Support NeoGAF

[MHWilliams]

remember everyone, criticism of something is censorship

because if you criticize someone for doing something stupid they might not do it again, which is basically ""by definition"" self-censorship

This reply is sarcastic, but honestly I wonder, do people believe this?

 

[Mechazawa]

The only inkling of substance in this piece is about online mobs. We're going to have to figure something out about that eventually.

But otherwise, this is basically "I'm mad people are limiting my free speech by exercising their free speech" This only actual law this person cites is a 40 year old Australian one.

 

[ClosingADoor]

The far right is indeed responsible for attacks in Stockholm and Finland.

No, the far right is creating an environment in which certain individuals are more likely to commit racist crimes. Just like my example of the left ignoring or excusing certain issues creates an environment where other issues pop up.

I'm not saying those things don't contribute to these attacks happening, but your logic of "right wing politics = violence against minorities" is a tad simplistic.

I also don't know what this has to do with government enforced regulations on speech. Or do you advocate we just ban those parties and their right to talk about their viewpoints, and then the racists will disappear?

 

[Fhtagn]

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...

That essay didn't happen in a vacuum, it was directly prompted by recent events involving its author. It's not even worth engaging with outside of that context.

 

[2MF]

The only inkling of substance in this piece is about online mobs.

I agree. Clearly the government is not about to make laws about political correctness, as far as I can tell. So "free speech" as the term is often understood is not the issue here.

But online mobs do often leave a bad taste in my mouth these days. They're not censoring anyone in any enforced way, but they're still able to exact quite a punishment on any perceived targets. There's no actual solution to this, other than trying to decrease their impact.

edit- The other one is whitewashing or sometimes called "safe-spacing" in universities. By that I mean the removal of discussion of uncomfortable topics. Here are two related and ridiculous episodes:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...ion-warns-human-rights-activist-a6761231.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iolating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/

 

[Orayn]

This reply is sarcastic, but honestly I wonder, do people believe this?

It does come up in every single Feminist Frequency thread on the gaming side.

 

[Sianos]

This reply is sarcastic, but honestly I wonder, do people believe this?

I've seen this line of thought used in gaming side pretty often, usually in threads about the underwear of female characters being changed during development in response to criticism or observations of similar past criticisms.

They don't equate criticism and censorship straightforwardly, though. Instead they just say that the critics are "censoring" the developers, and if they do respond to being called out you get that bit about "self-censorship" pretty close to verbatim.

 

[d00d3n]

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.

Good post! I agree with you on almost everything you wrote.

 

[Boney]

The only inkling of substance in this piece is about online mobs. We're going to have to figure something out about that eventually.

But otherwise, this is basically "I'm mad people are limiting my free speech by exercising their free speech" This only actual law this person cites is a 40 year old Australian one.

Yep, online mobs are a scary thing that's gonna start to pan out and I expect that when we get some politicians that aren't ancient it's going to be in the center of civil discourse. We've seen it both in positive ways, like here for example but also negative ways like the harrasment of Lesley Jones. The sheer volume of anonymous voices must be terrifying.

But I feel the same as you for this. Not only am I glad she was called out on her bs, there's going to be a much bigger shitstorm regarding the self righteousness of not accepting critisism and instead of addressing it, whine about the usual - millenials are ruining everything because they complain about everything - scapegoat

Oh and whenever someone refers to representation issues as "Politically Correct" you already know their going to be impossible to have a conversation with, since they take it as a restriction, a pain in the ass, so one doesn't get harassed by the hippies.

 

[Enzom21]

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.

Such as? If you're going to make this claim, at least provide some examples.

 

[Trojita]

I've seen this line of thought used in gaming side pretty often, usually in threads about the underwear of female characters being changed during development in response to criticism or observations of similar past criticisms.

They don't equate criticism and censorship straightforwardly, though. Instead they just say that the critics are "censoring" the developers, and if they do respond to being called out you get that bit about "self-censorship" pretty close to verbatim.

I'm okay with calling violence or sexual theme removal in video games censorship. I'd say it's also different from what was being asked exactly.

 

[2MF]

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.

Couldn't have written it better.

