The American left has been drifting into authoritarianism

[Unseen]

@Autumn

I’m not the one who invoked the concept (if one can call it that) of “objective facts.” There are no facts when it comes to Covid-19, just data. Data is as factual as the methods that produce it, and all they can do is produce tentative data from one moment in time. And a parallel way of deriving data isn’t necessarily 100% congruent with other data sets.

“They measure different things, so that’s an objective fact.” Everything measures what it measures and nothing else. What the measurement is is a fact. What it means is not a fact. How to use/apply it is opinion, not fact.

“No one has perfect answers and that’s seldom been the case. But it’s not like we have no means of navigating between what is more reliable or less reliable; more likely to be accurate or less likely to be accurate (etc.). We are not adrift in an inormation void.” And so the notion of “objective facts” goes out the window and the need to respect a diversity of opinions is evident. This means letting them be heard, unless they are “Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs.” Advocating for drinking Lysol is crazy. Advocating for Ivermectin is not.

“Sin” “leftist media” blah blah blah. Joe Rogan has had a lot of PR problems for a lot of reasons and this extends back before Covid. I don’t know if, let’s say in 2018, people were frequently calling him alt-right, but certainly articles were written about him for his relationship to the alt-right, and his promotion of certain ideas and speakers popular in the so-called ‘alt-right’. Whether that is fair or not, that’s the legacy that has been building up around him for years. So no, let’s not indulge this hyperbolic bullshit that he was suddenly “branded a right-wing kook” for the “sin” of advocating for and ingesting Ivermectin.”

People hear that he had right-wingers like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro as well as outright loony-tunes like Alex on and then call Joe a right-winger, ignoring the many decidedly not right wing guests he’s had on. Bernie Sanders and Abby Martin (both unapologetic socialists), Edward Snowden, Tulsi Gabbard, and Russell Brand for Chrissakes! And those are just some of the better-known leftists!

He’s a talk show host and his income and ratings depend on getting controversial guests. And as for his use of the N-word in the past. I’ve listened to every one and nowhere does he use the term as an epithet. He’s a standup comedian, too, and comedy and mental filters are a lethal mix that doesn’t help the comedy. As a soldier, a fighter, a comedian, he’s always been around and chummy with black folks, and like a lot of white folks in that situation who use their black friends’use of the N-word, he probably thought this gave him a right to use it as well. Now he knows otherwise and has publicly apologized. It was a full apology, not one of your heavily scripted nonapology apologies where the apologist apologizes while excusing himself at the same time.

Joe (according to many on the left a right-winger), giving Bernie Sanders a platform during the runup to the 2020 Democratic Convention:

https://tinyurl.com/2s37z67a

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Unseen.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Unseen.

[Unseen]

I’m not the one who invoked the concept (if one can call it that) of “objective facts.” There are no facts when it comes to Covid-19, just data. Data is as factual as the methods that produce it, and all they can do is produce tentative data from one moment in time. And a parallel way of deriving data isn’t necessarily 100% congruent with other data sets.

“They measure different things, so that’s an objective fact.” Everything measures what it measures and nothing else. What the measurement is is a fact. What it means is not a fact. How to use/apply it is opinion, not fact.

“No one has perfect answers and that’s seldom been the case. But it’s not like we have no means of navigating between what is more reliable or less reliable; more likely to be accurate or less likely to be accurate (etc.). We are not adrift in an inormation void.” And so the notion of “objective facts” goes out the window and the need to respect a diversity of opinions is evident. This means letting them be heard, unless they are “Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs.” Advocating for drinking Lysol is crazy. Advocating for Ivermectin is not.

“Sin” “leftist media” blah blah blah. Joe Rogan has had a lot of PR problems for a lot of reasons and this extends back before Covid. I don’t know if, let’s say in 2018, people were frequently calling him alt-right, but certainly articles were written about him for his relationship to the alt-right, and his promotion of certain ideas and speakers popular in the so-called ‘alt-right’. Whether that is fair or not, that’s the legacy that has been building up around him for years. So no, let’s not indulge this hyperbolic bullshit that he was suddenly “branded a right-wing kook” for the “sin” of advocating for and ingesting Ivermectin.”

People hear that he had right-wingers like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro as well as outright loony-tunes like Alex on and then call Joe a right-winger, ignoring the many decidedly not right wing guests he’s had on. Bernie Sanders and Abby Martin (both unapologetic socialists), Edward Snowden, Tulsi Gabbard, and Russell Brand for Chrissakes! And those are just some of the better-known leftists!

