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 -
It isn't, though, that's the thing. Presuming Tao were being targeted (something which I don't think is evident, but we can presume it), it would be for signing off on an ideological document that commits to him to an ideology that explicitly rejects things like objectivity and reason as tools of White Supremacy for oppressing minorities; the ideology openly and proudly prefers personal testimony labeled as "lived experience" to ascertain "their truth" which is just as valid as anyone else's. This is fundamentally incompatible with mathematics, which relies on logic to make objective statements, or generally the academic pursuit of truth, at least for commonly understood meanings of "math" and "truth." Now, people can paper over and ignore or mitigate fundamental incompatibilities for a long time, but likely not forever, and so such ideological commitments a major handicap in an academic being able to credibly produce truth.
This is the general problem that this ideology runs into when trying to claim victimhood of cancel culture. By its very nature, the ideology is about redefining and subverting our understanding of basic concepts like "truth" or "reason" in a way that's incompatible with academia as we know it. And if academia were transformed according to the ideology, it would no longer be academia in terms of the functions it serves our society (i.e. knowledge generation & education), but rather a church. And so rejecting ideologues of this stripe from academia isn't cancel culture in a symmetrical way to the now-traditional leftwing cancel culture, which has to do either with opinions that are orthogonal to the person's ability to do a job or with chains of "logic" that fall apart under the smallest scrutiny (e.g. this CEO disagrees with me on gay marriage, which means he must have bigoted antipathy, possibly subconsciously, against gay people, which means he cannot be relied on to be their boss in a fair way).
Now, one could argue that the benefits of these ideologues, given their ability to still pursue truth thanks to compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance, outweighs the harms of them also laundering ideological falsities under the label of truth, as well as the harms of the continued self-discrediting of academia due to placing trust in someone who's ideologically committed against fundamental principles of academia, and therefore, these people ought not be "canceled" from academia. The strength of that argument would depend heavily on the specifics of the benefits and harm. But that's a different argument than one around symmetry.
This is kinda how your argument about the contents of the letter reads to me. It is certainly how it would read to anyone to my left. The impossibility of neutrally adjudicating which "chains of logic" of that type hold up, and which don't, is precisely why we need a society-wide norm that no arguments of that form will be considered, under any circumstances. I could as easily argue that no religious people should be allowed to work in STEM, because if they believe in miracles, their epistemology is clearly compromised in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with scientific truth-seeking. That's an argument that feels true to me on a deep level. I really think we'd have better science if all science was done by committed atheists. But I have never and will never advocate for setting such a policy. Arguments of this form are an indiscriminate superweapon that unravels societal trust when anyone starts breaking them out.
Please forgive me for dog-piling you. The thing is, I think there's a big case of 'two screens' going on here.
I respect your personal commitment to not discriminating against academics on the basis of religion, but the few Christian academics I knew when I was a PhD in STEM hid it very carefully even 10 years ago. Precisely because they knew they'd be discriminated against if their religion became widely known. And I have other stories about how academics were made to feel in danger, though relatively few smoking guns because people were in the closet already so I can't point to explicit discrimination.
From a right-wing perspective, all the stuff you're worried about already happened. It's been happening for years and it's been coming from inside the house (i.e. not just admin). This is the backlash.
You don't have to agree with that, of course, but I think it will help you understand where I and perhaps others are coming from. And it might explain why 'Trump's administration should stop people discriminating, without discriminating themselves' isn't seen as enough by many people - if you believe as I do that most academics lowkey want to discriminate, then a pause on discrimination will work only until Trump's power and attention wanes even slightly.
I'm well aware, and I'm against it. I'm a leftist at the object level while strongly disavowing cancel culture and persecution. This is an awkward position, awkward enough that I am not optimistic about the Left reforming itself from within. Hence, I view the anti-woke Right as potential allies in the shared project of bringing an end end cancel culture, with the aim of restoring a status quo that's better for everyone than a crab bucket where everybody is constantly persecuting everybody else.
And the thing is, this is an ideal that much right-wing rhetoric embraced; certainly much of the furore about Political Correctness/SJWs/cancel culture/Woke, over the last fifteen years, was pitched in terms of "these are dirty tactics, and our enemies are inherently rotten for using them, never mind whatever crazy stuff they're fighting for", not just of the more cynical "these value-neutral, highly effective memetic weapons happen to be in the hands of our enemies whose goals are crazy, and that's bad". Right-wingers who are dragging the anti-woke momentum in the direction of "we need right-wing cancel culture to even the odds" as opposed to "cancel culture delenda est" are defectors to the broader cause of principledness and civilization (within which the entire political Overton window should squarely sit, in a healthy body politic). I understand why they're doing it, at an emotional level, but they are, and I can't condone or excuse it, even as I sympathize.
