Post your asides here

[mahagonny]

When everyone's views are attenuated, the status quo consolidates power while the dissenting position loses power.
  Why are we talking here? This can go on the thread.

If we had agreed that it was unacceptable to express the desire for the life of Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden to be terminated, the effect on people's opinions would have been minimal. It would have just been an agreement that 'we'll all be polite together.' Whereas if someone says 'talk show host Izzy Watkins ought to have died from a drug overdose rather than recovered from his addiction, and we'd be better off' one is prompted to ask 'why do you think he is that kind of a threat?' And the answer might be interesting. If everyone says "you can't say such a thing" and it turns out he's another budding Idi Amin, then we have shut up someone who was trying to warn us.

So...people whose politics are left-of-center are intolerant bullies,

Not all of them are.

Thing is, the left or today has roots in the hippie movement of the sixties and thinks that it is the counterculture, the freedom fighters. But they are not. They are the establishment.

[mahagonny]

I know friends online and at work where if Fox News were to be mentioned and you don't declare your hatred of Tucker Carlson you feel a draft right away. It's like being neighborly (or refusing to!)...'howdy, how about this weather, huh?; Tucker's an ass. How about a game of pool?'

Where we are, 2-5-22.

[smallcleanrat]

Disclaimer: I'm not making an argument related to whether wishing someone dead should be ban-worthy or not, I'm exploring the question of what role the ability to wish someone dead has in discussion.



I'm not really seeing how your ability to engage in a discussion of why you think a particular ideology is dangerous requires you to be able to say you wish death on someone.

I think, if anything, it derails good faith discussion. If in the course of expressing your disapproval of someone's political opinions, you tell them society would be better off if the proponents of those opinions were dead, do you really think they will become more inclined to listen to you?

Even if your intention is only to convey how strong the level of your concerns are, I doubt that will be how it is perceived. And I have a difficult time believing that your response to someone criticizing a conservative with such a statement would be to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are only saying such a thing out of genuine concern for the good of society.



Your story about certain social groups making their disapproval of Fox News apparent isn't really related to the necessity of being able to say you wish some people were dead. There are certain social groups in which not proclaiming your adoration of Fox News will put you on the receiving end of that chill. What of it?

Suppose someone said, "Ugh...Fox News isn't properly a news channel. All they do is peddle lies and fearmongering." and someone else said, "Fox News is a menace to society. I hope every one of their hosts and execs dies of COVID."

If you had to engage one of them in an attempt at rational discussion of your political differences, are you really going to pick the latter?

[mahagonny]

I dunno...I think it's like, if someone can't see when a person is dangerous, we are at an impasse. It's frustrating. And if they're super educated, it's even worse.

I'll give it some thought.

[smallcleanrat]

I dunno...I think it's like, if someone can't see when a person is dangerous, we are at an impasse. It's frustrating. And if they're super educated, it's even worse.

I'll give it some thought.

The point is, if you say "I hope that person dies." that says nothing of substance about that person. It only says something about you.

Not only is it not required when making the case that person is dangerous, it's not even relevant.

ETA: Try this. Imagine someone says, "I hope Tucker Carlson dies." Why oh why would that prompt you to think, "Oh! Now I see! Tucker Carlson is dangerous!" Isn't it more likely you would conclude the person speaking just hates Tucker Carlson?

[mahagonny]

ETA: Try this. Imagine someone says, "I hope Tucker Carlson dies." Why oh why would that prompt you to think, "Oh! Now I see! Tucker Carlson is dangerous!" Isn't it more likely you would conclude the person speaking just hates Tucker Carlson?

Sure, but we were discussing the right to protest. If you hate Tucker Carlson, you can hold a protest with signs that say 'Fire Tucker Carlson!" because, obviously, you hate what he says on the air. Obviously it's the ideas you hate. Not his hair style. That would all be inferred. You could also hold up cartoons of his face with devil's horns. Someone else can think you're wrong, even everyone could. But you still have the right. Freedom of speech, freedom to assemble.
You can publish a book titled 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat idiot.' Someone did.

The point is, if you say "I hope that person dies." that says nothing of substance about that person. It only says something about you.

In the case of the person we were discussing, Ibram X. Kendi, what it says about me is I hope something happens, almost anything that's not illegal or catastrophic to innocent persons that will prevent the best nation in the history of civilization from descending into Marxist totalitarian rule. I think that's reasonable, and my position was well enough explained at that time.
Besides, Kendi, unlike Carlson, is not surviving on the strength of his weekly ratings. He's got tenure, which means he can continue to say and 'teach' outrageous, execrable things with no fear of consequences and no silencing, for many years. Somebody just gave his Institute of Why White People are Evil ten million dollars, and he's the darling of rags like the New York Times. So the question presents itself 'is there any way on earth that this might not continue?'
in any event, I posted it, and it stood, so I'm not complaining. Thank you, the fora.org.

[paultuttle]

ETA: Try this. Imagine someone says, "I hope Tucker Carlson dies." Why oh why would that prompt you to think, "Oh! Now I see! Tucker Carlson is dangerous!" Isn't it more likely you would conclude the person speaking just hates Tucker Carlson?

