Already Torn
Banned
The racist and insulting ones I guessLike what ideas?
The racist and insulting ones I guessLike what ideas?
Like what ideas?
I have to say, I'm getting sick and tired of this horseshit idea that left-wing "political correctness" and "SJWs" and the like are equivalent threats to democracy as say, some walking orange turdball wanting to use the power of the state to round up millions of Mexicans.
I sure as hell don't agree with everything someone like Anita Sarkeesian says, but if her videos and the inability to freely use the n-word are the top perils you have to face, well...
The idea that class actually matters, for one.
But this isn't new. The left in the West (and particularly America) has never recovered from the Reagan-Thatcher era.
I'm not sure where you're seeing them being equivalent. People should be able to talk about these things without someone constantly going "but Trump". Just as you should be able to criticize Trump without someone going "but Hillary".
I'm not sure I understand this accusation that authors want to be "free from criticism." I don't think this author, or any I've seen, is arguing that people should be unable to criticize them. Rather they're arguing that the criticism levied against them is wrong, that people should realize it is wrong, and that those people should therefore decide of their own volition not make those criticisms.
A self-described “renowned iconoclast,” Shriver said she had been victimized in this way by The Washington Post review of her recent novel, “The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047.” That June 20 review, she said, “groundlessly accused her book of being ‘racist’ because it doesn’t toe a strict Democratic Party line.”
The review, which I wrote, criticized the novel for several failings, including its didacticism and its mirthlessness (but, hey, some good things were said about it, too). I mentioned a couple of offensive racial characterizations — without contesting Shriver’s freedom to write about black and Latino characters. My complaints had nothing to do with cultural appropriation.
This would be refreshing, as dystopias go, if Shriver’s novel wasn’t so burdened with dialogue in which the characters repeatedly explain to each other the reasons for America’s calamitous fall. They’re really lecturing the reader, of course, their main themes being initiative-sapping big government and the frauds perpetuated by the Federal Reserve.
At times, Shriver’s novel reads like the “FoxLiberty-Ultra” version of Gary Shteyngart’s “Super Sad True Love Story,” without the humor, but it more often recalls the libertarian fables of the classic science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein. Further in the future, when active workers are slaves whose labor funds Social Security, one Mandible educates the other in the inevitable depredations of the state: “Government becomes a pricey, clumsy, inefficient mechanism for transferring wealth from people who do something to people who don’t, and from the young to the old — which is the wrong direction.” This analysis, reductionist in its language and its vision, echoes the lessons of Heinlein’s “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress” (1966).
The Mandibles go hungry amid the ruins of an America that hasn’t been made great again, and it’s clear who the culprits are. Becoming bluntly partisan, the novel uses fantasy and name-checks to score points against Florence’s fellow liberals in her time and ours. The immigration amnesty of 2020 is followed by a constitutional amendment that allows for a foreign-born president: a pudgy, lisping Mexican, just one of the novel’s several racist characterizations. The criminally incompetent Fed chairman is named Krugman. Later, some very bad stuff goes down during the Chelsea Clinton administration.
The Mandibles are white. Luella, the single African American in the family, arrives in Brooklyn incontinent and demented. She needs to be physically restrained. As their fortunes become ever more dire and the family assembles for a perilous trek through the streets of lawless New York, she’s held at the end of a leash. If “The Mandibles” is ever made into a film, my suggestion is that this image not be employed for the movie poster.
After an immigration amnesty, the country is flooded with “Lats” who elect a Mexican-born president who presides over a devastating economic collapse, in part created by runaway entitlements. Shriver observes President Alvarado’s “baby-faced softness only emphasized by the palatalized consonants of a Mexican accent,” a stereotypical image of a pudgy, lisping Mexican that links his perfidy to his ethnicity as would an elliptically described hooked nose on a loathsome Jewish character.