In short: some very reproachable people on my side started using intellectual weapons whose use inherently degrades civilization; they're sure as hell not going to stop on their own, so the only hope was that the opposition would provide a credible alternative; for a while it seemed as though they might; but now they look like they're just content to stoop down to their enemies' level, abandoning all the high-minded principles they rightly criticized their enemies for flouting ten years ago. And thus we sink a little further towards total collapse. It is what it is, I'm not saying it's a surprising outcome, but there was hope of something better, and perhaps there still is, so I'm doing my bit.
Fair. And I do get where you're coming from, then, and I even agree with you to some extent that "these are dirty tactics, and our enemies are inherently rotten for using them, never mind whatever crazy stuff they're fighting for". Please bear in mind that 15 and even 10 years ago I was saying, with absolute sincerity, "I don't like what you're saying, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it".
The point where I part ways (I think) is:
I don't think the result of seriously, fiercely enforcing neutrality will end up in a reasonably civilised, open academy. Partly because:
'neutrality' is in the eye of the beholder: confirmation bias is often enough to dismiss non-woke conclusions as wrong or to (subconsciously) judge them much more harshly than friendly arguments. It's an improvement to go from 'X should be fired' to 'nobody takes X seriously and he can't get funding for his silly ideas', but it's still not great.
I think we tried neutrality in the 90s and the result was to delay wokeness by 15 years max, maybe making it worse when it arrived. People bring up the metaphor of the tide coming into shore wave by wave and that is broadly how I see it. Putting a halt on overt politicking just means right-wingers being slowly frozen out anyway, without being able to point to any overtly bad behaviour and therefore without much recourse. The old theories are never actively repudiated (because that would be political), they become just something that ‘everyone knows’ and then the new generation arrives with no antibodies and apply them and we get woke. Contrast anti-socialism in the US (where there was a huge counterpressure and even in the 90s people would spit at the sound of the word), versus the UK where even in the post-Thatcher period you were broadly allowed to do it as long as you didn't say it. I know you're Left-wing and may consider that an objectively good thing, but I'm just comparing the results of the two backlashes.
That’s why I think that you with your stated goals should support some level of pushback past the point of, say, viewpoint neutrality as conceived of 10 years ago. Liberty in the traditional sense arose when all participants were tired of fighting the Wars of Religion, but you do have to have the wars first. Otherwise it’s just surrender and you will swiftly lose any power to enforce the conditions of peace.
On a purely personal note I have other reasons:
As a base principle, I believe in fairness, which I define as 'equal treatment'. I don't like the idea that if someone hits, the other guy shouldn't hit back. He might choose not to, and that's admirable or foolish depending, but he absolutely has the right to.
Personal disclosure: I was treated quite badly in academia by certain pre-woke academics, just before wokeness really kicked off and when I was much less right-wing than I am now. I'll be honest, I want payback. They made my life miserable when I stood up for just the principles you describe, and I want them to get the same back. Not more - I believe in fairness, as I said - but just the same. I don't claim that it's a noble impulse, but I'm adding it here as a disclosure.
I think the biggest problem for me is the difference in framing and tactics. The people here frame it as a war, but I don't think it was ever that. To me, I think that the real problem with cancel culture is not a sort of "factional left vs. right" conflict. I think that the left has adopted the framework of the internet. What I mean by that is, you can pick a forum and cultivate your own echo chamber. If you don't agree with someone block them. There's a range of disagreement between "I disagree with you but that's okay" to "It's disgusting that you believe that and I don't think we can share the same space." I think that the left has developed a neurotic personality leading to the range of acceptable disagreement being tiny. I don't think they "took over" institutions so much as many individuals gravitated to similar locations based on their personality, and pushed out the right due to that tendency and the fact that they gravitated there in greater numbers.
They don't even think they're waging the culture war. They think they're going about their day doing boring and uncontroversial things like protesting for trans rights and then some asshole came along and they kicked him out like any normal human being would do. That's why the left claims the right invented the culture war or that "cancel culture doesn't exist."
I think the real problem is the neurotic personality more so than their ideas. Bad ideas are fine. I don't have much hope for the current generation, because attitudes are hard to change. I see articles like this that start to get it, but of course even here she can't shake the "the message wasn't bad, only the delivery" trap. That said, the real barometer is the next generation. Younger folks are rejecting the Democratic party even though politically speaking they're arguably more left than right.
The right is in full "We're aiming to crush you" mode. The left might learn something from the independents turning away, but I guarantee you they won't "learn" anything from the right's current tactics. They'll simply see it that the right is completely okay with using the full force of government to try to control culture, and think they need to play dirtier. The independents are the real decider here, and they may reject the right for their tactics.
