It's the only way it works; you have to stand up for anyone's right to say anything. But you don't have to associate with them, and in most private arena's, you have the right to exclude them.
Thanks for this, Christine! I saw someone say that it’s good for people to log off more, but that our leaders need to, too! Probably even more…. They’ve always been susceptible to the echo chamber phenomenon at the best of times. Now they’re up against algorithms and the attention economy. Even the responses to Kirk’s assassination sometimes have the unpleasant feel of clout-chasing...
I think there is hope on the horizon. If we examine Mamdani's campaign in New York, this definitely provides us with a template of what a more unified form of politics can offer. I also think that if we take a step back and look at historic precedents, things could be a lot worse. The American South and Midwest, even up until the late 1960s, were fundamentally less tolerant, more violent, and more destructive places than they are today. I think we have a tendency to forget just how bad things were.
There are crises of loneliness, terminally online brain-rot, and reactionary, dangerous politics. But we have been here before. The fear of brain rot is often repeated, first with the growth of the modern novel in the 19th century. We are already seeing schools banning phones and placing limits on social media. AI is already facing disastrous financial and economic consequences, which I believe will halt its progress as a drastic force for societal change.
Counter-cultures are already beginning to emerge, such as the banning of phones in pubs and other social settings. Indeed, the very fact that yours and many other articles are sounding the alarm highlights the moral panic is being sounded and something will be done. I have faith we can change.
Excellent column. I do have some suggestions. Not for online-induced lack of meaning, which is too hard for me. But otherwise: full-employment policy, universal single-payer health care, free public higher education, sharply progressive taxation,ending the NLRB's sabotage of labor unions, increased minimum wage, extended unemployment benefits, strict regulation of credit card companies and payday lenders -- all the things that would really help MAGA folk and lower the temperature of the country but which the plutocratic Republican Party has always and will always bitterly oppose.
No, I'm sorry, canceling people for celebrating an out-and-out political assassination is not in any way or shape similar to the left's ideological purges in 2020 for such things as (1) correctly pronouncing a chinese filler word in a chinese language class, because it happened to be homophonic with the "n" word [Prof. Greg Patton], (2) asking why black people, qua black, should be given special treatment on academic exams [Prof. Gordon Klein], (3) liking Donald Trump's tweets [Therese Nielsen], (4) saying that rioting was counterproductive to Democrat's electoral chances [David Shor], (5) showing the 1965 "Othello" film, which included blackface, as part of a film class [Prof. Bright Shang], or (6) having a father who said the N-word once in 1984, seven years before you were born (Conor Daly).
I think you are straw-manning the examples, but the point that historically the left was cancelling for speech "rules" that were far less offensive than the celebration is true. Nonetheless, if you do not support free speech for views you hold abhorrent, then you are simply picking and choosing which speech is allowed. Let's not go down that road, please.
I agree that some of what is happening here is excessive - there's one particular case highlighted in The Free Press where a man lost his job managing a restaurant over something his soon-to-be-ex-wife said on a social media posting. That's clearly just as bad as anything that happened in 2020 and I don't support it. However, I can't join you on the maximalist position.
I just can't find it in myself to condemn people getting pissed at individuals actively cheering on the assassination of a man whose entire life was dedicated to the principle of free and respectful discussion with his opponents, or stating that people with mainstream political views deserve death. I can't but believe that tolerating that sort of thing is far more corrosive to a culture of free speech than any "cancellation" campaign.
At the end of the day, your cancellation knife cuts both ways.
You should be pissed because people dictating what can and cannot be said are un-American. Free Speech is essential and it's the reason Charlie was killed. Karmic excuses by the left are appalling. But punishing that speech is just as bad. We're going to go blind if we don't stop .
1) Get off the internet.
2) Become a free speech absolutist. Foremost by having grace for the stupid things people say.
3) Figure out what it means for you to be an American and vote for it.