It's all fun and games until people are trying to punish each other for disagreeing with them. Even worse is when someone pretends they're being righteous for punishing others in that way.

 

[Ampersands]

There is something to be said about this. The Jimmy Fallon thread honestly scared me. It's ok to boycott the show if you don't agree with it (much like people are rightfully doing with Oculus) but to say it shouldn't ever have a disagreeable person on is going too far. The term disagreeable is relative. I'm sure Republicans would rather Hillary didn't make "humanizing" appearances but they shouldn't have the power to decide that. The other half of the electorate shouldn't either.

 

[MHWilliams]

There is something to be said about this. The Jimmy Fallon thread honestly scared me. It's ok to boycott the show if you don't agree with it (much like people are rightfully doing with Oculus) but to say it shouldn't ever have a disagreeable person on is going too far. The term disagreeable is relative. I'm sure Republicans would rather Hillary didn't make "humanizing" appearances but they shouldn't have the power to decide that. The other half of the electorate shouldn't either.

Let's dig into this: Why is a random person saying this a problem? Get specific.

You talk about having the power to decide that - which I don't really see this power on display - but ignore people's right to make their feelings known? Should people limit their expression for fearing of changing the make up of Jimmy Fallon's rotating guest couch?

I'm just perplexed at the argument, which boils down to "You shouldn't say 'shouldn't'".

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

There is something to be said about this. The Jimmy Fallon thread honestly scared me. It's ok to boycott the show if you don't agree with it (much like people are rightfully doing with Oculus) but to say it shouldn't ever have a disagreeable person on is going too far. The term disagreeable is relative. I'm sure Republicans would rather Hillary didn't make "humanizing" appearances but they shouldn't have the power to decide that. The other half of the electorate shouldn't either.

People have been saying certain people shouldn't be in Hollywood or on certain shows ever since Hollywood started. Why are these opinions now scary to you? What power do these random Internet commenters have? What's different from people saying so vs Seth Meyers declaring on his show he'll never have Trump on?

Couldn't have written it better.

It's all fun and games until people are trying to punish each other for disagreeing with them. Even worse is when someone pretends they're being righteous for punishing others in that way.

What punishment is happening to people?

 

[MHWilliams]

What punishment is happening to people?

Well the replies here will mostly be focused on those speakers prevented from speaking at colleges or professors who feel they have to teach only certain topics.

None of which have anything to do with this specific situation outlined in the Op-Ed.

 

[Sianos]

To elaborate, when one removes the connotations smuggled from the "therefore this criticism is censorship, and because censorship is bad therefore this criticism is bad" bit, the argument being made becomes clearer: it's about the free market.

That if you criticize something and make a strong point, you hurt its perceived and resultant commercial viability. Which makes content creators likely to adjust their product because they want to make as much money as they can and want to minimize bad publicity that could get in the way of making money.

This argument fails to realize that the functionality of the free-market is based on consumers making educated choices to buy the best product, thus incentivizing content creators to create better products. Consumers value different things and now it seems like consumers are starting to see teen panty shots as something that detracts from their perceived value.

The argument is that criticism unfairly changes what the majority of consumers may value in ways that are not in accordance with what the arguer values. However, I never see this point being framed as censorship when FPS map design is brought up, among others - and in fact, for that example criticizing of past criticisms to demonstrate how those criticisms were wrong have led to the pendulum swinging back towards open-endedness and verticality. Dialogue!

Instead of complaining that people are criticizing something that one likes, that person should instead present their own counterargument. A good example of this would have been Allison Rapp's thesis.

This censorship framing is only coming up because people feel censored when they are not - because they don't have anything to say back, which feels to them like not being allowed to say something.

Also, crowd funding! I don't know where to work that into this post, but it helps get niche projects funded and I think does a lot to solve the "problems" arising from criticism.

 

[Toxi]

No, it won't survive, because apparently the Left is absurdly fragile and will crumble the moment someone disagrees with another person over a lecture or a book.

 

[timetokill]

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.

Just wanted to say
I appreciate this post

 

[Ekai]

It does come up in every single Feminist Frequency thread on the gaming side.

Hence why gaming side can be trash at times. So many GG-esque posters still around.

