Some view the New York Times as a sketchy resource, too often providing real estate on its op-ed pages for those who hold outlier, unfounded, factless views in support of social justice goals. Some, but not all.
Why is it that whenever the NYT starts “recruiting different kinds of writers than we have traditionally” they’re always white and racist and kind of mean? They’ve never been well stocked with writers of color who are kindly intelligent—why not diversify with some of those? pic.twitter.com/FUUFHSfwOX
— Steven Thrasher (@thrasherxy) February 27, 2018
It’s unclear, at least to me, what this means. Is the argument that Thomas Sowell should be a columnist? He’s black and intelligent. He can’t be racist, by some definitions. Maybe he’s not “kind” enough?
But one reaction, which Cathy Young pointed out was the juxtaposition to the unhinged Trumpers, because nobody owns crazy, took things straight to the bottom.
That someone finds the Times too conservative isn’t a problem. For some it is. For others, it’s not. But to say it’s “trending Nazi”? It was bad enough when we went through the “punch a Nazi” phase, followed up by the tiki-torch Naxos march in Charlottesville. Did we not get the violation of Godwin’s law out of our system?
Obviously not.
This isn’t the first time that students at Portland State sought to silence speakers that others wanted to hear, Dave Rubin, Christina Hoff Sommers and Peter Boghossian. There too, was discussion of Nazis and civil society.
On the bright side, most of the people in attendance of the events listened and, whether they agreed or not, chose not to take actions to prevent speech and ideas with which they disagreed from being heard. On the dark side, not everyone present did so.
That there are, perhaps will always be, people who disagree with any idea isn’t surprising or inherently bad. Ideas should be challenged. But the notion that calling those with whom you disagree, and justifying your actions by wrapping your own beliefs in “civil society” raises many of the troubling questions that has made discourse impossible for those who keep professing that they want, and we need, a conversation, a discussion, about whatever issue is most pressing at the moment.
Years ago, when SJ was just a baby blog, I wrote into my rules for comments that “References to Nazis/Hitler will not be tolerated.” It’s still there, but it’s now merely ironic. The original impetus had nothing to do with social justice or Trump, but those commenters talking about police abuse. These were the words used to describe cops, and they were invariably unhelpful and unilluminating. Ah, the good old days.
Now, the leaden weight of social justice rhetoric has squashed their meaning. Now, someone would twit that the New York Times is “trending Nazi.” That’s how far discourse has fallen.
But discourse in a “civil society” has become the rationalization for invoking Nazis? The employment of “civility” as the weapon of tone police has long been used to avoid addressing substantive challenges. That’s nothing new. Of course, the people who raised it anointed themselves the arbiter of civility.
It was a facile weapon that won no battle, but ended any discussion. Let’s talk, but using only the words and ideas of which the other side approved, which the other side allowed. Your words? Your ideas? They were uncivil, and therefore you were unworthy of their engagement. But let’s have a discussion.
It’s not that they won the argument. They convinced no one of anything who didn’t already agree with them. And, in reality, the conversation had no hope of achieving anything anyway, as there was no interest in discussion, but only in hegemony. Let’s have a discussion where you ultimately confess the error of your ways, repent, and serve the cause. Some might question whether that’s a discussion, and yet the word keeps being used.
Most of us would prefer a civil society, one where we can talk and disagree. But can there be a civil conversation where one side refuses to engage based upon reality, and instead insists that the only terms of engagement are acceptance of their words and ideas as being the only ones possible? Of course not. But if your visceral reaction to words and ideas that fail to match your own is to scream racist, misogynist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe or, of course, the now ubiquitous “Nazi,” it won’t work.
Let’s have a civil society, in the sense that we can discuss the issues that are pressing like big boys and girls, and whatever else you consider your gender. But then, you don’t get to decide what others can say, can think, can believe. And we really need to stop calling those who fail to meet your ideal of woke Nazis.
If you used that word in 2007, your were a flaming nutjob. You still are today. Stop it.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So… Harsh. I feel triggered.
As well you should. Now you’re entitled to a free Starbucks coffee, provided you pay for it.
SHG,
As evidenced by this post and the earlier post today about student Dunn’s passion for the personal pronoun “they,” you seem to think that words have meanings. Poor dear.
All the best.
RGK
PS. As an aside, I propose that we adopt one and only one personal pronoun; that is, “it.” Like the proliferation of passwords, my aging brain can’t remember all the others. There would thus be no need for a “pronoun keeper.” Think of the old people.
I think you may be onto something, Judge, but the cool kids add one of the lesser-used letters to the front of their make-believe words. Why not meld things and agree on the word zit? The letter “z” rarely gets its due, and feels erased.
