Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

frenchpress.thedispatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 366 posts

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#341

Post by tomlockwood »

pvg wrote: post #336
tomlockwood wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did read the whole article with hope in my heart that it’d be revealing. I actively listen and reach out to people on the ideological “right” that don’t share my views. I am queer, and yet, just the other day I was listening to a podcast run by an organization in Australia (the Australian Christian Lobby) that sees my identity and fighting for equal rights, as “identity politics”, and which sometimes successfully s…

I think you've actually misread this article, not so much because of its content but because (I'm guessing) you're unfamiliar with its author and some of its local context.

Not to get too Barthes about this, but I feel pretty comfortable with my criticism of the content of this essay.

> At the same time that the evidence of far-left intolerance is overwhelming, a few of us have been on a very lonely corner of conservatism, jumping up and down and yelling about the new right, “Censorship is coming! Censorship is coming!”

> And we were correct.

> First, it’s long been clear that the new right was replicating many of the tactics of the far-left, often proudly and intentionally.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#342

Post by tomlockwood »

vorpalhex wrote: post #333
tomlockwood wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but what's the comparative case that respects free speech more than the government?

Small communities where you can shop for a community that aligns with your desire to speak freely, and where non-free communities have alternatives.

I don't feel like this response really answers the question. You're saying some of these small communities don't align with a desire to speak freely. I feel like the same can be said, of some government. I'm not seeing why this is better.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#343

Post by mythopedia »

mchusma wrote: post #303
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone always harps on the whole white male property owners thing but it misses the entire point. It's probably more productive to think about it in terms of "the usual people who were given a voice back then, but only the subset of them who couldn't f-off without leaving behind a ton of their wealth if things went bad." In effect they limited voting to people who had settled down and had substantial skin in the ga…

I've been listening to the revolutions podcast (very good) and was really struck by the idea that having "skin in the game" was almost universally considered superior to universal suffrage for a long time. I think there is something to the idea, although the implementation is what matters.

This is amazing to me, because I am also listening to the Revolutions podcast (just finished part 1 of the Russian Revolution, i'm sure this Stolypin guy will make some good reforms and Tsar Nicholas II will live happily ever after). However, I come away from these episodes with a completely different lesson: that the people opposed to universal suffrage were almost always the people in power who did not want to risk losing power, and so drew convenient lines to disenfranchise anybody who threatened their regime.

I very much do not think there is any merit to the idea that only those who claim to have "skin in the game" should get to vote. The grands blancs in pre-revolution Haiti - who owned lots of land, wealth, and people - often didn't even live on the island! In what way did they have more "skin in the game" than the slaves whose skin was being literally ripped to shreds in order to generate more profits? Not to mention the Black freedmen who owned property but still couldn't vote!

I think the mere act of being a citizen of a country - and thus being subject to the laws and policies of that country - gives you the right to a share in the governance of that country, no matter what your net worth, sex, race, etc.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#344

Post by pvg »

tomlockwood wrote: post #341
pvg wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've actually misread this article, not so much because of its content but because (I'm guessing) you're unfamiliar with its author and some of its local context.

Not to get too Barthes about this, but I feel pretty comfortable with my criticism of the content of this essay. > At the same time that the evidence of far-left intolerance is overwhelming, a few of us have been on a very lonely corner of conservatism, jumping up and down and yelling about the new right, “Censorship is coming! Censorship is coming!” > And we were correct. > First, it’s long been clear that the new r…

Sure but that's one tiny bit of it. Plus, I'm not really taking some issue with your specific criticism of it, I might make a similar criticism of it but the essay is not really about that, and it's definitely not about both-sideism which I think one can miss if unfamiliar with the author, his recent writing and audience.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#345

Post by tomlockwood »

pvg wrote: post #344
tomlockwood wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to get too Barthes about this, but I feel pretty comfortable with my criticism of the content of this essay. > At the same time that the evidence of far-left intolerance is overwhelming, a few of us have been on a very lonely corner of conservatism, jumping up and down and yelling about the new right, “Censorship is coming! Censorship is coming!” > And we were correct. > First, it’s long been clear that the new r…

Sure but that's one tiny bit of it. Plus, I'm not really taking some issue with your specific criticism of it, I might make a similar criticism of it but the essay is not really about that, and it's definitely not about both-sideism which I think one can miss if unfamiliar with the author, his recent writing and audience.

