-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NYT OpEd: Will the Left Survive the Millennials?
- Thread starter Sho_Nuff82
- Start date
- Status
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Again, those are not issues of speech. Physical harassment is not free speech.
Part of this comes down to the platforms that they can exploit. News that runs Nazi interviews without getting critically analyzed is a poor form of information. Twitter is a place where soundbites and hypercharged emotions can be expressed in 140 characters - actual debate can't occur.
Christ, it's not hard to takedown Trump. He may be the easiest debate target of all time. But he exploits certain platforms: news and Twitter. The longer takedowns are on platforms he doesn't engage. His message is sent out and he's barely filtered out. The Democrats are idiots for not handling this better.
I also believe some of the left has also forgotten how to debate properly. Outside of Trump though - Instead of properly taking down your opponents points in a rigorous way, things are left at "that's racist." It may seem self evident, but engaging on a high level with those ideas is critical.
Darth Ghandi
Banned
Nope, right wing nationalists.
The examples i took were talked about a lot as a free speech issues.
The book fair invited a online news paper (nya tider) with strong xenophobic stance under the banner of free speech.
And then 30 odd Neo Nazis showed up and harassed people.
http://emmausbjorka.se/2016/09/25/nynazister-fran-nya-tider-aktion-mot-flyktingar-inne-pa-bokmassan/
Silver Arrows
Banned
How ironic that the first reply is literally an ad hominem.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Holy shit. Fuck that book. "Gubment"? Really? Black woman on a leash? Fuck outta here with that shit.
I'm not a millennial but writing shitty books isn't something only they find fault with. Sorry she didn't get to write her version of the Turner Diaries without anyone calling her out on it...
teruterubozu
Member
Actually Millennials are the harshest against fellow Millennials. Look at all those "Millennials Suck" articles, they're almost all written by Millennials.
They have very little power, but the presidential candidate of the second biggest party in America has accepted their endorsement. The danger of allowing neo-nazis to speak is in there. Their ideas have circulated far and wide enough that they have been assimilated by the mainstream. Sure, Trump isn't advocating for the fourth reich, but the fact that white supremacists are satisfied with his policies and worldview is indicative of a similar ideological framework.
Depends on what you call "islamism", because the word has been overused to the point of near-meaninglessness. Am I for fighting violent religious extremism? Yes. Am I for using the word as a cudgel to attack all muslims, shutting them out from discussion? No way.
Same question on your definition of "communism". I believe you're referring to Stalinism, but I'd like you to clarify, as it could just as well refer to Marxism, which, as a method of socioeconomic analysis, has little to say on free speech.
I believe in empathy and compassion, although I know I am in the minority. I agree with Shriver's point that empathy can cross gender, race, age or whatever other borders people decide divide us. We are all human, and the external aspects we sometimes focus so heavily on are nothing compared to the humanness we all share. It is perfectly reasonable for a white author to write from the perspective of a black protagonist because the inner humanity is the same for us all.
And even if someone is racist, or holds beliefs that differ from yours,it doesn't mean they deserve hatred and aggression. Instead, one should make an effort to understand what makes a human hold these beliefs and attempt to change them without attacking or personally insulting them. Hating racists may seem like an easy thing to justify, but when has hating people ever produced anything of value? Just becuase someone is stupid and wrong, doesn't mean they are inherently evil and deserving of hate, it just means they are a human, just like you.
And even if someone is racist, or holds beliefs that differ from yours,it doesn't mean they deserve hatred and aggression. Instead, one should make an effort to understand what makes a human hold these beliefs and attempt to change them without attacking or personally insulting them. Hating racists may seem like an easy thing to justify, but when has hating people ever produced anything of value? Just becuase someone is stupid and wrong, doesn't mean they are inherently evil and deserving of hate, it just means they are a human, just like you.
I feel a bit ill-equipped to make any meaningful comment on this subject but I think the issues and concerns surrounding free speech have been exacerbated by the advent of the internet which allows hate speech to flow in much larger volumes and with greater intensity and directivity than before.