Comrade Admiral, I am pleased to see you refuse to be complicit in the discursive erasure of “z.” The historical linguistic violence inflicted upon this poor unprivileged letter, not just reflected in its position in the alphabet, but also in frequency of usage is criminal and reparations must be made. I blame white men. Because reasons.
Ugh thought of this too late… but #zeetoo
Zed’s dead, Baby, Zed’s dead.
I think the acolytes of progressivism place absolutely magical power in words (a practice once considered “primitive”). This is why they can’t abide the evil of someone saying that men and women are physiologically different in any respect. It doesn’t fit the magic of the words “men” and “women,” by which magic, “men” and “women” are “men” or “women” if they say they are, irrespective of physiology. The acolytes who understand the magic of these (and other) words can’t be expected to have a “civil discourse” with the heretics who insist on using words inconsistently with their magic. It’s actually impossible, because the magical meaning of “civil discourse” is a conversation in which everybody accepts the acolytes’ magical meanings of words. This insures that, inside the heads of the acolytes, the magic will always remain, circular and unassailable by the brainwashed heretics and their logic. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future as the acolytes attempt to function in society (if they ever do).
Friendship is magic.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Trying desperately to find some humor in your comment, because if I don’t, you’re banned.
SHG,
Brilliant!
All the best.
RGK
As in “It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again?” Who knew Buffalo Bill was so progressive?
Today’s, umm, “Nazis” annoy the hell out of me, but they all seem to be about as competent as Colonel Klink.
Klink was Lutwaffe. Klink hated when those other guys came to visit.
How Dare You !!
You Col. Klink Sympathizer !!
He didn’t use the proper pronouns either!!!
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen a comment by Sgt. Schultz. It’s not as if he’s shy, where is he when his expertise could prove most valuable?
Nah. He knows nothing. Nothing.
Well played. I know you don’t like tummy rubs, but well played. I giggled.
The denying of biology to me is absolutely crazy. One would only have to look into society and see men are bigger, stronger, and faster. FACT: there are no female linebackers in the NFL. It’s not because Roger Goedell is conspiring to prevent them from playing.
The standard for being a Nazi is very low nowadays. Even lower than tiki torches and khakis.
The suggestion by Bennet that he “lost the capacity to gauge the opprobrium” assumes that at some point he had it. This assumption is historically unfounded.
Dude !! I was gonna type something really profound .. but my bodily functions intervened.. I sneezed/farted/burped at the same time…….. it took me a minute or 30 to regain consciousness, but after I got the blood out of my ears, i was fine… except for the double-vision..
but can’t for the life of me remember what I was gonna say.. so yeah those guys suck..
I’m gonna go fall down now..
So you’re a triple threat? Good to know.
I’m having trouble with using the word “it” for everybody, whether singular or plural. There is always the potential for confusion due to the lack of specificity and precision when using only “it”.
I propose that we use “it” for singular and “shit” for plural. Of course, the FCC may have problems and have to revise their list of appropriate words. Also, when many people have the same ideas and gather together, every group think activity seems to succumb to mob rule which turns to shit anyway.
You don’t like zit?
Zit is problematic and should only refer to one specific individual that I know of, and that is Morticia and Gomez Adams cousin, zho has gender identity problems of zit’s own. Also, what would the pre-awoke use then to refer to their earlier hormonal facial blemishes. I fear the “reawakening” of this memory would cause societal problems which are unforeseen.
All this use of “it” is triggering me on creepy spider clowns in the sewers.
You can always use “that one” for singular and “those” for plural.
Natzis is Siztan spleeded backwards. So what’s a Siztan? Beats me. Only the Nose knows; perhaps some federal judge in the Western District with a *smartphone*. Did you ever wonder why people on their smartphones are so dumb? Well,… I do. Some of em can’t chew gum and walk straight. It’s truly amazing, to quote our Fearless Leader in Washingon. Oops, I meant Bella Largo, FloorIda, where it never snows. They got a lot of *hot air* down their which commutes back and forth to D.C. Melania is no Jackie Kennedy, but she will come out a Winner, no doubt ’bout it. No Siree.
The progressive arguments are logically consistent. We strive to limit violence in a civil society whenever possible. They contend that the words the “other side” uses are hurtful, harmful, violent. Therefore, those words don’t have any place in a civil society. Their argument would be that there can be no discussion because the other side’s speech is the equivalent of rioting.
But it’s not actually the words that are the problem, that’s just a smoke screen. It always has been the meaning behind them. Christina Hoff Summers doesn’t use “violent words”, but she is a Nazi. Charles Murray’s book doesn’t use “violent words”, but his ideas are “violent”.
What do you say to progressives then? Their arguments are consistent, they want to end violence. Just telling them they’re wrong(about words and ideas being violent) doesn’t convince them – it’s not any better than their assertions that the evil Nazis are wrong. How do you contend with people who think your ideas, and sometimes your very existence, are harmful to them?