commenter-thread

I am not sure how to respond. I think you are being sarcastic but I am not sure what to take away. What is your take on cancel culture and firing people for political views?

I Strongly oppose running down protestors!

Of course I support firing people for promoting violence against co-workers. Did you even read my initial comment on not firing people for "extraneous reasons" such as their political beliefs.

What in the world does that share with promoting violence against co-workers?

Blue or Black or All Lives Matter is Perfectly reasonable. Recommending cops be shot (your example, not mine) is promoting violence. But I am the Fascist?

Peaceful protestors, or violent rioters trying to harm you while in a car? There is a big difference, though not to some people on this discussion.

How about a law abiding desire to prevent riots, violence and destruction of property? So that is now the fascist agenda in your mind!

But true to form, realizing you haven’t a leg to stand on, you go back to arguing by name calling and demonization. That is pretty much your MO. Can’t actually carry on a rational discussion without calling those who disagree "racist, fascists with an urge to kill and dominate."

Priceless.

Umm, she supported a sign that stated "shoot the F... back". Talk about supporting violence. I was not aware that the BLM movement had so deteriorated that they were actually recommending open violence against cops. I am pretty sure that anyone would agree that nobody in any job should be promoting violence against their co-workers.

Yeah, she crossed a line. Promoting violence against cops or Peaceful protestors is unacceptable.

Protestors or rioters? There is a big difference.

Nobody is being fired for expressing support for the Marxist BLM movement. Anyone expressing an opinion against it is at risk. How you can characterize unilateral cancelling in non political organizations and institutions as proof of it occurring the other way is beyond comprehension.

Nobody cares about their social gatherings.

The question is whether people should be fired for expressing opinions which differ from the BLM mantra. They are being fired. And those who oppose BLM usually do so because they think it will have negative repercussions for Blacks. Thus to them, you are the racist.

Similarly, some people have argued that the issue with trans is their unfair dominance in women’s sports. Is this anti trans or pro women? Remind me which side the sexist pigs are on?

I think the BLM issue is particularly apt. Two sides, both think they are the good one, and one side (yours) trying to Demonize and fire the other. That is bullying. I predict this ends bad for everyone, with the distinct likelihood it ends especially bad for progressives. I have no idea if you guys will turn on yourselves, or if there will be a backlash return to normalcy, or perhaps a conservative backlash against all progressive institutions (Defund Humanities!), a movement of conservatism to outright fascism, or just civil war.

Cease fire!

Btw, I am still in the dark as to what Weiss said that was anti trans? I couldn’t find anything on the internet. Does anyone know?

Thanks for actually make an argument. I appreciate it, though I am not a "conservative." I do know some though.

I think it is entirely reasonable that a company fire someone for not abiding by their policies on treating people with respect.

Would a progressive agree that it is also appropriate for a business to fire someone for demanding that customers refer to them by their proper pronoun (against company policy )or because they refuse to use the designated bathroom? Just asking.

But honestly I was talking more about views. I think the chances of a conservative or Christian getting a job in a University is getting to be increasingly unlikely, especially in social sciences. Those last few remaining are at increasing risk of getting fired for their views.

Honestly, I think that a professor saying that "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter" or " Black Culture Matters" or "If Black Lives Matter, Quit Killing Each Other" or such would be at risk of being not just fired, but mobbed. Do you think this would be an acceptable statement for a professor? Is it something which you think COULD lead to a loss of their job? Is it something which SHOULD?

I am not just being rhetorical, I would like your opinion.

You want me to list several million more?

How am I misguided? Try to explain yourself.

You ask a question. I respond. You then go on a rant about vermin, the lying internet bigots and Republican bathroom behavior. WTF?

On the last discussion (On BLM), you suggested that people who disagree with your facts are racists, assuming you could shut down a discussion by pre-emptively calling those who disagree with you names.

Can you please rationally engage with what I am actually saying? Seriously. Which points do you disagree with? I will gladly reform my position if you can calmly convince me that you grasp it and can point out something wrong with it. I am not interested in discussing vermin or Republican bathroom habits.

I fail to see how James Damore or Bret Weinstein or his wife are the bullies. Are they not being bullied in your opinion? Why not?

Was Larry Summers the bully or the bullied? Were Bennett and Weiss at the NYT bullies?