 

[Ekai]

Obama had a speech about this about a year ago I wish I could find it, you don't have to go far to look for evidence just take a look at this very forum. I do think the left has become nearly as bad as the right in recent years.

I have many criticisms for Democrats. I even mentioned some in this topic. But these "both sides are equally bad" arguments hold no solid ground. Particularly if you look at how extreme Republicans are. It'd take lots of privlege and ignorance to even make such a statement.

Sorry for double post, mobile being weird

 

[Wrestlemania]

Will the left survive this trend of concern troll thinkpieces about the threat of millenials?

 

[Fhtagn]

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.

Why do you think this is a "new left" problem and not a universal one?

First off, conflating "liberal" and "left" will usually get you an earful, because liberals and leftists are often at each other's throats. Some really hate each other in only the way that close family can hate.

Secondly, I regularly see people making grand claims about left leaning politics that show that one only has a shallow understanding of what is being discussed. For example, people cry censorship when a school disinvites someone like the author of The Bell Curve from speaking on campus, but the real question there is why is someone who's academic work has been thoroughly discredited over the last couple decades getting invited in the first place. He's a racist crank and students have legit reason to not want to have their tuition going to pay for his speaking fees.

Another thing I see regularly is people responding to carefully made arguments with stock, knee jerk reactions of "common sense" when anyone who's engaged at even a cursory 101 level understanding knows why said reaction is dumb. People are exhausted from having the same conversations over and over again. At some point they going to cease being polite about it.

Most of these criticisms are aimed at a caricature of college activists. Stop holding up college students who were still figuring out the world to impossible standards when in the real world on the right you get away with saying anything you like as long as it soothes the interests of the rich or hegemonic.

The left has survived far worse than yet another new generation being fed up with the same old shit and trying new strategies to get progress going.

 

[2MF]

What punishment is happening to people?

Online mobs and all the associated ugliness obviously hurts people.

People being turned away from speaking in public in universities because their words are deemed to violate people's safe spaces are hurt both personally and in terms of their causes. See for example the muslim feminists who got stopped from speaking at universities because muslim students said it violated their safe spaces.

Sometimes it takes up an even worse form where information about crimes is withheld from the public for fear of igniting anti-immigration sentiment. This actually happened in Sweden recently. It's an extreme form of political correctness that is corrosive to society and trust in the authorities.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Online mobs and all the associated ugliness obviously hurts people.

People being turned away from speaking in public in universities because their words are deemed to violate people's safe spaces are hurt both personally and in terms of their causes. See for example the muslim feminists who got turned away from speaking at universities because muslim students said it violated their safe spaces.

Sometimes it takes up an even worse form where information about crimes is withheld from the public for fear of igniting anti-immigration sentiment. This actually happened in Sweden recently. It's an extreme form of political correctness that is corrosive to society and trust in the authorities.

Well the replies here will mostly be focused on those speakers prevented from speaking at colleges or professors who feel they have to teach only certain topics.

None of which have anything to do with this specific situation outlined in the Op-Ed.

Yeah I don't get this. I agree online mobs are ridiculous, but I'm not seeing how it's a problem for people to call out the author in this topic for writing minority characters poorly.

 

[2MF]

Yeah I don't get this. I agree online mobs are ridiculous, but I'm not seeing how it's a problem for people to call out the author in this topic for writing minority characters poorly.

We were talking about related issues which I thought the article also touched upon. I can't confirm now since I have apparently exceeded my allowance of 10 NYT articles per month...

 

[remist]

Let's dig into this: Why is a random person saying this a problem? Get specific.

You talk about having the power to decide that - which I don't really see this power on display - but ignore people's right to make their feelings known? Should people limit their expression for fearing of changing the make up of Jimmy Fallon's rotating guest couch?

I'm just perplexed at the argument, which boils down to "You shouldn't say 'shouldn't'".

I don't think anyone is arguing that they shouldn't have the right to say it, the question is given progressive goals is it tactically sound to reflexively try to silence people instead of refuting their views in public. I'd argue it's self defeating and you are just protecting your bubble not broadening your support.