4 & on) Take a walk, go to religious services, and pray. Oh, and eat dinner with people in your community.
I’m still torn on speech absolutism… But the idea of having grace for the stupid things people say — yes, absolutely.
It's the only way it works; you have to stand up for anyone's right to say anything. But you don't have to associate with them, and in most private arena's, you have the right to exclude them.
Thanks for this, Christine! I saw someone say that it’s good for people to log off more, but that our leaders need to, too! Probably even more…. They’ve always been susceptible to the echo chamber phenomenon at the best of times. Now they’re up against algorithms and the attention economy. Even the responses to Kirk’s assassination sometimes have the unpleasant feel of clout-chasing...
Your last line… so true!
I think there is hope on the horizon. If we examine Mamdani's campaign in New York, this definitely provides us with a template of what a more unified form of politics can offer. I also think that if we take a step back and look at historic precedents, things could be a lot worse. The American South and Midwest, even up until the late 1960s, were fundamentally less tolerant, more violent, and more destructive places than they are today. I think we have a tendency to forget just how bad things were.
There are crises of loneliness, terminally online brain-rot, and reactionary, dangerous politics. But we have been here before. The fear of brain rot is often repeated, first with the growth of the modern novel in the 19th century. We are already seeing schools banning phones and placing limits on social media. AI is already facing disastrous financial and economic consequences, which I believe will halt its progress as a drastic force for societal change.
Counter-cultures are already beginning to emerge, such as the banning of phones in pubs and other social settings. Indeed, the very fact that yours and many other articles are sounding the alarm highlights the moral panic is being sounded and something will be done. I have faith we can change.
Excellent column. I do have some suggestions. Not for online-induced lack of meaning, which is too hard for me. But otherwise: full-employment policy, universal single-payer health care, free public higher education, sharply progressive taxation,ending the NLRB's sabotage of labor unions, increased minimum wage, extended unemployment benefits, strict regulation of credit card companies and payday lenders -- all the things that would really help MAGA folk and lower the temperature of the country but which the plutocratic Republican Party has always and will always bitterly oppose.
No, I'm sorry, canceling people for celebrating an out-and-out political assassination is not in any way or shape similar to the left's ideological purges in 2020 for such things as (1) correctly pronouncing a chinese filler word in a chinese language class, because it happened to be homophonic with the "n" word [Prof. Greg Patton], (2) asking why black people, qua black, should be given special treatment on academic exams [Prof. Gordon Klein], (3) liking Donald Trump's tweets [Therese Nielsen], (4) saying that rioting was counterproductive to Democrat's electoral chances [David Shor], (5) showing the 1965 "Othello" film, which included blackface, as part of a film class [Prof. Bright Shang], or (6) having a father who said the N-word once in 1984, seven years before you were born (Conor Daly).
I think you are straw-manning the examples, but the point that historically the left was cancelling for speech "rules" that were far less offensive than the celebration is true. Nonetheless, if you do not support free speech for views you hold abhorrent, then you are simply picking and choosing which speech is allowed. Let's not go down that road, please.
I agree that some of what is happening here is excessive - there's one particular case highlighted in The Free Press where a man lost his job managing a restaurant over something his soon-to-be-ex-wife said on a social media posting. That's clearly just as bad as anything that happened in 2020 and I don't support it. However, I can't join you on the maximalist position.
I just can't find it in myself to condemn people getting pissed at individuals actively cheering on the assassination of a man whose entire life was dedicated to the principle of free and respectful discussion with his opponents, or stating that people with mainstream political views deserve death. I can't but believe that tolerating that sort of thing is far more corrosive to a culture of free speech than any "cancellation" campaign.
At the end of the day, your cancellation knife cuts both ways.
You should be pissed because people dictating what can and cannot be said are un-American. Free Speech is essential and it's the reason Charlie was killed. Karmic excuses by the left are appalling. But punishing that speech is just as bad. We're going to go blind if we don't stop .