That does not compute. Protesting is by definition controversial - if it weren't, it's not a protest, it's at most solidarity march. The whole point though is that the left has been actively in search of culture war since the civil rights movement largely achieved its initial goals (legal equality and high legal barriers to deter any attempt to discriminate). Gay rights, trans rights, BLM, immigrants, vaccines, abortions, whatever it takes. And to crown that, in modern US culture you don't call your opponent a Nazi if you want to hash out policy differences. Everybody knows what you do with the Nazis - you destroy them. So there's no doubt what this framing means.
Gee, maybe that's because the Left has been calling them Nazis and promising to crush them for a couple of decades now? May that be where they got the suspicion? I'm seeing the "Nazi bar" metaphor repeated daily on virtually every corner in the left discourse, and they never even explain it - everybody in their audience already knows what it means, they are just confirming, yes, we can't tolerate even the slightest sign of anybody on the right being allowed in the spaces we control. And we can't tolerate any spaces we don't control because all those are "Nazi bars". The right is in this mode because they are aiming to crush the right. Only now, finally, the right starts to wake up and wonder "oh, they are trying to crush us, maybe we should push back?" And then we hear the complaints "how undignified, you are fighting back, people would think you are the same! They will reject you for stooping so low as to fight back! You should just roll over and take it, then you'd have all our sympathies - everybody loves losers!"
Oh, I know. I was deliberately stating it in a way to show the absurdity. My impression of progressives is that if you asked them what the median person believes on X, Y, and Z issues, they would describe a progressive. They think their belief system is so normal that they see themselves less as attempting to move the needle and more trying to keep the needle from moving away from them. Or at least they think that the culture is aligned with them and they only need to get the government to recognize it. That doesn't mean it's true. It's just an observation about many members of a group that I believe I'm seeing.
From there I am saying that there's a sort of discrepancy - the right frames the last 20 years as if the left sat in a war room and planned out a list of slow, coordinated encroachments meant to erode the status of any right-leaning beliefs. The left acts as if they were going about their normal daily routine, dealing with the occasional asshole as one does, and then the assholes came back with a mob.
My model is that the left is an uncoordinated mob that isn't even really paying attention to all those other encroachments because journalism, left or right, mostly focuses on whatever bad thing the other side did. Everyone has a point where they will try to completely shun someone else. Finding out that someone supports pedophilia is an easy example. The progressive left has calibrated their "cut all contact with someone" threshold to be extremely low.
That's one way to frame it.
The left and the right have fought for public support since the beginning of democracy. I might disagree with the rules of war the left plays by, but the right, collectively speaking, were not passive bystanders minding their own business either. "We didn't start the fire" after all. The problem is, in real life there are laws that allow anyone to use the public square. When it comes to both businesses and the internet, every part of it belongs to somebody, and with that comes the ability to remove someone for any reason. They're nowhere near as culturally dominant, but there are certainly places that ban left-leaning opinions. If you'd like to change that, well that's certainly an opinion but it's one at odds with the libertarian beliefs many on this forum claim to possess.
Let me ask you this - how can an outside observer tell the difference between someone "pushed to their limit" and someone who never had principles in the first place? Surely the left would tell a similar story about how they were all for free expression until the mean old right wouldn't leave them alone. I'm obviously biased, but many on the right seem positively giddy about all the things they want to accomplish. And they only clues I have on what they would consider "too far" are the things they've already done and now tell me are completely reasonable.
Oh no, "encroachments" stage was decades before. The last 20 years was "the walls are breached, time to burn and pillage!" stage. Unlike many preceding stages of the campaign, this one doesn't really require careful coordination - just letting your foot soldiers do their worst works fine. Does each foot soldier realize they what they are collectively doing? Maybe yes, maybe no, but it doesn't matter because it is happening anyway.
Like what? Let's take the inventory. The mass culture is about 90%, it's not that right-coded entertainment doesn't come out, but it comes out maybe once a year or less, and is always a huge controversy. Woke is the default and considered normal setting. The academia is thoroughly cleansed - lone celebrity professors that can't be cancelled are profoundly isolated and kept around to demonstrate "here, we have all kinds!" but on non-genius level, if you're not woke or at least pretend to be, you don't have a chance. Teaching the teachers? Thoroughly woke. Teaching the lawyers? Mostly woke too. I'm not talking about history, sociology and pol-sci - there's probably no right-wing professor left there in the nation, and the "moderates" there see Sanders as a dangerous right-winger. The press is absolutely woke on the "official" side of it - even the dreaded Fox News is at best "center-left company which tolerates some of the right hosts" (for a time). Of course, there are independent bloggers and radio, but as far as institutional press goes, it's very heavily left leaning. I'm not talking about such powerful institutions as government bureaucracy or the unions - their leftist sympathies are predictable and expected. Other cultural institutions? I can't go to a museum now without encountering at least several woke exhibit - and sometimes the whole exposition is subsumed by the woke and it's no longer about art but about social justice or climate change or some other woke cause like that.