 

[S2G_Chris]

Yeah i agree with most of what he says

I think that the pendulum will sway back in generations to come. Theres liberalism but then theres what certain groups in modern day have become, and its more ugly than what they claim to be against in some cases IMO.

Also i 100% agree that if Donald Trump wins, radical leftists will have partial responsibility in that.

To take it a step further, as a millennial, I dont like how every time anyone puts us on blast about anything (even when its valid, there are undeniable valid criticisms of our generation we fail to adress or work on fixing) we feel the need to immediately get defensive to validate our place in society. It just feels like a move that lacks self esteem and confidence to me almost every single time.

I know almost all of this is probably not favorable opinion on gaf, but it is what it is

 

[voodoopanda]

Divining what kind of criticism is okay and which kind of criticism isn't okay seems at the heart of this disagreement. Should a certain kind of criticism be off-limits? And how do we identify & deal with this off-limits criticism? Should there be a set of guidelines to follow so we don't accidentally say the wrong thing and threaten freedom of speech?

It seems like some words just have too much power behind them, like "racist." For example, let's say someone says something that we believe is racist in one way or another. If we openly say what they said is racist, that could cause serious issues for them. In order to protect them, we could refrain from saying it so bluntly. The issue then becomes, how do we broach the issue in a delicate, politically correct way so they don't feel like they're being silenced?

We have to watch what we say very carefully, take into account the feelings of others and phrase things just right else we run the risk of damaging our freedom of speech.

 

[xevis]

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?"

Great link and a terrific counter-argument.

 

[Derwind]

Divining what kind of criticism is okay and which kind of criticism isn't okay seems at the heart of this disagreement. Should a certain kind of criticism be off-limits? And how do we identify & deal with this off-limits criticism? Should there be a set of guidelines to follow so we don't accidentally say the wrong thing and threaten freedom of speech?

It seems like some words just have too much power behind them, like "racist." For example, let's say someone says something that we believe is racist in one way or another. If we openly say what they said is racist, that could cause serious issues for them. In order to protect them, we could refrain from saying it so bluntly. The issue then becomes, how do we broach the issue in a delicate, politically correct way so they don't feel like they're being silenced?

We have to watch what we say very carefully, take into account the feelings of others and phrase things just right else we run the risk of damaging our freedom of speech.

Trying to figure out the root of the issue will always bring you back to where you started.

It's just two sides of the same coin here.

 

[Aarglefarg]

Before calling something an ad hominem fallacy, people should think how it is fallacious and not just stop thinking at 'there is a criticism of a person here'. Criticism of a person isn't necessarily fallacious.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

Pretty much my thoughts lately when I see the next social media outrage going on.

Guess it's just the problem of social media. Every small thing gets blown out of proportion and suddenly you have thousands of people pilling on. 140 signs and a like is not enough to actually give actual criticism.

This is exactly it. It's always conservatives who try to claim shit like this so that they can create a double-think in young people and thus more people dislike some skewed idea of 'leftism'.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I think at some point a lot of Americans went from "don't read the comments, they're all garbage" to "comments are my life, I can't stand what liberals are saying to verified people."

I just don't see the damage you guys are describing.

 

[MHWilliams]

I don't think anyone is arguing that they shouldn't have the right to say it, the question is given progressive goals is it tactically sound to reflexively try to silence people instead of refuting their views in public. I'd argue it's self defeating and you are just protecting your bubble not broadening your support.

Who is reflexively trying to silence Donald Trump and not also refuting their views in public? And arguing that Fallon should not do what he does with a candidate you view as a danger isn't silencing either. The interview has happened. It's over. That is your feedback and you frankly are allowed to give it because Fallon isn't a debate floor. You're not having a discussion with Trump or a similar guest. Once again, this is one of those arguments that's largely a non-starter. If someone wants to say the same of Clinton over her part in the Iraq War or her actions as Secretary of State, they're open to that view. They're allowed to say it!

Do you feel, say Kirk Douglas' display his dissent of Trump is tactically unsound and self-defeating, or merely a reflection of his personal views on the matter? Such conversation may cause others to rethink having Trump on television! They may give them pause! Is that silencing him?

Where's the line? What are people allowed to say and do to be tactically sound?

