General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums#CancelColbert and the Return of the Anti-Liberal Left
Perhaps every political generation is fated to be appalled by the one that succeeds it. In the 1960s, longtime socialist intellectuals were horrified by the anarchic energies of the new left. Then some of those new leftists reached middle age and watched, aghast, as new speech codes proliferated on college campuses during the first iteration of political correctness. I was in college then and am now in my thirties, which means its my turn to be dismayed by a growing left-wing tendency towards censoriousness and hair-trigger offense.
Its increasingly clear that we are entering a new era of political correctness. Recently, weve seen the calls to #CancelColbert because of something outrageous said by Stephen Colberts blowhard alter ego, who has been saying outrageous things regularly for nine years. Then theres the sudden demand for trigger warnings on college syllabi, meant to protect students from encountering ideas or images that may traumatize them; an Oberlin faculty document even suggests jettisoning triggering material when it does not contribute directly to the course learning goals. At Wellesley, students have petitioned to have an outdoor statue of a lifelike sleepwalking man removed because it was causing them undue stress. As I wrote in The Nation, theres pressure in some circles not to use the word vagina in connection with reproductive rights, lest it offend trans people.
Nor is this just happening here. In Englands left-wing New Statesman, Sarah Ditum wrote of the spread of no-platformingessentially stopping people whose ideas are deemed offensive from speaking publicly. She cites the shouting down of an opponent of the BDS movement at Galway University and the threats and intimidation leveled at the radical feminist Julie Bindel, who has said cruel things about trans people. No platform now uses the pretext of opposing hate speech to justify outrageously dehumanising language, and sets up an ideal of safe spaces within which certain individuals can be harassed, wrote Ditum. A tool that was once intended to protect democracy from undemocratic movements has become a weapon used by the undemocratic against democracy.
Call it left-wing anti-liberalism: the idea, captured by Herbert Marcuse in his 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance, that social justice demands curbs on freedom of expression. t is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, and exploitation, he wrote. Consequently, it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this chance, and those which would do the opposite. Suppression of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones.
...
http://www.thenation.com/blog/179160/cancelcolbert-and-return-anti-liberal-left
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)alp227
(32,064 posts)I'm rather a critical thinking progressive. Sorry.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I'm not big on suppressing anyone's free speech, but shouting down blatantly offensive speakers is at the least qualitatively different from government crackdowns on speech. So are campus speech codes, for that matter - gee, who'da thought they'd prohibit yelling racist/homophobic slurs at people?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I don't doubt that there are those whose views essentially amount to left-authoritarianism, but I think that accusation gets thrown around way too much, particularly on DU. This country is so terrified of anything that smacks of not just "socialism" but, more broadly, collectivism, I feel the need to take all this with a grain of salt just as I do, for instance, "concerns" about campus speech codes or affirmative action. It's not that no problem exists, it's that some people may be invested in exaggerating the problem.
starroute
(12,977 posts)If certain kinds of offensive speech were universe recognized as such, there wouldn't be as much pressure to choke them off. It's the feeling that the people using that sort of language don't realize what they're saying, or think they have a right to it, that stirs up the opposition.
On the other hand, the cult of victimization in our society means that being able to claim to be oppressed is politically potent. It's most obvious when the Christianists use it to try to prevent their little darlings' ears being assaulted with any mention of evolution -- but it's certainly present on the left as well.
Put those two things together and you have a recipe for righteously aggrieved feelings on both sides. Not an easy bind to get out of.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)snip--
The problem, as Goldberg sees it, is radical disenchantment, rather than the puny, spineless, directionless mass that passes for a liberal agenda these days. And it is this lack of intestinal fortitude and courage, not radical anti-liberalism, that will make left politics vulnerable to co-optation on the right..
Blame it on the alcohol maybe; but dont blame it on colored folks.
By falsely equating calls for trans-inclusive language, for instance, with absurd demands for syllabus trigger warnings, or rather by using wrongheaded and extreme versions of leftist arguments, Goldberg sets out to create the intellectual ground to dismiss legitimate claims on the left.
She fails.
(more)
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/08/its_not_about_you_white_liberals_why_attacks_on_radical_people_of_color_are_so_misguided/
For the win.