The two black characters are similarly ill-treated. One, a social worker, is the novel’s only character who speaks sub-standard English. After Alvarado renounces the national debt, she says, “I don’t see why the gubment ever pay anything back. Pass a law say, ‘We don’t got to.’ ” It was once common in newspapers, fiction and nonfiction to report the speech of “ordinary” people in standard English, while voicing minorities in dialect or vernacular, as they might sound to white ears; this still happens from time to time, unfortunately. By recording only the speech of minority characters in sub-standard English, you stigmatize the entire ethnic group as something other than normal. No one speaks perfectly. Respect for your characters suggests that if you record one’s solecisms, dropped consonants, drawl or brogue, you will faithfully record everybody else’s, too.
The most problematic of Shriver’s minority characters is an African American woman who has married into the white family at the heart of the novel. She suffers from early-onset dementia and is a danger to herself and to others. As the economy collapses, the family loses its home and treks across Brooklyn with the woman at the end of a leash. A plot development that features an uncontrollable black person who has to be kept under restraint like a dog seems guaranteed to hurt and provoke outrage. I wrote, “If ‘The Mandibles’ is ever made into a film, my suggestion is that this image not be employed for the movie poster.” I was thinking of ads in bus shelters and, honestly, I imagined they’d be wrecked.
The freedom to write about people of other ethnic identities or nationalities or gender is and should be widely respected. (I myself am an American who has published two books set in Russia.) Shriver’s full-throated defense against imaginary charges of cultural appropriation is meant to obscure the offensiveness of her racial characterizations, in the same way that certain people who make deliberate, categorically insulting remarks about women and minorities claim persecution by the political-correctness police.
Specifically, Shriver takes issue with the critique that The Mandibles’ treatment of Luella, one of the book’s two women of color, is racist.
Luella has dementia, and spends most of her page time in diapers, soiling herself. Eventually, as the Mandibles — the family into which Luella has married — take to the streets in the wake of a financial collapse, they realize that they can’t keep her with them as they flee the city. They shoot her instead. But before they do, they spend a while delaying the inevitable by keeping her on a leash. "If The Mandibles is ever made into a film," Ken Kalfus wrote in the Washington Post, "my suggestion is that this image not be employed for the movie poster."
Shriver is appalled at this critique. "Behold," she cries, "the reviewer in the Washington Post, who groundlessly accused this book of being ‘racist’ because it doesn’t toe a strict Democratic Party line in its political outlook." The character’s fate, she explains, is meant to be a dark joke on Luella’s liberal New York husband, who abandoned his (white) wife and the mother of his children in order to take up with what Shriver describes as "arm candy of color," only to find himself saddled with an unimaginable burden.
It is also racist, as I wrote in my review of The Mandibles, to imagine that a Spanish-speaking, Mexican-born president would be all it takes to doom America. It is racist to suggest that an influx of Latino immigrants are destroying America’s national character; it suggests that America’s national character is, as a default, white, that America is fundamentally a country that belongs solely to white people. And The Mandibles does all of that.
That’s why I find it difficult to take Shriver at her word when she says that fiction is "born of a desperation to break free of the claustrophobia of our own experience." Because what books like The Mandibles demonstrate is a profound terror at the idea of breaking free of one’s own experience, a terror at the idea of people who are not like you — you being, by implication, white, straight, cisgendered, thin, able-bodied, and neurotypical.
What is the criticism levied against this author? Have you looked to see if that criticism is right or wrong?
Let us look.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ente...3a5620-7e9f-11e6-8d13-d7c704ef9fd9_story.html
This is the review:
On race:
So, moving back to the reviewer talking about the nonsense rebuttal to "Your characters are racist" with "They accused me of cultural appropriation!".
Some more on that and the author's thoughts.
This is the context of that speech. These are the charges of cultural appropriation, in Shriver's mind. Being told that her minority characters are poorly written and racist does not sit with her and instead of looking into that critique, she instead takes it as "Someone is telling me I cannot write minorities at all".
I remain in awe of those still trying to assume this retains any merit. I've tackled the argument. I've tackled what led to the argument. What remains if the fight you bring within yourself, the charge to fight against "political correctness" and "cultural appropriation", even if the flag waver in this case isn't even in the same ballpark.