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?"

This is a phenomenal editorial response.

When I was writing my first novel, I was determined to include a section in the voice of an 80-year-old, white, Yankee heiress. The character is deeply racist, but the kind of racist who would consider Donald J. Trump vulgar and never use the ugliest of racial epithets. Bone china and lace tablecloth and genteelly rusted Volvo parked at the family home in Concord, Mass. kind of racist. Her inability to honestly acknowledge her racism leads to her complicity in a large, very awful crime against a community of people, one she spends a chapter of the book attempting to apologize for, without ever admitting guilt. She desperately wishes for black Americans’ approval while still being unable to imagine us as humans with a full emotional range like hers.

It was a personality I thought I knew well, growing up going to the prep schools of the wealthy and connected as a scholarship student. I wrote a draft in this voice, tucked it into my manuscript like a stink bomb, and smugly sent it off to my agent and my professor, waiting for their reactions.

“It doesn’t work,” I was told. “She’s not believable as a character. She doesn’t work.” “Damn white readers,” I jokingly said to my friends. But once I got over myself, I took apart that section piece by piece. I rewrote and failed and rewrote and failed. As much as this character had begun as an indictment of all the hypocrisies of my childhood, she was not going to come out on the page that way, not without a lot of work. I was struck by an awful realization. I would have to love this monster into existence. The voice of this character had been full of scorn and condescension. I rewrote it with those elements in place, but covered with the treacly, grasping attempts at affection of a broken and desperately lonely woman.

Five years or so after I came to that realization, I wrote to Bill Cheng after reading the novelist Lionel Shriver’s keynote on “Fiction and Identity Politics” at the Brisbane Writer’s Festival. Wearing a sombrero, Ms. Shriver spoke out against “cultural appropriation” as a valid critique, arguing that it censored her work as a writer, that she would not have free rein to fully imagine others’ perspectives and widen her world of characters. “Did you hear about this?” I typed into our chat window, and Bill wrote back, “Hold on …” Then his answer pinged.

“Why do they want our approval so badly?” Bill typed back to me.

This is the question, of course. It’s the wish not so much to be able to write a character of another race, but to do so without criticism. And at the heart of that rather ludicrous request is a question of power. There is the power of rendering another’s perspective, which is not your own. There is the adage “Don’t punch down,” which sits like the shiny red lever of a fire alarm, irresistible for some writers who wish to pull it.

We writers, in the United States at least, have a peculiar, tortured relationship with power. We want it both ways. We talk about the power of the written word to shift whole levels of consciousness while constantly lamenting the death of publishing, the death of the novel, the death of the reader.

The money quote:

A writer has the right to inhabit any character she pleases — she’s always had it and will continue to have it. The complaint seems to be less that some people ask writers to think about cultural appropriation, and more that a writer wishes her work not to be critiqued for doing so, that instead she get a gold star for trying.

 

[remist]

Who is reflexively trying to silence Donald Trump and not also refuting their views in public? And arguing that Fallon should not do what he does with a candidate you view as a danger isn't silencing either. The interview has happened. It's over. That is your feedback and you frankly are allowed to give it because Fallon isn't a debate floor. You're not having a discussion with Trump or a similar guest. Once again, this is one of those arguments that's largely a non-starter. If someone wants to say the same of Clinton over her part in the Iraq War or her actions as Secretary of State, they're open to that view. They're allowed to say it!

Do you feel, say Kirk Douglas' display his dissent of Trump is tactically unsound and self-defeating, or merely a reflection of his personal views on the matter? Such conversation may cause others to rethink having Trump on television! They may give them pause! Is that silencing him?

Where's the line? What are people allowed to say and do to be tactically sound?

It's not about doing both, it's that the tactic of trying to pressure any kind of show from having interviews or conversations with "dangerous candidates" is not doing anything to convince people. The more Trump is out in the public allowing people to assess him and make their own judgement the better. This is what I was responding to and what you bolded in your post

The Jimmy Fallon thread honestly scared me. It's ok to boycott the show if you don't agree with it (much like people are rightfully doing with Oculus) but to say it shouldn't ever have a disagreeable person on is going too far.