This is pretty much right on the money and why I always roll my eyes at people decrying "the millennials".
It comes across as the kind of statements some privileged and sheltered bigot who can't handle that other people exist or that they have a voice or real concerns that they face that have been created and instilled as a "just" means of being by lazy generations before them would make.
Sadly this demeaning of minorities/millennials has become common place with some Democrats. The people who are supposedly supposed to be my allies consistently try to argue that they should get away without criticism when they do or say heinous shit. Or that they are infallible. And they use this privileged view of themselves to complain about people who "dare" to voice their concerns. As time goes on, I increasingly drift further to the left and away from the Democrats who criticize individuals who sincerely face issues that they mock without a second thought. Of course it's even worse with Republicans and this argument far more often applies to them but I digress. It's an increasing concern of mine with Democrats and seeing some of that behavior on this board and elsewhere is frankly speaking alarming.
As an aside, the way to take down Trump is to show that, for all his talk of being an outsider, and an enemy of the system, his ideas are in line with the mainstream of Republican establishment orthodoxy, and mainstream politics in general. Yes, he's loudly sexist, racist, homophobic and all those things. But the substance of what he says is the logical continuation of the rightward shift the Republican party has been on since at least Obama's election.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
And I'm sure you can find some crazy-ass supporters of the other political parties as well.
If the Neo Nazis being normalized by the mainstream (kind of a nebulous concept to be honest - Nazi-esque politics will never be removed forever), then you're not doing a good enough job debating. The answer isn't to make those ideas illegal, it's to do a better job at engaging those ideas, and the fears and motivations that drive those ideas.
Trump only got as far as he did because his opponents didn't take him seriously and are doing an incredibly bad job at handling him. But the Democrats have been bad at genuinely properly debating for ages now, and even worse at engaging the public conversation with any level of sophistication.
Okay fair enough. Now if the book is exactly as the critic described, would you consider it racist?
Trump got as far as he has because he actually says the shit the republicans have been saying with dog whistles.
All the bigotry and racism was always there, it was just said with coded language.
Trump supporters aren't a new set of racist voters that just appeared because of him, they were always the base of the republican party.
Neo-nazi speech and violent assembly are directly linked. It's not something that is disociated from one another.
ftfy
I also love that now pointing out that she wrote a shitty book and this article is made in reaction to that is considered "ad hominem" now lol
Hate speech being normalized is the reason why Trump is so fucking close to be president. Hate speech is literally almost putting a fucking fascist authoritian piece of shit in the highest place of power in the US. Think about that for a second. For all faults my own country has, I can at least rest assured we will never have such a piece of shit or far-right parties in charge in my lifetime.
Yeah, it'd actually be a pretty interesting topic to discuss.
Also, anything with MILLENNIAL in the title is massive clickbait. Maybe that's why NYT ran it!
It's only an ad hominem when some actual argument is ignored. I didn't see any argument there.
MWS Natural
Member
LOL Really? Yes the left is the problem here...clearly.
The question of whether or not people of a certain race can write about and portray POC is an interesting one. Does it come off as un-authentic? Only if you only emphasize the stereotypes/in a negative light?
For example, the wire has an all-white writing cast, but is acclaimed as a realistic portrayal of inner city baltimore. I don't think anyone should or would complain about the cast of writers being all white here, but some might object out of principle.
For example, the wire has an all-white writing cast, but is acclaimed as a realistic portrayal of inner city baltimore. I don't think anyone should or would complain about the cast of writers being all white here, but some might object out of principle.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
I'm unconvinced that most people explicitly support Trump's racist views or would have thought of them themselves. Instead, it's a reaction born from fear and uncertainty. Most low and middle income families struggle for stability. It's not hard to see where Trump's talking points would resonate with angry voters. The minorities and immigrants are the scapegoats. President Obama has been a scapegoat for the Republicans his whole run as president. People like to blame, point fingers.