He’s a talk show host and his income and ratings depend on getting controversial guests. And as for his use of the N-word in the past. I’ve listened to every one and nowhere does he use the term as an epithet. He’s a standup comedian, too, and comedy and mental filters are a lethal mix that doesn’t help the comedy. As a soldier, a fighter, a comedian, he’s always been around and chummy with black folks, and like a lot of white folks in that situation who use their black friends’use of the N-word, he probably thought this gave him a right to use it as well. Now he knows otherwise and has publicly apologized. It was a full apology, not one of your heavily scripted nonapology apologies where the apologist apologizes while excusing himself at the same time.

Joe (according to many on the left a right-winger), giving Bernie Sanders a platform during the runup to the 2020 Democratic Convention:

[—]

Unseen wrote:

@autumn I’m not the one who invoked the concept (if one can call it that) of “objective facts.”

No, but you are the one who tried to pair some half-assed implication of subjectivity with facts, thus the clarification.

There are no facts when it comes to Covid-19, just data. Data is as factual as the methods that produce it, and all they can do is produce tentative data from one moment in time.

data | ˈdeɪtə | noun [mass noun]

1 quantities or characters operated on by a computer 2 (treated as sing.) a body or series of facts; information 3 (treated as pl.) facts, statistics

Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Second Edition

Now, if you’d like to suggest that the data surrounding covid is bad, or incorrect/ fraudulent, or presented improperly, by all means. But if you just want to not use words to mean what they mean, I’m not that interested unless you can provide coherent definitions. At this point, however, it would do no good where I’m concerned. You seem intent to go down some inane, quasi-solipsistic/ nihilistic rabbit hole. I wish you well on your travels, but that sounds tedious to me.

[Unseen]

@Autumn

At least all freethinkers should be able to agree that spreading the idea that perhaps we ought to consider ivermectin as a Covid treatment is just a opinion—and not perhaps a popular or well considered one—and not, as it’s been characterized by both the corporate Democrats and the radical left (e.g., the so-called “Squad”) a “dangerous lie.”

Can we agree on that?

[Unseen]

Autumn wrote:

Now, if you’d like to suggest that the data surrounding covid is bad, or incorrect/ fraudulent, or presented improperly, by all means. But if you just want to not use words to mean what they mean, I’m not that interested unless you can provide coherent definitions. At this point, however, it would do no good where I’m concerned. You seem intent to go down some inane, quasi-solipsistic/ nihilistic rabbit hole. I wish you well on your travels, but that sounds tedious to me.

I’m the sort of opponent who tends to ignore obliquely-expressed ad hominems like “inane, quasi-solipsistic/ nihilistic” because that isn’t really arguing a point. A “fact” is easy to define and is traditionally defined as “that which is the case.” What one does with a fact is also a fact. What one ought to do with a fact is not a fact, it is someone’s opinion.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Unseen.

[Unseen]

a) What with the oblique ad hominems and with both of us lapsing into what one of my best philo profs called “attempted proof by repetition,” and b) what with beginning to feel psychologically enmeshed, and c) because when two people go at each other like two cats fighting over territory it’s an implicit invitation for others to stand aside…I’m done. If @Autumn wants a parting slap, go for it.

So, here’s the invitation for others to join in with their contributions.

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen and Fellow Unbelievers,

A quote for just such occasions:

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

Hi, Neighbor! If you need a cup of sugar or saltpeter, just give a ring during waking hours…just stay off my lawn! 😁

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by TheEncogitationer. Reason: Addendum for curmudgeon-liness

[Davis]

The reason to host a speaker outside the context of a course has to be because they are of interest to the audience. That the speaker’s views are not of interest to the organizers should be irrelevant. That the speaker is being banned because the hosts disagree with them is among the worst reasons not to provide a forum for them. Particularly troubling is where a speaker is scheduled but some faction among the student body doesn’t want people to hear them.

That isn’t what Autumn was saying. One needs to draw the line somewhere and I fail to see where there is value in allowing someone who is knowledgeable in one topic yet is invited to speak on one they know little of and are likely to spout nonsense. It is no different than Deepak Chopra trying to speak with some authority while spouting nonsense about “quantum love”. There are many places for that including talk radio and reddit. I am not a fan of banning people unless their narratives incite illegal activity or are harmful to vulnerable groups. Having said that, I do not think it is a bad thing for universities to stop inviting speakers because they draw crowds at the expense of enabling academics and transferring some authority to academics in different fields, knowledgeable about a topic as much as we are, transmitting nonsense and disinformation and achieving nothing (if not taking a step back) in anyone gaining knowledge. I am entirely uninterested, on an academic level, in what Dawkins would have to say about Mongolian History, what Peterson has to say about FGM laws, what Sam Harris thinks about Western European economics, what Justin Trudeau has to say about microtechnological innovation, what Paris Hilton thinks about the demilitarisation of police or what Bill Maher opines about the 21st century space race. Unless this is an entirely informal chat around drinks, who wins with such talks except the event organisers, the book sales of dubious talkers and the exponential growth of nonsense?