What we have left - big business? More and more major companies come out as woke, and very rarely the reverse - that is mostly small to mid-size independent businesses. Banks are glad to debank right-wing figures - but did any of them debank prominent leftists? Not that I heard of. Billionaires tend to the woke side (understandably, they can buy power there) - for one Musk, there's three Cubans, Soroses, Simonses and so on. The army now has pride parades and features soldiers in furry costumes. I'm pretty sure the officers who authorized that are not inclined to listen to any contrary opinions.
Now, which prominent places ban leftist opinions? Internet forums? Local gun enthusiast meetups? Which cultural institute, comparable to what I described above, is excluding the left-leaning opinions to a measure comparable to exclusion and persecution of the right-wing ones? If we can't find any, or can't find a list as comprehensive and powerful, then demanding the right stops fighting back - without any history of prior consistent and prolonged demand to do the same from the left, at least - can not be read as anything but telling the right "why can't you just lose quietly so we all can stop this unpleasantness?". It is not hard to see why the right wouldn't look favorably on such approach.
And that's true. They were, when the right had institutional power and tried to shut down all kinds of leftist speech. And lost (mostly). The famous "fire in crowded theater" maxim was pronounced specifically against the leftist anti-war speech, and was overturned as a grave mistake later (99% of leftists aren't aware of either of these facts). Now, when the leftists have the power, they have no need in free speech anymore, and it's the right's turn to fight for it. But that turnaround wasn't caused by the right going "too far" - on the contrary, it was caused by the left seizing the institutional power and no longer needing the feeble "free speech" soapbox when they can use the powerful platforms provided by the institutions they captured.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you familiar with Zunger's Tolerance is not a moral precept, or Ozy's Conservatives As Moral Mutants, written in January 2017 and June 2018, respectively? I'm not sure how far they spread in the Blue intelligentsia, but I can say that they seem to me to have provided great predictive and explanatory accuracy in the following years.
I think this is a likely-accurate prediction of how the logic plays out, but it still, at this late date, seems necessary to point out that the left has in fact been very actively using the government to try and control culture, to a degree that even Trump has not yet approached. Reds have not yet tried to exclude Blues from the finance and banking systems, nor leaned on the social media industry to implement broad-spectrum censorship and de-platforming of their opponents' political speech, to name two examples. Organized gangs of Reds are not marching in the streets beating people who disagree with them, while the police are ordered to look the other 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
You could, but this would be a bad argument and fundamentally very different from the one I laid out. This is just an attempt at equivocating between very obviously different things. Believing in miracles indicates shoddy epistemology, but it doesn't explicitly commit oneself to rejecting the very idea of objective reality or logic. People can be shoddy in their reasoning, shoddy in their observations, etc. Academics can be and often are, because they're humans like anyone else. We should hold them to high standards, but not inhumanly high standards. Never making an epistemological error, especially when it comes to things in religious life that can be compartmentalized away from academics and profession, is an inhumanly high bar. Never signing off on a document that supports an ideology that explicitly rejects the very basis of one's professional academic endeavors isn't an inhumanly high bar.
I do guess that religious people likely, on average, make for less effective STEM academics, but I think empirical evidence indicates that whatever handicap they have isn't that severe, considering the achievements made by religious scientists and engineers. If we had enough qualified atheists on-hand to fully substitute current religious STEM academics with them, it could be worth the transaction cost, though I think the effects of introducing a religious test would generally be severely negative.
However, if an evolutionary biologist or astronomer or geophysicist loudly and proudly signed on to Young Earth Creationism, then that would be more analogous to this situation (though not quite, since YECs haven't practically taken over academia like this ideology has, and YEC is merely one "theory" (lol) about reality, rather than an entire epistemology of how we understand reality itself). The core beliefs of YEC is just fundamentally incompatible with our academic understanding of these fields in a way that does raise reasonable questions about qualification to do the job, in a way that merely "being religious" doesn't. Even then, one can reasonably argue that someone's ideological commitments to YEC should be excluded from consideration of their work as an evolutionary biologist, because of their ability to perform [task] that isn't hindered by YEC. But that's a different argument than saying that this is just as much "cancel culture" as firing someone for "being religious" or whatever.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link