Are all the conservatives not being hired by universities bullies or bullied?

I don’t want to get lost in the weeds on any one case, and Damore is the only one I am really familiar with, but my point is that there are people being bullied on both sides. No?

Did my comments above not make this clear? I have no interest in regulating people’s opinions. I believe it is inevitable that someone will believe conservatives are Nazi's, or that gays are sinners, or that the earth is flat, or whatever.

My argument is that it is harmful to demand people be fired for these views when it is not important to the function of their organization (a flat earth society would be justified in firing an executive-level round earther). I explained that the danger is that either or both sides would use this as a weapon and this would escalate into a self amplifying feud which just leads to everyone being harmed.

I can’t demand you respect me. You can’t demand I respect you. But we can both agree that it is a terrible policy for employers, colleges, government agencies etc to cancel employees or students based upon their political stance, philosophy, lifestyle or beliefs.

How so, SW? Not being argumentative. Perhaps I missed something in the link I can’t access??

Any way, interesting discussion.

But the idea of ceasefire is that they not cancel you and your team and in return you agree not to cancel them and theirs. Am I hearing you right that you are NOT for a cease fire of this insanity?

Paywall keeps me from reading the article, but in the above threads I explained my position is that:

1. I accept that an organization with a doctrinal, political or religious purpose should be free to screen out people who expressly oppose that doctrine. To give an example, a Catholic org could screen out atheists, a conservation group could screen out executives from Exxon, and a trans rights group could screen out people who believe trans are disturbed. They undermine the organization. This may best be applied though to leaders in the org rather than say janitors or secretaries, whose opinions are probably irrelevant.
2. What I do not approve of is organizations screening out people for extraneous reasons. For example, a conservative organization screening out minorities because they tend to be liberal.
3. I believe it is even more dangerous to have situations where mobs or collectives use pressure to cancel or screen out (not hire, fire, etc) people for reasons not related to the institutions key doctrine.
4. That said, I believe that the preferred manner to police this is by a general cease fire. It should be considered unacceptable behavior to fire or screen out for extraneous reasons.
5. If this general norm is failing (And I believe it is) and cannot be reformed reasonably (undecided), then I would recommend institutional reforms prohibiting it, at least in theory.
6. Failure to do this and head off the escalation will lead to either one political faction assuming control of our institutions (very dangerous and long term suicidal) or to an escalation of political wars reminiscent of the religious wars of the 16th C, but this term on Internal secular religions and political doctrines. I am in general opposed to revolutions, arms races of hate and mass graves. And anyone not believing that the extreme left or the extreme right are capable of these horrors has not been paying attention to 20Th C history.

I think it is a really bad idea for a business to screen someone out (for example) because they are gay, Or for a college to screen professors out (for example) because they are conservative.

I also don’t really think this is so much a matter of free speech as it is separation of religion, mores and ideology from general purpose institutions.

I wish you well.

Can you acknowledge that I can both be against harmful/malicious progressive actions and against harmful/malicious conservative actions? There is a huge segment of people out there who don’t endorse/promote firing people for political views of any type?

As I stated in the quote you provided, my first recommendation was to keep the mutual freedom of both parties to end voluntary employment at will AND get both sides to agree that using employment as a weapon against dissenting views is a lose/lose proposition. But I also added that rather than get into a situation where either party tries using this freedom to use social pressure to eliminate dissenting viewpoints, I would accept limiting the ability to fire or not hire due to political or politically protected reasons. It still isn’t my first choice, and there could be some extremely negative side effects, but nothing compared to the war Progressives are trying to start. Conservatives will respond, and they won’t play any more nicely.

My role isn’t as a Protestant or a Catholic. I am just suggesting that we better demand tolerance and separation of church and institutions or we will regret it. This issue isn’t about free speech so much as it is about a secular religious war which the progressives are flaming.

Until it isn’t and the Conservatives strike back. And they will strike back, and hard. This end game sucks.

Like a prisoner’s dilemma, the only way to win the game is to avoid playing.

Which side is that?

By speaking of Conservatives in the third party I was clearly making the point that I am not on THEIR side either.

I guess my point is that, like the wars of Religion of the 16th and 17th C, the parties has better get together and work out a way to agree to get along and be tolerant.

I am preaching tolerance all around. Failure to do this could lead to societal disaster.

