a lot of white conservative males these days.
"
I know its tough for you and everyone else to believe, but I entered this conversation and all its derivatives trying to achieve an understanding of the truth. I also know you an dother want to recoil from the notion, but a lot of this drama is about people not liking their lack of control over their lives and the lives of people they consider their inferiors. While I have some sympathy for the former state, I have zero sympathy for the latter.
"
And once again we are back to the bottom line - conservative white males can't stand living in a world where they are called out in the public square for their sh!tty behavior.
"
You may be talking about that - I'm talking about intellectual approaches, philosophy, social norms. And I'm pointing out that the words used to make attacking hippies OK back in the day was (and sometimes still is) used to oppress any number of other groups historically.
"
Not at all - and that's not my point.
"
And I'm pointing out that the thinking is as flawed as the thinking about all those other groups.
"
That drug use was only criminalized as a way to fight back on the anti-war left and Blacks. That was the entire origin of the war on drugs. Prior to Nixon wanting to clamp down on the vocal opposition, both drugs (and a host of others) enjoyed wide use and tacit acceptance. Still do if you are rich and white.
"
My point is that language disparaging one group has been and can easily be again used to actively oppress another. And Hippies - in the eyes of many at the time - were the social justice activists of today. You insist - as did those doing the hiring at the time - that they conform to a set of social norms produced largely by conservative white men, and then note that once they did so they were "rewarded" with economic opportunity.
And yet you clearly fail to see - or actively want to avoid - the why and how that language is easily and equally pernicious applied to pretty much anyone else. Its fine to trash hippies because they weren't black or women, or gay . . . even when the same words were once used to trash women, and blacks and gays . . .
"
As my parents (who are of that generation) would happily intone - Hippies referred to both the free living free thinking sometimes drug using counterculture practitioners of the 1960's AND political leftists that the "establishment" didn't approve of. I also don't think its a coincidence that the drugs most heavily criminalized at the beginning of the War on Drugs (TM) were marijuana, and LSD, which enjoyed significant usage in both Black (marijuana) and hippie (LSD) communities.
"
Is there any set of circumstances under which a media platform of any kind could can people like Bennet or McNeil that you wouldn't regard as cancelling them?
"
You don't live in a Right to Work State, do you?
"
Funny how those two sentences contain so much bigotry even with the original wording.