If a film claims that the Confederacy went to war for a noble cause then it is our duty to dispel that delusion, just the same as if a film claims that all the Third Reich wanted was a little living space.
In what way do you dispel the delusion by banning or otherwise restricting one's ability to see the artifacts resulting from the supposed delusion? Far from dispelling the delusion, this action would ensure that people forget there ever was such a delusion. And that can only increase the chances that in the future, someone will have the delusion again.
Quote from John Stuart Mill, who of his own free will, off a half-pint of shandy got particularly ill »
And not only this, but fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but encumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
Quote from combo player »
It's not like Gone With the Wind and Dukes of Hazzard are sacrosanct moral and physical necessities for our culture.
And we may only be exposed to those things which are sacrosanct moral and physical necessities for our culture? And who decides what those things are?
They are pieces of media that can be judged the same we judge anything else that carries messages.
In what way do you dispel the delusion by banning or otherwise restricting one's ability to see the artifacts resulting from the supposed delusion?
I'm a little confused. (a common occurrence, I'm sure)
I understand that somewhere -out there- 'people' are calling for the ban of things like Gone With the Wind and the Dukes of Hazzard (as well as anything else you might imagine). But, does anyone -on this thread- agree with that view? Does anyone here feel the Federal Government should be banning the highest-grossing film (adjusted for inflation) of all time? I don't like the Confederate Flag as much as the next man, but I know I don't support any Federal banning.Conversely, does anyone here think that private business shouldn't be able to sell or -as it were- not sell whatever they want?
Or, are 'we' (people posting on this thread) all in agreement on that score as well?
I understand that somewhere -out there- 'people' are calling for the ban of things like Gone With the Wind and the Dukes of Hazzard (as well as anything else you might imagine). But, does anyone -on this thread- agree with that view? Does anyone here feel the Federal Government should be banning the highest-grossing film (adjusted for inflation) of all time? I don't like the Confederate Flag as much as the next man, but I know I don't support any Federal banning.
Blinking Spirit already suggested that the word "ban" might be inappropriate, and if we want to be maximally charitable, it's true that consigning something to museums is not necessarily the same as banning it. However, in both cases, the ideological objections I have to the proposal are the same.
The fact that people are interested in talking about this topic from multiple perspectives in this thread is, I submit, made self-evident by the fact that such a discussion is in fact taking place.
It is by far the most popular and most damaging misconception about free speech that it is somehow the sole province and moral burden of governments, and that if the government is not imposing de jure restrictions on something, then free speech arguments don't apply. This is nonsense. All four of Mill's arguments for free expression apply to any entity that could properly be called fallibile, including individuals, corporations, Tumblr otherkin, or whatever.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
You could go to a museum for it or look up any number of online databases or find an old copy or pirate the thing or w/e. Destroying all copies isn't exactly necessary for something to be understood as "Confederate apologia".
How about destroying no copies? How about not consigning it anywhere? How about continuing to sell it for as long as people want to buy it and in sufficient quantities without embargo or restriction, but saying that on your view, which you may also freely publicize, it constitutes Confederate apologia? How is that not a sufficient course of action?
It isn't like Birth of a Nation has vanished from all existence, it's simply understood as a deeply racist film as well as technically significant. Chances are good it's even available for purchase.
It's still available. In fact it is one of very few films with a perfect 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Most of the reviewers, having written their reviews before the world started inexplicably transforming into an SJW hellscape, explicitly recognize the difference between praising good art and endorsing the subject matter being depicted.
It's fully possible to read Mein Kampf today but it's not like you have to actually read it yourself personally to say that it's a nazi book and be against people treating it like a wholesome piece of entertainment.
If you don't read it yourself, then you are placing your access to and perception of the truth in a subordinate position to the subjective judgments of another fallible human being.
So is the case with most anything else. Far too many things happen for me or you or anyone else to not at some point leave it to agreeing with others. *shrug* Nobody has that much time.
This is a false dichotomy. You can choose not to take a position on issues about which you are uninformed. What value is there in adopting a public consensus viewpoint simply because you didn't have time to form your own opinion?
I'm confused. Is Lou Lumenick a spokesman for the SJWs simply because he suggests treating Gone With the Wind like Birth of a Nation, or is there some other reason to assume he fits the bill? Or is dislike of Gone With the Wind another bullet point on the ever-expanding list of things that make someone an SJW?
I'm confused. Is Lou Lumenick a spokesman for the SJWs simply because he suggests treating Gone With the Wind like Birth of a Nation, or is there some other reason to assume he fits the bill? Or is dislike of Gone With the Wind another bullet point on the ever-expanding list of things that make someone an SJW?
I don't think it's made clear (at least not from the linked piece) whether Lumenick actually likes or dislikes Gone with the Wind. What is made clear is that he believes Gone with the Wind belongs to some special class of racist artifacts that should be consigned to museums. The belief that such a class of things exists is, by my lights, enough to make someone an SJW, and so, yes, Lumenick merits that label. It is, of course, not the case that one becomes an SJW merely for disliking Gone with the Wind, but I'm assuming you knew that was a straw man before you asked.