That implies future interviews, not just the one with trump. The Kirk Douglas piece as far as I can tell is directly engaging with Trumps views not lambasting a random TV show from having a normal interview with him. I think it's pretty clear how attenuated that is from the hypothetical above implying that people with dangerous ideas need to be kept from the public eye.

You can get the idea from reading neogaf that everyone knows Trump is incompetent and racist and those that don't are just in denial. The truth is that you can't take that for granted. More speech, even reprehensible speech and the engagement and criticism of it is what's best for progressive ideas.

 

[Sianos]

Divining what kind of criticism is okay and which kind of criticism isn't okay seems at the heart of this disagreement. Should a certain kind of criticism be off-limits? And how do we identify & deal with this off-limits criticism? Should there be a set of guidelines to follow so we don't accidentally say the wrong thing and threaten freedom of speech?

It seems like some words just have too much power behind them, like "racist." For example, let's say someone says something that we believe is racist in one way or another. If we openly say what they said is racist, that could cause serious issues for them. In order to protect them, we could refrain from saying it so bluntly. The issue then becomes, how do we broach the issue in a delicate, politically correct way so they don't feel like they're being silenced?

We have to watch what we say very carefully, take into account the feelings of others and phrase things just right else we run the risk of damaging our freedom of speech.

I'll take this a step further.

Let's look at the mechanics of racism for a moment. When someone is racist towards someone else, they are criticizing that person based on their race. The effects of racism are that it causes people of that race to be perceived as undesirable and lesser, with the result of either forcing people of that race to give up their heritage or to disappear entirely from public view in shame. And if they do so, are those people not either being censored or censoring themselves?

Racism is censorship. I think I've found a way to finally get people to take racism as seriously as they take people being accused of racism. Just had to make it something they can relate to, not just the suffering of their fellow human brethren.

 

[MHWilliams]

It's not about doing both, it's that the tactic of trying to pressure any kind of show from having interviews or conversations with "dangerous candidates" is not doing anything to convince people. The more Trump is out in the public allowing people to assess him and make their own judgement the better. This is what I was responding to and what you bolded in your post

Again, you view it as a tactic, which is frankly a cynical view of any dissenting statement.

Are people allowed to offer feedback about or comment on Fallon's interview with Trump without it being a negative in your mind? Or no? Seems contrary to freedom of expression. Is speech only allowed or tactically sound if it has absolutely no potential effect on anyone else?

You can get the idea from reading neogaf that everyone knows Trump is incompetent and racist and those that don't are just in denial. The truth is that you can't take that for granted. More speech, even reprehensible speech and the engagement and criticism of it is what's best for progressive ideas.

Ah, but you have to counter that speech that you find reprehensible. Many had an issue with the Fallon thing because there was no counter. There was no discussion. It was entertainment fluff. It's so far beyond engagement as to be in another sphere.

And again, commenting that Fallon shouldn't have Trump on is fine. That's their opinion and Fallon's production team will do with that feedback as they please. Likely they'll do nothing. That is the system working as intended.

 

[Lo_Fi]

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.

What can you get arrested for saying in America?

 

[Ekai]

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.

Bigots can say whatever the hell they want. But they are going to be criticized for being bigoted. Free speech isn't a card to say whatever you want without criticism. These arguments come across as one wanting to silence the free speech of those who criticize bigots who think they're under attack.

Again: freedom of speech =/= freedom from criticism or the right to silence another's voice.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Bigots can say whatever the hell they want. But they are going to be criticized for being bigoted. Free speech isn't a card to say whatever you want without criticism. These arguments come across as one wanting to silence the free speech of those who criticize bigots who think they're under attack.

Again: freedom of speech =/= freedom from criticism or the right to silence another's voice.

Pretty amazing how so many people fail to get this.

 

[Jonm1010]

Why do you think this is a "new left" problem and not a universal one?

First off, conflating "liberal" and "left" will usually get you an earful, because liberals and leftists are often at each other's throats. Some really hate each other in only the way that close family can hate.