Revolutions and wars are dangerous and lead to negative side effects which nobody with a sound mind would desire.

In true Alinsky fashion, cancel culture is seeking to capture this freedom to choose who to employ and using social pressure to run it through a lens of progressive ideology. It is seeking to make firing for being gay or being in favor of gays illegal, and in pressuring companies to fire anyone who believes women and men may have different statistical interests and aptitudes.

The conservative response would be to make it illegal to fire for conservative beliefs and also to promote firing for progressive beliefs.

Either scenario, if becoming Commonplace, would be a nightmare. If both occur (Depending on the institution or organization), it leads to war.

My recommendation is cancel cancel culture on either side. I guess you could suggest an alternative which is that it is illegal to base hiring upon any secular philosophy or belief. This wouldn’t be my first recommendation, but it is better than the alternative of cancel cultures.

So I am taking away that you have more issues with my word choices than with the opinion?

How about a world where you aren’t fired or even disciplined for promoting gay/trans rights?

How about a world where you aren’t fired for refusing to acknowledge that the problems in black culture are primarily self caused?

How about a world where you aren’t kept out of a public university because you don’t believe Jesus is your Lord?

If you promise not to push for the firing of James Damore based upon his views, conservatives can agree to not ask you to be fired or disciplined for your views. If you don’t agree to the peace fire, then you need to be prepared for the Conservative backlash. And it will be hell for all of us.

We are talking about a second bout of religious wars here.

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

The first part of your question answered the second part, no?

The injustice and harm is that Damore was fired for expressing a view contrary to the secular religion of Progressivism. The most comprehensive Progressive accusation was from a psychologist who stated that he was correct but was still a right wing Nazi for saying so.

If you were fired for espousing gay rights or suggesting that sex changes are healthy lifestyle choices, Or putting a BLM banner in your cubicle would you not feel harmed?

The liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment is that tolerance of other opinions is a virtue. A secular religion which is intolerant and which does not espouse separation of religion and state has infiltrated/grown organically (like cancer?) into our institutions.

As to the language of victimology, I never disputed that there was such a thing as an oppressed or an oppressor. My issue with Progressivism is its over dependence on this framing, much as libertarians are over dependent on touting liberty.

I do not feel oppressed. I am retired and could care less what you guys think. If I was still employed I would worry that anything I said or wrote would be used to fire me just as they did to James Damore.

Great point, SW. The key issue is that some beliefs are particularly opposed to criticism and competing views. In the case of US, our dominant paradigm was liberalism with a core belief in separation of state and religion, and a core belief in the value of competing views and interests and free speech.

Remember I would be just as concerned if Evangelicals or Quakers Or Marxists or Fascists took over Society. They would all stomp out competing views. Progressivism wasn’t the only possible threat, it just seems to be the current threat.

We may not get there, or we may not get there soon. True. But I think you can agree that the conversion of academia is well along the way. I don’t need to link to the political leanings/trends of academia. Similar trends are occurring in HR departments of every Corp, of public schools, government agencies, non profits, media outlets and so on.

Not sure if this answers it, SW, but I would have fears of any ideology/religion/secular framework taking over society in this way. Progressivism is uniquely suited to do so though because, as Kazzy helped me to clarify, it is an ideology that is bred in these intellectual domains.

It doesn't so much matter that Progressivism's core tenets are particularly wrong (yes, I disagree with them). I also disagree with Conservatives, Libertarians, Catholics, Evangelicals, Marxists, Quakers, Eugenicists, etc taking over in this way. In each case the disease will be different, but the results will be unhealthy.

Going back to the initial post topic, my concern can be more generically stated as the realization that a uniform moralizing framework has begun to quickly assume control of our key institutions, and this moral framework is one which is both accelerating in pursuit of purity, and seeking to extinguish other ideologies/moral frameworks by any means necessary.

They are the ones "cancelling", and the end point of this vicious cycle continues is not good.

Good catch, and I accept the criticism. See what I wrote above to Kazzy on "breeds" being an appropriate alternative or added term. Also note I gave a shout out to you on being the ideal progressive.

It is not in any way the dominant culture or in the majority. At least not yet. However by capturing academia, schools, the media, government, etc it seeks to become the dominant cultural narrative by eliminating dissension and using shaming and framing to make other views unacceptable. First non progressives will be run out of these institutions (check!), then these institutions will use their influence to convert everyone else. Mission accomplished, at least until or unless those rejecting this secular belief system decide to stand up against it at all costs.