That a religious upbringing are a straitjacket and not a freedom.Like what ideas?
I think that is a bit of a slippery slope. Because how do you classify this stuff? Sure, you can ban groups carrying actual nazi symbols. But then you have the ones doing it more covert, but we all know they are neo-nazi's. Then you have groups with maybe some nazi ideas. Or ones that might be extremist, etc.Ah, yes. The good old "lone wolf" context. Almost exclusive for white people.
The logic is that the far right are far more violent and saying both sides is bullshit.
Regarding free speech my original point is that I don't believe that Nazis have the right to demonstrate. Period.
What is the criticism levied against this author? Have you looked to see if that criticism is right or wrong?
Let us look.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ente...3a5620-7e9f-11e6-8d13-d7c704ef9fd9_story.html
This is the review:
On race:
So, moving back to the reviewer talking about the nonsense rebuttal to "Your characters are racist" with "They accused me of cultural appropriation!".
Some more on that and the author's thoughts.
This is the context of that speech. These are the charges of cultural appropriation, in Shriver's mind. Being told that her minority characters are poorly written and racist does not sit with her and instead of looking into that critique, she instead takes it as "Someone is telling me I cannot write minorities at all".
I remain in awe of those still trying to assume this retains any merit. I've tackled the argument. I've tackled what led to the argument. What remains if the fight you bring within yourself, the charge to fight against "political correctness" and "cultural appropriation", even if the flag waver in this case isn't even in the same ballpark.
None of this is relevant to my comment at all. Do you see how it's not relevant at all? Shriver's book seems appalling, and my comment has nothing to do with political correctness or cultural appropriation.
I was making a point about a specific argument used in this thread by multiple people (largely because I see it often in similar threads). The merit of that argument is independent of the merits of the positions its employed to defend.
But one time I told a funny joke and people said I was being offensive. But I was the one offended because nobody laughed!ITT: I learned that objectivity means ignoring context.
Wait, what?
Seriously, I get the feeling that the people beating that drum here are being the least objective about it and just projecting their own previously drawn conclusions onto the article. Even if you agree that there's a problem with sensitivity on the left, this article does a shit job of making any relevant points about it.
The author is arguing in favor of a broad interpretation of free speech as being preferable and more productive to liberal ideals and progressing them to one where speech is more heavily censored through various strong arm tactics including the advocacy of legislation. When you unpeel the elements that likely drove her to write this that is what is at the core. Those tactics, amongst others are the emphasis on silencing those that speak with deemed micro-aggressions, stirring online mobs to silence or punish, organizing real-life groups to strong arm or silence deemed inappropriate speech, and to use the shield of being sensitive to engage in brutal insensitivity to others deemed an enemy(something often done arbitrarily and through imperfect information), often those in their own ranks.
I don't understand what is so offensive about discussing that? Those on the left supporting these methods and sympathizing with those she speaks about advocating censorship have a moral obligation to the common good and liberalism itself to explain what makes its approach the appropriate and optimal method for addressing their grievances.
If I am being honest it seems like a natural human social behavior where something new is being felt out to determine its limits and it seeps into and affects older social structures in the process. Like a comedian that tells increasingly offensive or dark jokes to find out where the lines are at a given moment in time. In this case it is the world opened up through social networking and the ability to connect and surround yourself with like minded people like never before.
Social shaming has had a role to play in social progress forever. With social networks and new avenues of connecting it has changed the game.
My issue and concern is this new left's inability to self reflect or take criticism well. Something that was a core tenant of western liberalism and helped drive it forward. An unwillingness to even question the efficacy of their methods and at times even attack those that dare question them. That mindset is incredibly dangerous and self defeating and shows a tone deafness to what built the foundation they are now claiming is theirs to build on. The loop of honest and tough discourse questioning present ideas through critical thinking, logic and reason is why liberalism has advanced over the years. When a person shows genuine concern for an issue they see on the left, if you can't stop and actually defend why that criticized tactic or method is optimal, you should probably figure that shit out before declaring that criticism is invalid. If your first instinct is to try and declare they aren't genuine or they are secretly harboring cynical motives and thus you can ignore them, you are doing progress no favors if you call yourself a progressive and you certainly aren't a liberal.
