This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Optimistically, the academics leaving the USA are the ones most ideologically captured, such that their contributions to knowledge production is easily replaceable or even a net negative, as is the case for much of what is purportedly being cut by DOGE. Given how academia has been pushing for the model of uplifting people by putting them into these institutions versus the the model of putting people into these institutions based on their ability to contribute to knowledge production for a couple of generations now, it wouldn't surprise me if even a solid majority of academics could leave the USA and leave the USA's academia better off for it.
Pessimistically, there's enough damage to funding in even in the most productive portions of academia, such that plenty of the academics leaving the USA really do create a "brain drain." I'd guess that academics doing actual good knowledge production are most likely to have the resources and options to pick up their lives and move to another continent, after all.
It really speaks to the immense wealth and prosperity of the western world that academic institutions are able to support so many unproductive and anti-productive academics; is it worth it to get rid of many of those, even at the cost of some loss of the productive ones? Or do we accept those as the cost for maximizing the amount of actual productive academics? The shape of the data probably matters a lot for whatever conclusion one draws. If we're looking at a 10-90 proportion of productive-un/anti-productive academics, and we can cut 50% of the latter while cutting 1% of the former, that sounds like that'd be worth it, whereas if cutting 1% of the latter results in cutting 50% of the former, that probably isn't.
Which then takes us a step back to the fact that we no longer have any credible institutions to tell us what the data looks like. The past decade has seen mainstream journalism outlets constantly discrediting themselves, especially with respect to politics surrounding Trump and his allies, and non-mainstream ones don't have a great track record by my lights, either. So I guess we'll see.
In terms of scientific research of the sort that would make USA stronger relative to other countries, like rocketry or nuclear physics in the past, it seems to me that AI is the most relevant field, where I perceive USA as still being most attractive for AI researchers. At least in the private sector, where a lot of the developments seem to be taking place. The part about that that worries me the most is the actual hardware the AI runs on, which basically universally are produced elsewhere, which is a mostly separate issue from the brain drain.
How fast from "there is no such thing as a limited freedom of speech" to "just fire them"...
About one government.
Public servants are not free. They accept certain restrictions to their freedoms as part of their job. Including a duty of neutrality.
You don't see military men blab about their freedom of movement do you?
There's certainly different views on public service from some insulated neutral administration to politically loyal yes men who get purged every administration.
But as soon as the nominally neutral public servants started having an identifiable political agenda, they were doomed. That is not a defensible position. And certainly not one defensible through free speech.
Indeed the principle forbids compelled speech, and one is compelled to fund the government. The government having a political agenda that isn't determined by constitutionally appointed political processes is unacceptable and bordering on traitorous.
They're free to wage political campaigns on their own dime, in they free time even, not the taxpayer's.
I think I agree, it's just that it is not at all how those purges do happen. The people they are firing are working for legally funded agencies or programs, and they are targeted under the assumption that people working in those agencies or programs are mostly political adversaries
The law is not a substitute for politics.
You can't hide behind a piece of paper forever.
A law is not just a piece of paper, and I don't think you can call "bordering on traitorous" something mandated by law (and not just allowed).
I don't know what it means, given that the government always has a political agenda that isn't determined by any legally defined process. The people in charge are appointed by those processes, what they do with the power they get is up to them as long as they obey the Constitution
I happen to believe that constitutions are not paper but are written in the hearts of men, such that any subversion of their meaning or disbelief in them is more consequential than any formalism.
Betraying the spirit of how people see their nation function is what matters. Not what law is being broken strictly speaking. The Romans were right to see judicial and legislative proceedings as a religious process.
Hence how "He who saves his country breaks no law."
It did not end well for the roman law though
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure how your comment is even tangentially related to what I wrote, including the part you quoted. I'd rather not speculate, so could you explain specifically what the relation is?
A few
yearsmonths ago, before Elon Musk bought twitter, there was a very popular opinion here on the motte, and probably also among conservatives, that freedom of speech should not be limited in any way, whether directly by the government, or by powerful actors like social medias. When big tech fired people due to their right wing political opinions, conservatives were defending them while liberals were saying things like "they are bigots, they must be improductive anyway".I don't know what happened, but it seems that a lot of people who had a very broad definition of free speech switched to a very precise and restricted one.
Name three.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think you established that anything happened. I don't see anyone calling to fire the progressive equivalents of Brandon Eich, James Damore, or Peter Boghosian.
Do those even exist?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What does that have to do with what I wrote, particularly the part you quoted, i.e.
There's nothing in that quote that has anything to say in any way about firing anyone on the basis of their political opinions. Neither does my comment have anything relating to firing people on the basis of their political opinions.
I also think your characterization as "freedom of speech should not be limited in any way" is simply wrong. That's free speech absolutism, which is very rare anywhere, certainly on the Motte, versus free speech maximalism, which is uncommon but not too much so.