This is probably why Sanders does so much better than Clinton for certain blocks of voters. She doesn't tap into the anger as easily, and it's easy to paint her into the "part of the problem" corner because of her ties to Obama and her husband. The racist talking points get attacked, but not the underlying fear or uncertainty.
With that argument, then, it's not necessary to outlaw Neo Nazi speech, because violent assembly is already illegal.
Liberals being incapable of handling or countering hate speech well is also part of the problem. Just because you can't debate against it properly doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Hate speech may be morally wrong, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. It should be fought, properly, long and hard and without mercy. And it can be combated. And any violence, any illegal actions taken while committing hate speech should be pounced upon - put them in jail when they cross the line.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I sort of agree that it's worth the discussion, but she's built herself (and her book) into something it isn't, and then argues from that. If there's an example of a writer writing characters of other races in a non-offensive way, and that writer still gets blowback for it, then we have something to talk about.
As it stands, it's a vacuous discussion since there doesn't seem to be an example of what she's talking about (her book is decidedly not a good example).
uncelestial
Member
Oh so now we're gonna drag the Shifty D quadrilogy?! Fucking progressives, man.
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.
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.
Garmonbozia
Member
Maybe someone already posted it and I didn't see it but the NYT published a pretty good OpEd about the same subject: "Who Gets to Write What?"
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Wow. People are just brazen with their racism.
ClosingADoor
Member
This has little to do with free speech. Harassment and intimidation should be handled by the event security and otherwise police. If a pathetic group wants to stand somewhere and shout hateful things, so be it. The problem is when they act on those things. And as with a lot of issues surrounding this in Europe, it is the lack of actual enforcement against violence, harassment and intimidation that lets things go out of control. Not the lack of bans on hate speech.
The constant "left versus right" is more problematic then both sides issues. People are being played against each other constantly, leading to more extremism from both sides.
Attacking a piece by questioning the author's motive is an ad hominem...
Darth Ghandi
Banned
Well, if you knew more about the circumstances at the book fair you would understand the point is that the people talking about free speech for Nazis will lead normalization and that leads to intimidation.
Also wondering what extremism the supposed left are doing that is comparable with Nazis and other right wing groups?
Screw up the economy for a whole generation and then blame that generation or every single social woe under the sun. Nice.
Edit: the realquestion is; Will the establishment "left" survive its shortsighted gamble on alienating potential allies who could carry the Democratic party into the future?
Edit: the realquestion is; Will the establishment "left" survive its shortsighted gamble on alienating potential allies who could carry the Democratic party into the future?
ClosingADoor
Member
I'm not going to defend what actual Neo-Nazi's are doing, but in the article you linked the trouble seems to be that they intimidated people there and threw their books on other stalls. So get security and/or police involved and throw them out. I don't see the link to free speech there and how it should be limited to stop those things.
Also, the event can refuse exhibitors. They are under no obligation to host Neo-Nazi's. There is no law or limit on free speech necessary to do that. It is a private event I think, so draw up some guidelines and enforce them. No need for government intervention to tell organizers to do that or not.
Locally here in Holland we had some stupid protests from Pegida. While those are disgusting, they were allowed by local authorities and self declared "anti-fascists" made trouble around it, in one occasion a firework bomb was found at the protest location that could have been detonated remotely.
Boss Mog
Member
Depends on what or who you are criticizing though. In today's PC climate some things seem to be completely off limits no matter what.
Darth Ghandi
Banned
The argument is that the book fair fucked up by inviting these Nazis under the banner of free speech.
They talked about how we must debate them and show that they are wrong.
Yet during the book fair the Neo Nazi group were allowed to do what they did best and NONE "took the debate"
All it did was add to the normalization of a group with Neo Nazi roots.
Regarding right vs left violence I've posted that a guy was killed by Neo Nazis in Finland.
We have had masked people chasing POC on the streets of Stockholm.
So you can't compare the two imo.
Boss★Moogle;218069366 said:
I don't understand what exactly it is you feel unable to express due to "PC climate".
