Progressive Ideology

[Farfromgeneva]

The Gaza war could help set speech free again

Campus protesters for Palestine are lowering the bar for “hate speech”

Nov 2nd 2023
Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

It’s always seemed a bit self-sabotaging: The leftist ideology rippling out from American college campuses this century has on the one hand favoured restricting speech, yet on the other posited that the implacable forces of capitalism and white privilege entrench right-wing power. Whose speech did these ideologues imagine would wind up getting suppressed?

Read all our coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas

This tension has not surfaced often on college campuses, at least not at the most exclusive schools. There, the forces of capitalism and white privilege—if not of tolerance and curiosity—were mostly routed. A dwindling minority of faculty members, as few as a tenth, identify as conservative. Administrators, whose ranks have ballooned and who oversee the “bias-response teams” that police speech, are even more likely to identify with the left.

Yet off campus, the forces of reaction began responding with strikingly symmetrical concerns about speech: conservative governors and legislatures across America have embraced the theory that certain ideas are too dangerous for all minds and certain views are too hurtful for particular ears. Bills proposed in states such as Texas seek to protect children from material that might cause “discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex”. But rather than aiming to safeguard the feelings of people from historically marginalised groups, such bills are meant to protect white children from the very ideas the left wants to promulgate.

Now a hard yet potentially constructive moment in America’s battle over speech has arrived. On prestigious campuses, the war in Gaza has shaken the prevailing power relationships, for the moment. Students attacking Israel for its response to the terrorism of Hamas have come under withering criticism, and worse: some have seen job offers rescinded or had their names and photos flashed on billboards paraded by trucks around their campuses.

Some right-leaning advocates of free speech are relishing the spectacle. For years, leading lights of the left insisted there was no such thing as a glibly censorious “cancel culture”. They liked to speak instead of an “accountability culture”, or a “culture of consequence” that justly punished offensive speakers. Now, as the cancellers wring their hands about being cancelled, Schadenfreude hangs heavy in the air.

Rather than try to punish or silence students, a wiser choice would be to pocket the permissive standard they are setting, for when the bias response team next comes knocking. A recent Harvard/Harris poll showed 51% of Americans between 18 and 24 believed Hamas’s rampage could be “justified” by Palestinians’ grievances. Still, some may not realise, when they chant for a Palestine “from the river to the sea”, that they are advocating ethnic cleansing. But that is the message received by many Jews and others, and an argument of leftists uneasy with debate has been that the impact on the listener, rather than the intent of the speaker, should guide judgment of offensiveness. By that measure alone, it should be harder now for those sympathetic to pro-Palestine students to argue that any “hate speech” is off limits. University presidents are in effect embracing this standard by defending the right of these protesters to speak up. (They seem unlikely to advance the foul position that Jews are “white” and thus un-offendable.)

Some presidents are in trouble over their own speech. Donors to Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania have closed their chequebooks because they thought the presidents temporised on antisemitism. Again, this could prove constructive: after years of taking positions on matters of moment—positions that happily aligned with those of staff and students—leaders may acquire an appreciation for promoting debate rather than prejudging it.

“My hope is that the rediscovery of freedom of speech, and the discovery of political neutrality or political restraint—not commenting on every event of the day—will be something schools adopt, and they’ll stick with it,” says Greg Lukianoff, co-author of a new book, “The Cancelling of the American Mind”. “My fear is that this will be just like 9/11.” Mr Lukianoff, who is president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a non-profit organisation, says that after the attacks by al-Qaeda universities rallied around professors vilified for criticising America. “When the threat is perceived as coming from off campus, they always rediscover freedom of speech and circle the wagons,” he says. “The test is going to be if they still feel that way when the threat comes from on campus, when it’s students demanding a professor be fired.”

