commenter-thread

Your argument suggest that both the bully and the bullied are equally to blame for the existence of bullying because each side ends up complaining about the other.

Because you're skipping right over the morally relevant and (imo) factually significant part of the issue to provide what looks like (imo) a transparently false analysis, and I'm surprised you don't see that too.

Swami, are you implying that the trans community deserves blame for the fact that trans people are marginalized and subject to varying levels of abuse because they've tried to cancel some of their abusers?

The capitalist uses a simpler question. “Does this employee benefit the bottom line, or hurt the bottom line?”

Hence cancel culture.

As a Classical Liberal, I don’t want either side cancelling the other.

I've been stuck on this for ten minutes now and have no idea what it means. Classical liberals, as I understand it, is the view that business owners should be allowed to cancel whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, by either denying employment or service.

Somehow I doubt a battle of the anecdotes is going to change your mind.

I dunno. Chip has said that anecdotes are *precisely* how he makes up his mind. :)

Is making the trains run on time a progressive agenda item?

If that's correct, doesn't it mitigate probably the biggest worry folks have of progressivism, namely, that's its ultimate goal is communist totalitarianism?

A corollary to that: again, if that's true, shouldn't libertarians like Swami be happy that progressives are leaning on private corporations as goal-achieving power-centers rather than the state?

Just curious… would you say the business world has been “infiltrated” by folks with a profits-over-people ideology?

That gets pretty close to a worry I have with Swami's analysis: that at time 1 there is a baseline of social norms, practicesa and power structures and the change which exists at time 2 is the result of infiltration. There's a bias in the framing such that the type of institutional arrangements which exist at time 1 are irrelevant but the *changes* to those institutions, and howthey came about, deserve hyper-scrutiny. As an example, according to this view the abolitionist/anti-slavery movement in the US "infiltrated" our institutions, which implies something insidious occurred worthy of scorn and deeper analysis.

But is that actually a core tenet of progressivism (as Swami's defined it) or a contingent fact about power dynamics on the left *right now*? Nothing in Swami's definition/description entails that, eg., progressives must/should/will align with corporate interests to achieve their goals, even instrumentally. Or am I still not understanding what this ideology actually is?

Your comments make sense to me from a libertarian pov, so I'm curious if you agree largely the same critique, absent the particuloar ism-signifiers, applies to conservatism or, frankly, any political/cultural movement, Swami. Eg, 2, 3, and 4 strike me as fully general; 1 and 5 replaceable by every other isms objectives and goals.

More substantively, short of an argument demonstrating that the premises and conclusions of (what you identify as) progressivisms core beliefs and objectives are unsound, I'm not sure why you think it's *obviously* not only dangerous but false. Eg., it's true that social systems *are* based, at least in part, on power dynamics, so why is an ideology centered around remedying that fact problematic?

{{I don't want to get too far out on a limb here since I'm not sympathetic to much of what we in the US call "progressive politics".}

Interesting comment. I'm not sure what it means, though. Could you define "progressivism" more precisely than "a particular secular faith-based world view based upon certain beliefs about human nature and power relationships and their cure"?

But once it manifests into something coherent it's already too late, so you might as well not get upset *then* either. :)

Doesn't help clarify, but thanks for the links.

Seems categorically different to me, but what do I know.

It's always hard to predict how Free Speech Absolutists will respond to speech-related attacks.

Charlie Hebdo? FSAs were 110% certain it was an attack on free speech.

Trump using the power of the IRS to go after liberal colleges tax exempt status to curtail their ability to "indoctrinate" students? Not an attack on free speech.

I read an insightful comment that ICE declaring that foreign students' visas will be suspended if their school conducts classes remotely is an attempt to force those universities to hold in-person classes on campus. This threat strikes me as more of the same, Trump using a stick to get schools back open.

Did anyone sign both letters? Those are the folks we, as a society, need to hear from.

I’m confused on what you think I’m defending. I was pointing out that we don’t, and shouldn’t excuse someone’s illegal behavior because of their culture.

*Ergo*, the only problem with inner city black culture, and the solution, is that those people need to obey *our* laws. QED.

Free speech is how we determine what is toxic to the body as a whole.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here (I mean, beyond the surface language) but this strikes me as wrong. Instead, it seems to me that free speech protections are historically and conventionally viewed as a mechanism to *prevent* toxicity from taking hold in the body.

Dark, our criminal justice system is tasked with *this very thing*, yet you appear to defend it as legitimate as is, going so far as to say (on another thread) that "it’s on their culture to change to fit modern norms" or they get locked up.