ClosingADoor
Member
Then I think I misunderstood your argument. I thought you wanted to shift the banning of such things from the organizers to the government. I think an organization can keep out Neo-Nazi's on their own already.
I agree that it is hard to have a debate with figures like that and unless maybe done on a personal level is mostly pointless. You won't suddenly convince a group like that they are in the wrong. But banning offensive speech and related things by the government creates more problems then it solves.
As for the violence argument, you can go back and forth all day with examples there. If you are going to use a racist attack in Stockholm as one, I can point to the harassment and violence by immigrant youth recently making headlines here in Holland as the other. That discussion has little to do with the topic at hand. But I think this constant classification as "left" and "right" doesn't really add much anyway, since it just puts people in boxes and creates more tension. The left isn't always right on all issues, the right isn't also.
Darth Ghandi
Banned
So the left are responsible for immigrant youth? (funny how POC are always considered immigrant if they do something bad)
You are right that comparing right wing and left wing violence only showes that the right wing are more extreme. They actually KILL people.
During the last 20-25 years the peple on the right have killed about 25 ppl in Sweden.
So yeah, doesn't even stack up.
ClosingADoor
Member
The right are responsible for racist attacks?
MHWilliams
Member
A bad writer attempts to co-opt a larger argument to deflect from the fact that his book is bad and somewhat racist. (And it somewhat works because people don't look too deeply into anything.)
I love these millenials articles. Taken en masse, they project this world were millenials have somewhat destroyed everything we love and hope for by either being too soft, too angry, too lazy, too hard-working, too closed off, or too open.
I love these millenials articles. Taken en masse, they project this world were millenials have somewhat destroyed everything we love and hope for by either being too soft, too angry, too lazy, too hard-working, too closed off, or too open.
Darth Ghandi
Banned
The far right is indeed responsible for attacks in Stockholm and Finland.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Woooooow
But her argument is directly connected to her writing, which was criticized for portraying racist stereotypes, not for so-called cultural appropriation.
It's 100% deflection, and it's dishonest.
1) Author writes racist stereotypes in her novel
2) Book reviewer criticizes the novel for it
3) Author gives a talk about how it's OK to write about minorities (strawman), completely ignoring the stereotypes part
4) Author blames millennials for some reason, also whines about her free speech while being given a platform by the NY Times
You can't make this shit up...
Wow
This is coming from someone who claimed that Hillary Clinton has "vocalized her hatred of black people". You'd think that blanket accusations of extreme racism is something only "SJWs" do, so does that mean you are sick of yourself?
Sure looks like it anyway.
And yet this reply is even more ironic
smokeandmirrors
Banned
the left has survived far worse than a racist complaining about criticism.
In this case I'd say it's essential context, but you do you.
Ad hominem's are now essential context, got it.
I mean there is just no way we could of possibly addressed her premises or arguments without assuming her motivations...
MHWilliams
Member
Let's tackle the argument.
Fiction writers tackles different backgrounds from their own all the time, without issue or problem. Some of our best current fiction and entertainment is created by people from backgrounds other than the one they're writing from. The difference is, as always, one of research. Did the writer take the time to understand the culture they were writing about? Did they seek help or do the research? I was taught in college that you have to do the legwork to write about something: if you're writing military fiction, not actually doing any research on military practices or culture means you create a weaker work. It's interesting that otherwise erudite posters are arguing against such rigor.
The author attempts to paint commentary against their work as an indicative of a larger problem, but neglects to even ask if that commentary might be true. Did they write well-rounded characters? Did they even attempt to understand the groups, races, or cultures they were primarily writing about?
Let's talk about her original contention here:
Most of this hand-wringing is because two people didn't like her speech. Three, if you count the New Guardian columnist. That is and will always be, their right of free expression. They retain the right to disagree. She speaks of intimidating others into silence, but taking that at face value, what is this? Is this not an attempt to shame others for what she perceives to be a problem? Is this not the sensitivity she speaks of?
This entire article culminates in some slippery slope allusions to a far future.