> it's definitely not about both-sideism

I'd be very happy if you'd provide your reading of the article.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#346

Post by dang »

tomlockwood wrote: post #332
dang wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could be. I didn't read it closely (I rarely do). On the other hand, if you're going to make a case like this, it really helps to make it without reverting to the key of ideological battle yourself. Otherwise the comment pattern-matches, in my sandblasted moderator brain, to the automatic dislike of one ideological side for any information they perceive as favoring the opposite side. Conformance to already-held…

I did read the whole article with hope in my heart that it’d be revealing. I actively listen and reach out to people on the ideological “right” that don’t share my views. I am queer, and yet, just the other day I was listening to a podcast run by an organization in Australia (the Australian Christian Lobby) that sees my identity and fighting for equal rights, as “identity politics”, and which sometimes successfully s…

Ok, you obviously put a lot more work into this than I gave you credit for. Sorry!

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#347

Post by hnfong »

YEwSdObPQT wrote: post #237
jacquesm wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

He says exactly what he would do. I am under no illusions of what these people are like (my step brother is affiliated with such groups). That does not mean his analysis of the free speech debate is incorrect If you are alluding to restricting people's speech of views that are unpopular. Those powers will be used against the general population when it becomes politically expedient or will be abused by the authorities…

Of course there's an objective standard. You look at the politicians, the judges, and look up their standard. It's gross (no pun intended) that one needs to do that, but AFAIK lawyers do that all the time.

More cases (both civil and criminal) are decided on those bases than you'd expect. (Can't speak for all places, but I'm passably familiar with UK law and precedent... and I suspect the US is similar)

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#348

Post by js2 »

WalterBright wrote: post #335
js2 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course it was. My comment was confusing. Having seen the Sign of the Cross but not Golddiggers of 1933 , I was asking whether anything tops the former as a pre-code movie.

I've seen Cross, but it was decades ago, and don't recall much from it. Golddiggers is just saucy fun. One of the songs is even titled "Petting in the Park" :-) The 60s generation that thinks they discovered sex should see that movie.

Just watched Gold Diggers. It was delightful. Worth it just for the Forgotten Man song at the end but I enjoyed it all.

Cross is famous/infamous for the milk bath scene.

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/16/archives/claudette-colber...

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#349

Post by pvg »

tomlockwood wrote: post #345
pvg wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but that's one tiny bit of it. Plus, I'm not really taking some issue with your specific criticism of it, I might make a similar criticism of it but the essay is not really about that, and it's definitely not about both-sideism which I think one can miss if unfamiliar with the author, his recent writing and audience.

> it's definitely not about both-sideism I'd be very happy if you'd provide your reading of the article.

David French is a conservative (and very Catholic) American political commentator, one of the OG never-trumpers. Like many people like that - at least, the ones who aren't hopeless hacks - political developments (in the US) of the last few years have made him Work Through Some Stuff™. This article is, in his pundit-ish way, part of that process. I don't think his analysis and takes are beyond critique and there's been plenty of it. But I also don't think any of his serious critics believe his efforts are in bad faith, whether they agree with his analyses or not. It's still interesting stuff and I think it's a mistake to dismiss it because some reflexive tick of his stuck in your craw. To use your own example, in context, it's a lot less craw-sticky than dismissing rights issues as 'identity politics'!

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#350

Post by tomlockwood »

pvg wrote: post #349
tomlockwood wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's definitely not about both-sideism I'd be very happy if you'd provide your reading of the article.

David French is a conservative (and very Catholic) American political commentator, one of the OG never-trumpers. Like many people like that - at least, the ones who aren't hopeless hacks - political developments (in the US) of the last few years have made him Work Through Some Stuff™. This article is, in his pundit-ish way, part of that process. I don't think his analysis and takes are beyond critique and there's bee…

That context you mention was actually immediately obvious since he mentioned the "new right", his opposition to it, and his faith several times throughout the article. And I personally think he qualifies very well for bad faith, given that he is obviously a conservative on the right and parrots very well trodden conservative ground - like I've stated above. For him to portray himself as even or balanced on this, to be rising above all the censorship is, amazing, given perhaps the context that he seems to be missing. The right certainly didn't learn censorship and moral outrage from the left in recent history.

Who knows, perhaps "serious critics" don't believe this article demonstrates bad faith. Is there an authority we can appeal to who can tell us for sure who the serious critics are?

Post reply on HN