Secondly, I regularly see people making grand claims about left leaning politics that show that one only has a shallow understanding of what is being discussed. For example, people cry censorship when a school disinvites someone like the author of The Bell Curve from speaking on campus, but the real question there is why is someone who's academic work has been thoroughly discredited over the last couple decades getting invited in the first place. He's a racist crank and students have legit reason to not want to have their tuition going to pay for his speaking fees.

Another thing I see regularly is people responding to carefully made arguments with stock, knee jerk reactions of "common sense" when anyone who's engaged at even a cursory 101 level understanding knows why said reaction is dumb. People are exhausted from having the same conversations over and over again. At some point they going to cease being polite about it.

Most of these criticisms are aimed at a caricature of college activists. Stop holding up college students who were still figuring out the world to impossible standards when in the real world on the right you get away with saying anything you like as long as it soothes the interests of the rich or hegemonic.

The left has survived far worse than yet another new generation being fed up with the same old shit and trying new strategies to get progress going.

I'm on mobile for the remainder of the evening so my response will be brief and my ability to check in brief as well.

I do not think most of this is unique to the left. I am addressing the left's role because that was the focus of the Op-Ed and on a deeper level I consider myself to be a part of the American left and a liberal so how the movement(s) shifts or doesn't peaks my interest.

As to the rest of your post, it's a lot of meta commentary that's hard to really discuss(and is often an issue with a lot of these op-eds because it becomes a battle of meta-commentaries) because they rest on so many assumptions and personal experiences. Such is the nature of such things.

 

[Fhtagn]

I'm on mobile for the remainder of the evening so my response will be brief and my ability to check in brief as well.

I do not think most of this is unique to the left. I am addressing the left's role because that was the focus of the Op-Ed and on a deeper level I consider myself to be a part of the American left and a liberal so how the movement(s) shifts or doesn't peaks my interest.

As to the rest of your post, it's a lot of meta commentary that's hard to really discuss(and is often an issue with a lot of these op-eds because it becomes a battle of meta-commentaries) because they rest on so many assumptions and personal experiences. Such is the nature of such things.

If you're interested in the history of the American mainstream left, I can strongly recommend Robert Caro's absurdly massive biography series on Lyndon B. Johnson. It's mostly about LBJ, who twisted in the wind for his entire life to whatever position was most advantageous to him... but in doing so intersected with huge swaths of history, including the depression, the new deal, rural electrification, civil rights and Vietnam.

I've been going through it as audiobooks for months and it's pretty incredible and gives a close look to so many of the fights the left has been involved with since the mid 1800s.

 

[remist]

Again, you view it as a tactic, which is frankly a cynical view of any dissenting statement.

Are people allowed to offer feedback about or comment on Fallon's interview with Trump without it being a negative in your mind? Or no? Seems contrary to freedom of expression. Is speech only allowed or tactically sound if it has absolutely no potential effect on anyone else?



Ah, but you have to counter that speech that you find reprehensible. Many had an issue with the Fallon thing because there was no counter. There was no discussion. It was entertainment fluff. It's so far beyond engagement as to be in another sphere.

And again, commenting that Fallon shouldn't have Trump on is fine. That's their opinion and Fallon's production team will do with that feedback as they please. Likely they'll do nothing. That is the system working as intended.

If you care about political outcomes and I'm assuming most people are critical of Fallon because they do, you should be taking into account the goals and effects of your criticism.

Of course people are allowed to offer feedback, I just think that all feedback is not created equal. Any criticism that boils down to "shame on you for having this conversation" is counterproductive. More specific criticism like "what you said here is wrong" or "you could have had a better conversation if you did this" is way more productive. More specifically I want more, better and improved conversations. Anything that discourages that is bad for everyone.

As for the more nuanced criticism of the type of interview Fallon had with Trump. I don't buy it because one, a late night talk show interview is a known quantity and the way Trump handles it is just a different type of information for voters to asses. And two, other venues are much better equipped to have the type of critical policy based discussion people want. Like the debates tomorrow.

 

[Mumei]

There was another op-ed in the NYTimes about this controversy:

This is the question, of course. It’s the wish not so much to be able to write a character of another race, but to do so without criticism. And at the heart of that rather ludicrous request is a question of power. There is the power of rendering another’s perspective, which is not your own. There is the adage “Don’t punch down,” which sits like the shiny red lever of a fire alarm, irresistible for some writers who wish to pull it.