Part of talk and discourse is not only sharing ideas, but also understanding that we are human and you will frequently run into disagreements on the content of those ideas. There will always be controversy and expecting the average person to hew to this emotionless, dry acceptance of anything said or created, regardless of the effort or research put into it, is wrong. If I can say that someone who is writing a work of fiction doesn't understand police work or the life of a journalist, and have that lack of detail inform my response to the work, why is that unacceptable when it comes to race and culture?
There will always be disagreement and controversy. The only way to avoid that is not to create anything of note.
I note the end:
This reads to me as "Do not counter-protest or protest such speech." Much like above, it advocates for this blind acceptance. "Do nor disagree, do not protest, do not dissent. This is our free expression and you have to take it as it is." It seems so many have this idea of the only valid response is sitting in a debate hall trading dry speech and replies.
It's interesting, because protest is one of our stronger forms of speech. Yet, there's such derision aimed in the direction of protest. One can only look at the response to BLM or Colin Kaepernik on that front. Response that, I might add, is free on its own. One is free to boycott and dislike Kaepernik for his protest, as he is still able to protest.
So I ask in closing: What is the freedom that Lionel Shriver has lost? EDIT: I'll also add, What freedom is she on the verge of losing? Near term? Far term?
Fiction writers tackles different backgrounds from their own all the time, without issue or problem. Some of our best current fiction and entertainment is created by people from backgrounds other than the one they're writing from. The difference is, as always, one of research. Did the writer take the time to understand the culture they were writing about? Did they seek help or do the research? I was taught in college that you have to do the legwork to write about something: if you're writing military fiction, not actually doing any research on military practices or culture means you create a weaker work. It's interesting that otherwise erudite posters are arguing against such rigor.
The author attempts to paint commentary against their work as an indicative of a larger problem, but neglects to even ask if that commentary might be true. Did they write well-rounded characters? Did they even attempt to understand the groups, races, or cultures they were primarily writing about?
Let's talk about her original contention here:
Most of this hand-wringing is because two people didn't like her speech. Three, if you count the New Guardian columnist. That is and will always be, their right of free expression. They retain the right to disagree. She speaks of intimidating others into silence, but taking that at face value, what is this? Is this not an attempt to shame others for what she perceives to be a problem? Is this not the sensitivity she speaks of?
This entire article culminates in some slippery slope allusions to a far future.
Part of talk and discourse is not only sharing ideas, but also understanding that we are human and you will frequently run into disagreements on the content of those ideas. There will always be controversy and expecting the average person to hew to this emotionless, dry acceptance of anything said or created, regardless of the effort or research put into it, is wrong. If I can say that someone who is writing a work of fiction doesn't understand police work or the life of a journalist, and have that lack of detail inform my response to the work, why is that unacceptable when it comes to race and culture?
There will always be disagreement and controversy. The only way to avoid that is not to create anything of note.
I note the end:
This reads to me as "Do not counter-protest or protest such speech." Much like above, it advocates for this blind acceptance. "Do nor disagree, do not protest, do not dissent. This is our free expression and you have to take it as it is." It seems so many have this idea of the only valid response is sitting in a debate hall trading dry speech and replies.
It's interesting, because protest is one of our stronger forms of speech. Yet, there's such derision aimed in the direction of protest. One can only look at the response to BLM or Colin Kaepernik on that front. Response that, I might add, is free on its own. One is free to boycott and dislike Kaepernik for his protest, as he is still able to protest.
So I ask in closing: What is the freedom that Lionel Shriver has lost? EDIT: I'll also add, What freedom is she on the verge of losing? Near term? Far term?
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
^ Fantastic take-down, should shut up all the "attack the argument not the author" whining at least (who am I kidding they'll just ignore this 
)
I would say that she lost... the ability to write garbage racist stereotypes without being called out for it!
Tragic loss, to be sure.
)Oh, oh, may I answer?
I would say that she lost... the ability to write garbage racist stereotypes without being called out for it!
Tragic loss, to be sure.
- Status