What Dartmouth can teach

Amid the uproar—because of the uproar—there are signs of hope. Despite some vile acts, protests have generally been peaceful, even when students with opposed positions have gathered near one another. Faculty views have not been homogeneous. Not all speech has taken the form of shouting, and there have even been instances reported of listening. Within hours of the Hamas massacre, professors at Dartmouth from Israel, Lebanon and Egypt decided to jointly host two public forums on the crisis, according to the Forward, a Jewish publication. They expected a dozen or so but drew hundreds; searching questions were asked.

At the second session, Susannah Heschel, a professor of Jewish Studies, observed that scholars learn “never to be satisfied with a simple narrative”. A fellow panellist, Ezzedine Fishere, an Egyptian novelist and former diplomat, then suggested the members of the audience ask themselves, “Are you trying to understand what is happening, or are you trying to find someone to blame?” People had a right to be indignant, he continued, but students also had a chance “to understand the complexity, which is often unpleasant because we come across things that we don’t like”.

“You don’t have to go to an Ivy League university in order to be indignant,” he continued in the same kindly yet firm tone. “The opportunity you have here is to learn.” ■

[kramerica.inc]

Quite applicable to this topic, on a myriad of levels, CS Lewis said:

My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Quite applicable to this topic, on a myriad of levels, CS Lewis said:

My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

I am not a Lewis expert, although I read the Narnia Chronicles to the kids when they were in elementary school. He was a gifted and beautiful writer, and the prose in those books slips through the air like a mild and cooling breeze.

Here, however, I think he is ruminating on the Church's drumbeat of orthodoxy more than on do-gooding tyrants. Leadership has the responsibility to lead, and there is often a fine line between leading and coercion. Lewis is talking about the dehumanizing abuse of power that crosses far past that fine line and is, at least as I see it, more common than it should be in the Church. I guess there is some application of this "tyranny of the do-gooders, and 'it's for your own good" crowd to politics. But it hardly attaches just to progressives; just ask Mike Johnson how I and my daughter should live.

[kramerica.inc]

I think the points are salient to all who think they know what is best for others. Or want to "think" and "do what's best" for others.

Whether we are talking about religion, politics, or just family/regular life.

[Farfromgeneva]

I think the points are salient to all who think they know what is best for others. Or want to "think" and "do what's best" for others.

Whether we are talking about religion, politics, or just family/regular life.

That includes book banning, any trans laws, abortion laws too right?

[kramerica.inc]

I think the points are salient to all who think they know what is best for others. Or want to "think" and "do what's best" for others.

Whether we are talking about religion, politics, or just family/regular life.

That includes book banning, any trans laws, abortion laws too right?

Yup. 100%. Although I'm sure some will have a problem with allowing those unborn babies to live.

[Farfromgeneva]

I think the points are salient to all who think they know what is best for others. Or want to "think" and "do what's best" for others.

Whether we are talking about religion, politics, or just family/regular life.

That includes book banning, any trans laws, abortion laws too right?

Yup. 100%. Although I'm sure some will have a problem with allowing those unborn babies to live.

Just like many will have issues going the other way but at least it’s consistent - regardless of the door cracked open as you did on one specific topic. Because then it’s ok to change the rules?

[kramerica.inc]

It's not a changing of rules.
It's 100% consistent, down to the most basic level.
Live and let live.

What's listed first?

Life.
Liberty.
Pursuit.

[Farfromgeneva]

It's not a changing of rules.
It's 100% consistent, down to the most basic level.
Live and let live.

What's listed first?

Life.
Liberty.
Pursuit.

I’m dying if we open the door-you cant insist others agree and unite baby is a human. That’s a problem which is insolvable. It’s the where does my liberty meet your rights that’s an infinite debate but we know the answer ain’t on either end of the spectrum it’s somewhere along it.

[Brooklyn]

P!nk counters right wing book banning:


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1 ... medium=web


Under Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida has become the center of book-banning in the United States, overtaking Texas, the former leading state in that category. Pop star Pink is using her Florida concert dates to fight that.