Sure, but we were discussing the right to protest. If you hate Tucker Carlson, you can hold a protest with signs that say 'Fire Tucker Carlson!" because, obviously, you hate what he says on the air. Obviously it's the ideas you hate. Not his hair style. That would all be inferred. Someone else can think you're wrong, even everyone could. But you still have the right.

Actually, both. Well, they're not "his" ideas, or even ideas at all; they're just the propaganda points he's spouting to try to rile up people and get them to vote the way his masters want them to vote.

But yeah, the hairstyle's peak 1980s frat boy--not quite as long as in the 1970s, not quite as fashionably short as the Dawson's Creek guys. If only his haircut and "his" "ideas" had both matured since that era. 

The point is, if you say "I hope that person dies." that says nothing of substance about that person. It only says something about you.

In the case of the person we were discussing, Ibram X. Kendi, what it says about me is I hope something happens, almost anything that's not illegal or catastrophic to innocent persons that will prevent the best nation in the history of civilization from descending into Marxist totalitarian rule. I think that's reasonable, and my position was well enough explained at that time.
Besides, Kendi, unlike Carlson, is not surviving on the strength of his weekly ratings. He's got tenure, which means he can continue to say and 'teach' outrageous, execrable things with no fear of consequences and no silencing, for many years. So the question presents itself 'is there any way on earth that this might not continue?'

[smallcleanrat]

Sure, but we were discussing the right to protest. [...]

Um...

I really did my best to clarify I was addressing a very specific point you made about needing to communicate your wish for someone to die in order to communicate how dangerous that person is.

You said it is necessary as it conveys your level of fear, and implied that without this people cannot see the danger.

Your fear is not proof of danger. No one is made any more aware of the danger posed by Kendi than they were before they knew of your fear.

If someone told you they were terrified of the harm white men would do to the world if they weren't kept in check by anti-racist policies, you would not take this terror as proof that white men are truly dangerous.

Why should your fear be any more relevant to anyone else when evaluating whether or not Kendi is dangerous? It doesn't support your argument so much as distracts from it.

[mahagonny]

If someone told you they were terrified of the harm white men would do to the world if they weren't kept in check by anti-racist policies, you would not take this terror as proof that white men are truly dangerous.

No I wouldn't. The tenure and promotion committee at Boston University did though.
But Kendi's not afraid of anything, not really. It's an act, a straight up con game. The only thing he's afraid of is his daughter wondering what it might be like to be a boy.

ETA: I do take your advice about the better way to make a point though. Thanks.

I guess deep down I suspect that educated people already know the *whitey's racist world* narrative of the left is bullshit, but it's bullshit they still think they might be able to sell, so it's not a matter of them not having been shown that it is bullshit in a way that meets their rhetorical protocol. And hey, even if they don't convince anybody, they still have their tenure. Academics are famous for not caring what the world thinks.
Look at the way the democrats are talking among themselves lately. They don't really give you the impression that they are serious about winning elections through convincing people they have the better platform.
Here's the democratic version of optimism in 2022: https://www.salon.com/2022/02/04/are-the-democrats-in-trouble-gallup-editor-on-what-those-troubling-polls-really-mean/

[mahagonny]

duplicate-redacted

[smallcleanrat]

Would the cat mandate apply to workplaces as well as personal dwellings? I proposed getting a department cat at our last department meeting, and it was favorably received by colleagues, but our chair is not acting despite the obvious agreement on the issue, and such a mandate may help move things along.

I've always enjoyed stories about strays who become a sort of mascot around their favorite haunts. Just saw a story about a cat who hangs about an auto repair shop. He joins the employees for lunch, getting scraps and skritches and often likes to lounge nearby and watch the work. When it was clear that he had no desire to be adopted as somebody's indoor kitty, one of the employees built him a small insulated container filled with warm bedding nearby the shop.

It was adorable to see the cat sleepily emerge first thing in the morning from his little house and stroll into the shop to a warm greeting from half a dozen people.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

Would the cat mandate apply to workplaces as well as personal dwellings? I proposed getting a department cat at our last department meeting, and it was favorably received by colleagues, but our chair is not acting despite the obvious agreement on the issue, and such a mandate may help move things along.

I've always enjoyed stories about strays who become a sort of mascot around their favorite haunts. Just saw a story about a cat who hangs about an auto repair shop. He joins the employees for lunch, getting scraps and skritches and often likes to lounge nearby and watch the work. When it was clear that he had no desire to be adopted as somebody's indoor kitty, one of the employees built him a small insulated container filled with warm bedding nearby the shop.

It was adorable to see the cat sleepily emerge first thing in the morning from his little house and stroll into the shop to a warm greeting from half a dozen people.

So cute! It's nice to hear that there are some people giving that cat a shelter. We have a group of 'cat people' who feed the campus cats. I think they also try to TNR them and adopt those who are adoptable.

[mahagonny]

Of course not. Not even when they are doing the majority of the undergraduate teaching. And their presence tends to be seen more often negatively. And the people who are doing the seeing, the ones whose opinion rates, are also the ones who ask us to trust them to overhaul society in the interest of something they call 'equity.'

[RatGuy]

I disagree with the premise that "academic is an industry like any other."

[dismalist]

I disagree with the premise that "academic is an industry like any other."

Almost everyone, in almost every industry, believes that his or her industry is special. Welcome to the club! :-)