Shriver observes President Alvarado's baby-faced softness only emphasized by the palatalized consonants of a Mexican accent, a stereotypical image of a pudgy, lisping Mexican .
I think I might have something of an analogy to explain the position. Whether or not you buy the logic of it is up to you, however.This reply is sarcastic, but honestly I wonder, do people believe this?
Ironic. It's mostly right-wingers and older conservatives I see refusing to hear or see uncomfortable things. Being on a very far-left and progressive college campus right now, we're not constantly triggered by things we don't like to hear or shut down discussion. This meme is getting annoying.
Also, wow at the descriptions from the book. Maybe she should learn to take criticism.
I think I might have something of an analogy to explain the position. Whether or not you buy the logic of it is up to you, however.
Let's say that you're a psychologist and you run an experiment. You bring people in, test them, and gather your data. After all the calculations are done, you definitively find that, say, men are better than women at mathematical thinking on average. Let's say there's no doubt and that the finding is pretty clear-cut.
Now, when you go to publish your findings, you are met with resistance. Many journals refuse to publish your paper just because they don't want to deal with the accusations of sexism. When you finally do find a journal to publish in, the backlash is severe and you are criticized heavily. Not about whether or not your findings are accurate but because you're supposedly pushing a misogynistic agenda. There are shame campaigns and you lose funding. You get the idea.
There's no Constitutional free speech issue here since the government isn't involved (let's say your funding was all from private donors). But there does seem to be an issue of political criticism being levied at your paper rather than scientific criticism. If someone pointed out that you did a calculation incorrectly, that would be one thing and you'd readily accept that. But if someone says you should feel bad for setting women back, you might not accept that criticism as so valid. The truth doesn't care about your political or even moral stances. It just is.
Of course, there are substantial differences between the above scenario and the general case of decrying criticism. But I think that's kind of the logic such people use. They aren't upset by criticism, per se, but criticism that they feel is coming from the wrong angle. They'd say if a joke is not good, call it out for being unfunny, not for being offensive. The idea being that what is offensive is subjective and therefore not something you can police (even though what is funny is also subjective).
Ehh... as much as I despise the man, the videos of protestors disrupting Milo's speeches on campus, right in the middle of them, rather than letting him speak, merely feed into his narrative.
That's certainly a case of the Left trying to shut down conversation.
This I will never understand. I see COUNTLESS articles from shitty writers bitching about how they can't express themselves and scores more support their sentiments."this criticism is censoring me!" (she says in the pages of time magazine)
The american idea free speech is so enshrined and held above all else to my confusion.
I'm often flabbergasted the amount of hate speech that is not only tolerated but outright protected in the name of free speech.
That doesn't mean we don't have the same issues but that people can actually get the rule of law behind them against the heinous rhetoric directed at them.
I agree with that, the basic freedom x education formula. The part where it gets tricky is education though: if in the name of freedom, you can teach kids pretty much anything, you're not educating anyone and ultimately the formula won't work.European approach to "free speech" doesn't do shit against racism. Anyone who is gullible enough to think that by banning words they can stop racism deserves what's coming to them. People will find way to go around these words or symbols and create the same context. On the contrary, by using authoritarianism to attempt to stop them you only manage to make the dipshits look like rebels.
I mean look at Europe ffs, the far-right is fucking thriving right now thanks to the economic and immigration clusterfuck created by neoliberal and neoconservative Western policies. Banning hate speech didn't, doesn't and will never achieve anything. Educating your population, preserving their way of life, and not destroying entire regions with imperialistic policies does.
The american idea free speech is so enshrined and held above all else to my confusion.
I'm often flabbergasted the amount of hate speech that is not only tolerated but outright protected in the name of free speech.
That doesn't mean we don't have the same issues but that people can actually get the rule of law behind them against the heinous rhetoric directed at them.