Pink teamed up with anti-censorship nonprofit PEN America to distribute thousands of copies of banned-in-Florida books at her shows in Miami and Sunrise this week. The 2,000 books in the giveaway include “The Family Book” by children’s author Todd Parr; “The Hill We Climb” by Amanda Gorman, who became a favorite right-wing target after her poetry reading at the Biden-Harris inauguration; “Beloved” by Toni Morrison; and a book from Girls Who Code. The first three books appear on PEN America’s Index of School Book Bans, while the last was temporarily banned in a Pennsylvania school district.

“Books have held a special joy for me from the time I was a child, and that’s why I am unwilling to stand by and watch while books are banned by schools,” Pink said in a statement. “It’s especially hateful to see authorities take aim at books about race and racism and against LGBTQ authors and those of color. We have made so many strides toward equality in this country and no one should want to see this progress reversed. This is why I am supporting PEN America in its work and why I agree with them: no more banned books.”

Pink promoted the book giveaways—and took on the haters—in a steady stream of tweets:




After critics accused her of sharing a debunked list of banned books, she brought receipts. And on Wednesday night, she signed off with a gleeful note:


It’s really fun when someone who won’t back down or be intimidated offers a reminder of how badly—and why—Republicans are losing the culture wars they’re trying to start.



more at link ...

[NattyBohChamps04]

Rest in Peace Rosalynn Carter. I imagine Jimmy may be following soon after, he may have been holding on just for her.

Married for 77 years. Advocate for mental health before it was popular. The kind of people we could use more of.

[cradleandshoot]

Rest in Peace Rosalynn Carter. I imagine Jimmy may be following soon after, he may have been holding on just for her.

Married for 77 years. Advocate for mental health before it was popular. The kind of people we could use more of.

I couldn't agree with you more. I voted for Jimmy Carter as an 18 year old back in 1976. A good man with integrity who was average at best as POTUS.

[Farfromgeneva]

Can sign in-cha Ching! Love his quotes making it look like anything other than a payday. Just be honest, your 62, have made a lot of money for other people and now you want yours before it’s too late because you’re a kid now has a rapidly increasing time decay to it. They reference his decades of experience then note he was chief of staff at 34 and 63 now with no private sector experience in between…

The worst is Obamas boy, going to uber early last decade-that guy should never be allowed to work in govt again given what a horrible and illegal corporate citizen Uber was. The entire time he was there helping Kalanik get dirtier by the week, effectively enable a ton of horrible behavior. Peter Orzszag running Lazard now and I have friends there who tell me it’s a compete joke-the guy has no real business knowledge or sense of value just a key to doors folks want opened he got from public service. Lest I focus only on Dems I know Eric Cantor is of little practical value to Moelis either except his political connections.

3 hours ago -
Politics & Policy
Scoop: Former Biden official Ron Klain to join Airbnb as chief legal officer

Ron Klain on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" in February. Photo: Gail Schulman/CBS via Getty Images
Airbnb will announce Monday that Ron Klain — former White House chief of staff, and one of Washington's best-connected Democrats — will join the company as chief legal officer on Jan. 1.

Why it matters: It's a surprise twist for the storied career of Klain, who remains a confidant of President Biden, with a big behind-the-scenes voice in his re-election campaign.

The move shows recruiting momentum and continuing innovation for Airbnb, which now has 4 million hosts in nearly every country.
What they're saying: Klain, 62, will report to Airbnb co-founder and CEO Brian Chesky, who says in a forthcoming release: "Ron is both a big-picture strategic thinker and a highly skilled operator, and I'm thrilled he'll be a close advisor."

"People have described Ron as one of the smartest people they've ever met, but more than his intelligence, he's known for his excellent judgment and his big heart," Chesky adds.
Klain says in the release: "I have always believed that travel is such an important part of creating connection and cultural understanding."
What's happening: Klain will leave O'Melveny & Myers, which he rejoined as a litigation partner after leaving the White House earlier this year. Klain tells Axios he wasn't looking to leave the firm, which he loves — he heard about the opening because Airbnb is a client.