[Unseen]

@Davis

You don’t know what someone is going to say until they say it. You can make assumptions, of course, but over time people’s views can change or be more nuanced than you’ve been led to believe by the media streams you have been relying on. That’s what’s been happening to the hugely popular and largely leftist podcast host Joe Rogan in the U.S., where the left-leaning “mainstream” press and cable news networks are trying to depict him as some sort of Nazi. The drum beat of slander echoes the way classic authoritarians neutralize the competition using The Big Lie.

A common beef is that Rogan “platforms” right wingers and nut jobs. True, but he’s an equal opportunity platformer. To wit…

BTW, he voted for Bernie in the primaries. After the primaries, there was no more Bernie campaign. Also, he has never voted Republican.

Some Nazi!

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Unseen.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Unseen.

[—]

Davis wrote:

The reason to host a speaker outside the context of a course has to be because they are of interest to the audience. That the speaker’s views are not of interest to the organizers should be irrelevant. That the speaker is being banned because the hosts disagree with them is among the worst reasons not to provide a forum for them. Particularly troubling is where a speaker is scheduled but some faction among the student body doesn’t want people to hear them.

That isn’t what Autumn was saying. One needs to draw the line somewhere and I fail to see where there is value in allowing someone who is knowledgeable in one topic yet is invited to speak on one they know little of and are likely to spout nonsense.

Right. And I’m not saying it with some absolutism that no speaker should be allowed to speak unless they pass some purity test, but rather when a potential speaker is not invited or in some cases even disinvited for relatively commonplace and sensible reasons, knee-jerk cries of ‘authoritarianism’ are absurd if sincere, cynical if merely a ploy to gain platform or drive sales.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

[Simon Paynton]

@Autumn – it’s true that people can exploit charges of authoritarianism to legitimise their horrible propaganda.  But are you denying that the Left has an authoritarian element?  How do you account for toxic pile-ons such as has occurred in the knitting and young adult fiction circles?  For example:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cast-off-how-knitters-turned-nasty

[—]

Simon Paynton wrote:

@autumn – it’s true that people can exploit charges of authoritarianism to legitimise their horrible propaganda. But are you denying that the Left has an authoritarian element?

What ‘the Left’? That’s such a pointlessly vague category. The left has rapists, pedophiles, serial killers, and all manner of monsters in some proportion by virtue of the fact that the left is comprised of millions—if not billions—of people with disparate views and dispositions. If it’s a question of whether I have some general concern of authoritarianism from ‘the Left’ then the answer is no. But there are bound to be some authoritarians amidst all those people. In general, I think the cries of ‘authoritarianism’ strain hyperbole.

If it seems like I’m being cagey, the reality is I just think the question is stupid and borders on being semantically void.

How do you account for toxic pile-ons such as has occurred in the knitting and young adult fiction circles? For example: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cast-off-how-knitters-turned-nasty

You want me to weigh in on a nearly three-year-old internet spat (which I can’t actually read as the content seems to have been removed) based on the third-hand account of The Spectator? What am I supposed to account for? A pile on? In general, it’s shitty that that social media works this way. You can garner thousands of likes one moment, and thousands more angry comments the next, and both seem to have dramatic impact on emotional states. Personally, I don’t think either is good for most people.

I have no idea if the anger is justified, and I largely don’t know what was said. Having fished around, I’ve read accounts that paint Nathan in a bad light, that paint is detractors in a bad light, that paint everyone in a bad light, and that are more neutral. Why oh why would I be picking sides when I don’t know what the fuck actually happened? Are you trying to get me into the pile somehow? Why?

[Simon Paynton]

Autumn wrote:

Are you trying to get me into the pile somehow? Why?

A lot of people, including Jordan Peterson, complain about toxic behaviour from woke people, and it seems to be a common problem.  I was wondering what your view on this is.  The Left is charged with being authoritarian: this seems to be a widespread example of it.

[—]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Are you trying to get me into the pile somehow? Why?

A lot of people, including Jordan Peterson, complain about toxic behaviour from woke people, and it seems to be a common problem. I was wondering what your view on this is.

It’s not a woke people problem; it’s a people problem. Woke people are neither exempt nor exemplars.

The Left is charged with being authoritarian: this seems to be a widespread example of it.

As I’ve said more than once, the word ‘authoritarian’ is thrown around too lightly.

[Author]

Posts