Given that the first comment has been removed, I might have misread yours, but it seems to me you were arguing in favor of incentivizing people to leave the country according to their opinions.
I see, I guess it was just a misread, as I'm not sure how my comment could be interpreted that way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can you give me a few links to the "there is no such thing as a limited freedom of speech" arguing that the government must fund their full time jobs where they get to promote their ideas for a living?
Obviously not in the government, but in private companies those fired for their right wing opinions had some level of support from conservatives a few years ago.
People can do whatever they want on their own dime. Not when you're compelled at gunpoint to pay them to do it.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, when we talk about academics losing their jobs be via DOGE cuts, that sounds more like getting rid of ideologically motivated programs, not firing someone for expressing their opinion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Getting fired has nothing to do with free speech. The principle of free speech is that the government cannot prevent you from speaking. It does not mean the government is obligated to protect your job in the event your boss doesn’t like what you’re saying or to keep you on staff in a university.
It also doesn’t mean that you can protest in any way you like. You are free to March around with signs. You are not free to block access to buildings, harass people, deface property, or block traffic.
That's why conservatives have no problem with private bodies (e.g. social media) censoring right wing opinions I suppose.
I have no problem with that as long as the rules are spelled out in advance. This forum is moderated and I’ve yet to see anyone complain that much because the rules are fair, consistent and promote good conversation. It’s just simply the cost of being around other people. I don’t object to fine restaurants excluding people who come in shorts because they provide the kind of environment I want.
I do object when social media claims to be open to all people yet are clearly skewing enforcement to favor one group over another. If you’re doing that, then you can’t claim to be a neutral gathering place. But if you’re openly saying “hey come to bluesky we’re Twitter, but liberal. “ if I don’t want that I simply don’t go there, much like if I don’t like wearing dress I don’t go to fancy restaurants. I’d object if a fast food place suddenly decided that im not allowed because I’m not wearing a dress.
More options
Context Copy link
Have you forgotten that they were doing much of this censorship at government behest?
Yes, but what made it bad is not that the government was involved. What made it bad was that the content of what was pushed was bad, and what was good was blocked.
Free speech just isn’t coherent outside a reasonably monocultural environment. Nobody is actually going to fund or tolerate people who despise them and wish to destroy them.
What made it worst, in the American free speech tradition, is that the government was involved. Since every censor will tell you they're blocking what's bad and allowing what's good, and the fact that they ARE the censor means they have the power to make that claim, your version boils down to might makes right.
Yes. That is why I no longer advocate for free speech.
Firstly, the ‘only government shouldn’t censor’ line seems totally arbitrary to me - it’s okay if Twitter censors and whips up hostile mobs, but then it becomes unacceptable if they talked to an FBI agent before doing so. And once you move to a more expansive definition the whole thing just falls apart. If I don’t like what you say, can I avoid buying services from you? Can I suggest the same to my friend? Can I tell people I don’t hang out with people who say X and they shouldn’t either? If yes, you have social pressure and AstroTurfed boycotts, which doesn’t sound much like free speech to me. If no, then my free speech is being threatened.
Secondly, it feels quokka-like to the point of being suicidal. Why on Earth would I give free speech to people who are openly organising to deny me of it? To destroy my culture and to harm me personally?
Ultimately might DOES make right (as the British-supporting Americans who were forced to flee from Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness learned). I would rather pursue might than argue about rights with people who have no interest in my wellbeing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As Crowstep pointed out, it has everything to do with free speech. Freedom of speech is not the same thing as the legal protection afforded by the first amendment.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a particularly American understanding of free speech, in that the US constitution prohibits the government from restricting speech.
But it isn't the be all and end all of the principle of free speech. When JS Mill was writing about free speech, he starts be assuming no government coercion whatsoever, instead talking about public opinion.
It seems pretty obvious to me that 'you can have any political opinions you want, except these ones. If you have these opinions you will get fired' is not meaningful freedom of speech, if applied more generally.
I wouldn't call it "American" as such. Lots of Americans properly understand the difference between freedom of speech and the first amendment to our constitution. It's an ignorant understanding, not an American one imo.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nah, this is exactly what progressives were saying as they were getting people fired. I don't think the principle of free speech is by definition limited to the government.
The progressives were saying a lot of things about free speech, but only MOST of it was wrong. Somewhere in the motte, there's the idea that if a firm or government hires a person as their spokesperson, they can fire that person for saying the wrong thing as said spokesperson. Way out in the bailey is the idea that if someone says (or indeed has ever said) the wrong thing off the job when working for a private employer, the government can require (on pain of lawsuit for "hostile environment" discrimination) that person be fired for it. The progressives claim all that and everything in between.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link