"When I spent time with Brian and other senior folks at Airbnb, it was a 'can't say no' moment," he told Axios.
Klain says he'll continue supporting Biden "on my own time and of my own accord," but will no longer do TV appearances for the campaign.
Behind the scenes: Klain tells Axios that when he went to San Francisco to interview with Chesky and others, he stayed in a guest bedroom in Chesky's home that he lists on Airbnb.

"He's a fantastic host," Klain deadpanned.
Zoom in: Klain, an Indiana native who has represented numerous tech businesses in complex litigation, also was chief legal officer at Revolution, the venture capital firm started by AOL founder Steve Case.

A graduate of Georgetown and Harvard Law, he has more than four decades of experience in government and business.
Before becoming White House chief of staff, Klain was chief of staff to then-Vice President Biden. Klain became chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore at just 34 — the youngest chief of staff to a vice president.
Between the lines: Klain's new role is a legal job. Airbnb government relations is under Jay Carney — global head of policy and communications, and a former Klain colleague from the Obama White House.

Go deeper: Airbnb's CEO has a plan to make you love Airbnb again

[Farfromgeneva]

Was looking for the key uber Obama admin guys name and pulled this. I don’t dislike Obama but the myth and the man are wildly different. People are going to find his first admin and circle is going to look like Clinton’s in another ten years. It already is to a large degree.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... er-115166/

[PizzaSnake]

Quite applicable to this topic, on a myriad of levels, CS Lewis said:

My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

Conversion therapy?

[PizzaSnake]

Was looking for the key uber Obama admin guys name and pulled this. I don’t dislike Obama but the myth and the man are wildly different. People are going to find his first admin and circle is going to look like Clinton’s in another ten years. It already is to a large degree.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... er-115166/

Obama and his admin were a sop thrown to the masses in an effort to distract from the shiteshow of two Bushy admins.

Your comparison to Clinton is well taken. Neither Obama or Clinton were Democrats — they were Republican-lite, gussied up with platitudes but basically acting in service of large corporate donors.

[kramerica.inc]

Quite applicable to this topic, on a myriad of levels, CS Lewis said:

My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

Conversion therapy?

Normalization of mental illness?

Along these lines: https://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/normalize.pdf

[jhu72]

Quite applicable to this topic, on a myriad of levels, CS Lewis said:

My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

I am not a Lewis expert, although I read the Narnia Chronicles to the kids when they were in elementary school. He was a gifted and beautiful writer, and the prose in those books slips through the air like a mild and cooling breeze.

Here, however, I think he is ruminating on the Church's drumbeat of orthodoxy more than on do-gooding tyrants. Leadership has the responsibility to lead, and there is often a fine line between leading and coercion. Lewis is talking about the dehumanizing abuse of power that crosses far past that fine line and is, at least as I see it, more common than it should be in the Church. I guess there is some application of this "tyranny of the do-gooders, and 'it's for your own good" crowd to politics. But it hardly attaches just to progressives; just ask Mike Johnson how I and my daughter should live.

... really sorry I missed this discussion when being held. I have read a good bit of Lewis. My introduction to him was in high school. I read his Perelandra Trilogy between my junior and senior years. I ended up reading the Narnia series during winter-mester of my sophomore year. All this was self directed reading based on interest, not school assignments.

I agree with your take on Lewis' meaning. There was nothing left or right that I saw in his fictional writing, apart from his obvious anti-fascist feelings. Frankly he seemed more Sartre like in his "hell is other people" approach. Lewis most definitely came across as very much opposed to the Church's formal and informal authoritarianism.

[cradleandshoot]

I had no idea where to post this. Since it is something I believe many progressive folks would support this seems to be the correct thread.

In a profound gesture of righteous indignation pumpkin soup was hurled on the protected picture of the Mona Lisa. To what end nobody knows. Supposedly it was a gesture to highlight the issue of farmers and hungry people. I suppose some hungry person would have appreciated that soup. Wasting good food to make an idiotic and useless gesture...you go girls. Fortunately when it was all said and done the Mona Lisa was still smiling.

[jhu72]

Unions making a big comeback. This story is likely to have a significant effect on the 2024 election in favor of the democrats.