But I think that's kind of the logic such people use. They aren't upset by criticism, per se, but criticism that they feel is coming from the wrong angle. They'd say if a joke is not good, call it out for being unfunny, not for being offensive. The idea being that what is offensive is subjective and therefore not something you can police (even though what is funny is also subjective).
This is working out so well in Europe, clearly. Perhaps the author's point about driving people into the arms of actual fascists and neo-Nazis should give y'all a little reason to pump the brakes on the America bashing.
I didn't say it works perfectly just that the approach of freedom of speech has to be absolute is weird to me.European approach to "free speech" doesn't do shit against racism. Anyone who is gullible enough to think that by banning words they can stop racism deserves what's coming to them. People will find way to go around these words or symbols and create the same context. On the contrary, by using authoritarianism to attempt to stop them you only manage to make the dipshits look like rebels.
I mean look at Europe ffs, the far-right is fucking thriving right now thanks to the economic and immigration clusterfuck created by neoliberal and neoconservative Western policies. Banning hate speech didn't, doesn't and will never achieve anything. Educating your population, preserving their way of life, and not destroying entire regions with imperialistic policies does.
Tired of these constant drive by posts that don't give relevant examples.This article is dead on. Love this part "the race is on to see who can be more righteous and aggrieved". It's annoying and it is driving people away from supporting the left.
your comment has everything to do with those? she's saying you shouldn't criticize people for cultural appropriation, it's literally the entirety of this discussion if you're talking about her op-ed.
the people who criticized her took issue with her blatant exploitation of bad stereotypical characters, not the mere fact that she wrote those characters in the first place. it is not possible to separate the concept of cultural appropriation from the instances in which it is used to critique.
The author misrepresents the criticisms. Everything is off about this whole situation right from there. If she doesn't have a grasp on what she's responding to, how can anything here make sense? In the end, we can just figure the author doesn't like to be criticized in any context related to racial politics in writing.Saying "this particular ciriticism is wrong and has potentially dangerous implications" is different from saying "I should be able to write whatever I want and be free from criticism." This is a straw man argument employed all over this forum in plenty of threads completely independent of this particular author.
Yeah If you can't separate the quality of an argument from the moral standing of your target, that's a problem.
It's a great article, regardless of the author. Try to discuss its contents, instead of trying to dig up as much dirt as possible on her.
So I did the unthinkable and actually read part of her book. There's a ridiculously sized sample on Amazon to peruse.
So yeah the book is ultimately fueled in paranoid xenophobia and racism.
Saying "this particular ciriticism is wrong and has potentially dangerous implications" is different from saying "I should be able to write whatever I want and be free from criticism." This is a straw man argument employed all over this forum in plenty of threads completely independent of this particular author.
Yeah If you can't separate the quality of an argument from the moral standing of your target, that's a problem.
Class matters, but it isn't the only thing that doesn't matter. I'm not going to tell a woman, a gay person, or a person of color should put down caring about things like reproductive rights, gay rights, immigration reform, or police brutality and instead make sure some guys in rural Indiana don't get their jobs shipped to Mexico.
So again... what is the criticism aimed at the author? Point to it. Show it to me and how it was wrong.
See above on the quality of the argument.
Zero²;218133023 said:You too have to understand why this things are met with such outrage. If you wrote an article that by your calculations men are undoubtedly better at math than women, you need to understand that woman that work with math will not be happy with it, specially in an ambient where they are in a minority already. Or in another and more personal example, if someone says that being gay is a disease and you can be cured from it, do you really expect gay people to take it easy and not be outraged? These things speak to the core of who we are, they are sensitive topics and should be treated with delicacy and tact. If you want to write your research on how in average men seem better at math than woman why not take your time to maybe tell it's not because men have better brains, but maybe it's a cultural thing instead? Try to understand why people get outraged at you when you are racist, misogynist or wtv.
You are asking me, a minority who is already persecuted to extreme points to have empathy with you, when you can't even do it yourself?
Pretty amazing how so many people fail to get this.