Which may help explain why a tool like Trump was elected. A lot of people may sense this was the only way to fight back that was available to them. I think this will backfire, indeed I sense it already is backfiring with progressives doubling down and anti- progressives losing faith when they see what a clown it is they put their faith in.

No, I would say that it tends to "breed" that ideology, but after saying so, I would extend this metaphor to progressivism as well. The above mentioned institutions breed progressive ideology. I believe Mises, Sowell and Hayek have all weighed in on similar issues.

A pro-Progressive example on this ideology would be pretty much anything Chip writes. They could put his picture in Wikipedia.

A more neutral version of it would be Kling's Three Axis model of political framing where he describes it as an Oppressor/Oppressed model as compared to the Civilization/Barbarism model of Conservatives and the Liberty/Coercion model of Libertarians. His writings on the issue are easily Googled.

As a disbeliever I would (in an admittedly biased way) describe it as a political and philosophical and moral framing which adopts the following core beliefs:
1) belief in the Blank Slate view of humanity
2) an essential framing of people into victims/victimizers and champions (where Progressives are the champions)
3) believes that power in the end effectively trumps truth, freedom, or logical consistency
4) that defines equality primarily as equality of outcome, much more so than of opportunity or fairness/consistency
5) Prefers rational, planned, non-market, top down solutions to societal problems

My main point is that it is infiltrating all our organizations and then using its shared framing to weed out anyone who doesn’t see things that way. It would be like if the Evangelicals infiltrated media, schools, government and corporate bureaucracies, law offices and so on and then weeded out everyone who doesn’t agree gays are sinners destined for hell, that birth control is evil, and that those who don’t believe in Jesus are scum.

The problem is just as much about freedom of speech as it is separation of church and....well, all our institutions (not just state).

Yeah, the "Long March" Pretty much dovetails with my point, though I don’t recall hearing of this term until now. (I am however, old and forgetful).

"Firings, deplatformings, and social stigma for self-expression are not always wrong. They are wrong on a case-by-case basis."

I agree and disagree. I certainly think that an organization should have the right and freedom to fire (for example) influential people who are opposed to the philosophical or religious underpinnings of that organization.

Catholics who don’t believe in the Holy Trinity can legitimately be removed from positions of power within the Catholic hierarchy.

Marxists in positions of power within a libertarian organization could be legitimately removed, as could avowed libertarians in a socialist organization.

A major stockholder in Exxon could legitimately be denied a role on the board of a Global Warming group, and a leader of Greenpeace could be legitimately denied a role in senior leadership at Exxon.

In all cases, there is a philosophy or belief or religion, and it is not unreasonable that the organization in question should have the freedom to determine who belongs in its organization. This is all very reasonable.

The problem is that all our major organizations — the media, academia, schools, big business, scientific academies, government bureaucracy and so on have been (or at least are being) infiltrated with an unofficial secular dogma called progressivism. This is a particular secular faith-based world view based upon certain beliefs about human nature and power relationships and their cure.

The explanation as to why this secular faith is taking over everything isn’t that relevant, though I would suggest it has something to do with the propensity for certain types of people who think a certain way and are susceptible to a certain type of collective group think are attracted to the positions of bureaucracy, education, journalism and such. (feel free to disagree).

As such, there is a growing threat for anyone who doesn’t adopt this secular religion to be fired or stigmatized by what is increasingly amounting to every organization in the Developed World. The rest of us, who either believe the Progressive faith is wrong hook, line and sinker; or just don’t seek to kneel to this ideology; or don’t kneel with sufficient gusto with the proper mannerisms and incantations are at very real risk of being fired or stigmatized. And this is rapidly spinning out of control.

This is the problem. One secular ideology has invaded most of our institutions and the rest of us now have to either kowtow to this BS, or risk professional and personal ruin. Progressivism has infiltrated our institutions and is using its defense mechanisms to win the battle of ideology without actually engaging in a rational discussion (which IMO it is incapable of winning).

The Free Speech Issue is at most tangential to the real threat. This will not end well if it is allowed to continue.

That is an interesting way to look at it. You are right it is one thing to escalate against the powerful, and another to escalate against a James Damore.