[...]

A writer has the right to inhabit any character she pleases — she’s always had it and will continue to have it. The complaint seems to be less that some people ask writers to think about cultural appropriation, and more that a writer wishes her work not to be critiqued for doing so, that instead she get a gold star for trying.

Whenever I hear this complaint, I am reminded of Toni Morrison’s cool assessment of “anti-P.C. backlash” more than 20 years ago: “What I think the political correctness debate is really about is the power to be able to define. The definers want the power to name. And the defined are now taking that power away from them.”

The quote is two decades old, but this debate, in certain circles, has never moved past the paranoia about nonexistent censorship.

This debate, or rather, this level of the debate, is had over and over again, primarily because of an unwillingness on one side to consider history or even entertain a long line of arguments in response. Instead, what often happens is a writer or artist acts as though she is taking some brave stand by declaring to be against political correctness. As if our entire culture is not already centered on a very particular version of whiteness that many white people don’t even inhabit anymore. And so, someone makes a comment or a statement without nuance or sense of history, only with an implicit insistence that writing and publishing magically exist outside the structures of power that dominate every other aspect of our daily lives.

Imagine the better, stronger fiction that could be produced if writers took this challenge to stretch and grow one’s imagination, to afford the same depth of humanity and interest and nuance to characters who look like them as characters who don’t, to take those stories seriously and actually think about power when writing — how much further fiction could go as an art.

It’s the difference between a child playing dress-up in a costume for the afternoon and someone putting on a set of clothes and going to work.

 

[MHWilliams]

If you care about political outcomes and I'm assuming most people are critical of Fallon because they do, you should be taking into account the goals and effects of your criticism.

Of course people are allowed to offer feedback, I just think that all feedback is not created equal. Any criticism that boils down to "shame on you for having this conversation" is counterproductive. More specific criticism like "what you said here is wrong" or "you could have had a better conversation if you did this" is way more productive. More specifically I want more, better and improved conversations. Anything that discourages that is bad for everyone.

As for the more nuanced criticism of the type of interview Fallon had with Trump. I don't buy it because one, a late night talk show interview is a known quantity and the way Trump handles it is just a different type of information for voters to asses. And two, other venues are much better equipped to have the type of critical policy based discussion people want. Like the debates tomorrow.

So you disagree with their criticism. Most of it was around the idea of normalizing the face of someone who has what people consider to be largely hateful rhetoric. The goals and effects of the criticism is to get Fallon and his production a reason to reconsider how they handle such interviews, if they have them at all. That's rather valid and a solid conversation to have. That you disagree because a late night talk show interview is a "known quantity" ignores the fact that there are many type of late night talk interviews to have. Notably in this case, Seth Meyers organizational take on the idea.

The criticism is specific. That you whittle it down to "shame on you for having this conversation" is a perceptual problem, not one fully engaged with the types of criticism about that interview.

Regardless, I don't particularly expect everyone to have deep and abiding criticism for every discussion and I find it somewhat odd that people do. It seems that people believe that every conversation should be treated as a discussion with academic rigor, and I'm not seeing that as the normal way that people interact. I'm willing to have that type of discussion here, but in person, I tend to bring the discourse to a level that most will engage in, while holding onto the truth of my statements.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

No, the far right is creating an environment in which certain individuals are more likely to commit racist crimes. Just like my example of the left ignoring or excusing certain issues creates an environment where other issues pop up.

I'm not saying those things don't contribute to these attacks happening, but your logic of "right wing politics = violence against minorities" is a tad simplistic.

I also don't know what this has to do with government enforced regulations on speech. Or do you advocate we just ban those parties and their right to talk about their viewpoints, and then the racists will disappear?

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.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Seems like this author got triggered when someone criticized her shitty book. Sounds like maybe she wants a safe space where she is frim from having to hear criticism

 

[petghost]

really loved this article.

the strong movement towards progressivism has left a lot ideas and people behind on the left.

 

[Suikoguy]

really loved this article.

the strong movement towards progressivism has left a lot ideas and people behind on the left.

Like what ideas?