I don't believe Lumenick is a spokesperson for SJWs or any other group, though someone who agrees with Lumenick that classes of controversial material that may be offensive to some viewers should be consigned to museums is certainly an SJW -- by virtue of that specific belief, not by virtue of some other association with Lumenick.
My original purpose for citing Lumenick was not to hold him up as some sort of ideal (except perhaps of a sanctimonious fool) or assert that his view is representative of something, but instead to point out that his SJW position is no longer an obscure curiosity of feminist echo-chamber academia and otherkin Tumblrs, but is now being prominently displayed in the opinion columns of major papers of record.
I don't think it's made clear (at least not from the linked piece) whether Lumenick actually likes or dislikes Gone with the Wind. What is made clear is that he believes Gone with the Wind belongs to some special class of racist artifacts that should be consigned to museums. The belief that such a class of things exists is, by my lights, enough to make someone an SJW, and so, yes, Lumenick merits that label. It is, of course, not the case that one becomes an SJW merely for disliking Gone with the Wind, but I'm assuming you knew that was a straw man before you asked.
I guess I was being too charitable by assuming the SJW label would be based on a reading of more than one article. Then again, I'm sure you've assigned it on the basis of single tweets, so I shouldn't be surprised. I'm going to guess, however, that feeling that Gone With the Wind should not be consigned to museums is not sufficient to make one not an SJW?
I don't believe Lumenick is a spokesperson for SJWs or any other group, though someone who agrees with Lumenick that classes of controversial material that may be offensive to some viewers should be consigned to museums is certainly an SJW -- by virtue of that specific belief, not by virtue of some other association with Lumenick.
The point of citing Lumenick was not to hold him up as some sort of ideal (except perhaps of a sanctimonious fool) or assert that his view is representative of something, but instead to point out that his SJW position is no longer an obscure curiosity of feminist echo-chamber academia and otherkin Tumblrs, but is now being prominently displayed in the opinion columns of major papers of record.
So Lumenick is not a spokesman or a representative of anything, but he is somehow a compatriot of both feminist academia and an entire Tumblr-verse of opinions?
I know you love the SJW label. You see them everywhere you look, and it's so tempting to slap it on people. But it's getting ridiculous. A quick google search suggests that, prior to this one article, no one in the history of the internet has ever called Lou Lumenick an SJW. Not once. And yet, one disagreement over Gone With the Wind later, and you've decided he's vanguard an entire nebulous movement ranging from college professors to confused teenagers as they march roughshod over our civilization.
if we want to be maximally charitable, it's true that consigning something to museums is not necessarily the same as banning it. However, in both cases, the ideological objections I have to the proposal are the same.
I'm still confused. How is refraining from talking about a ban ideologically the same as talking about a ban?
Interestingly enough, when I went to spell "refrain" spellcheck thought I meant "re-frame," which seems to me to be what you're doing to this argument. In that part I quoted earlier, you seemed to be trying to relate 'restricting public access' (aka: companies selling what they want to sell) with a ban. Now, I understand your main point on this thread is with regards to companies -in the short term- going down a slippery slope (something I can agree with). But, let us not make the same slippery mistake by conflating companies short term overreaction to public opinion with a Federal ban.
Everyone on this thread seems to think companies should sell what they want, and the Federal Government shouldn't ban flags. Trying to make it seem otherwise is unfair at best.
Now, if you're nonplussed people don't like Dukes of Hazzard Hot Wheel toys anymore -believe me- I understand. Nostalgia is definitely an emotion I can sympathize with. But, voting with your dollars isn't subversive. Even your linked article seems to be talking about people expressing themselves with their dollars when it comes to Gone With the Wind. It certainly isn't talking about banning anything.
It is by far the most popular and most damaging misconception about free speech that it is somehow the sole province and moral burden of governments, and that if the government is not imposing de jure restrictions on something, then free speech arguments don't apply. This is nonsense. All four of Mill's arguments for free expression apply to any entity that could properly be called fallibile, including individuals, corporations, Tumblr otherkin, or whatever.
My confusion is only getting worse...
My google search for "Mill's arguments for free expression" brought me to a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page, but it's not helping understand how what you said in this quote has any baring on what people are talking about on this thread. All I can guess at would be your will to hyperbolically recast this argument is larger than I imagined. Do you really think Apple -a private company- pulling Civil War games for a few days and some movie critic calling for people to rethink their views on a 75-year-old movie must invoke John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle?
Both entities are exercising their freedom of speech, not curtailing it.
I guess I was being too charitable by assuming the SJW label would be based on a reading of more than one article. Then again, I'm sure you've assigned it on the basis of single tweets, so I shouldn't be surprised. I'm going to guess, however, that feeling that Gone With the Wind should not be consigned to museums is not sufficient to make one not an SJW?
So Lumenick is not a spokesman or a representative of anything, but he is somehow a compatriot of both feminist academia and an entire Tumblr-verse of opinions?
I know you love the SJW label. You see them everywhere you look, and it's so tempting to slap it on people. But it's getting ridiculous. A quick google search suggests that, prior to this one article, no one in the history of the internet has ever called Lou Lumenick an SJW. Not once. And yet, one disagreement over Gone With the Wind later, and you've decided he's vanguard an entire nebulous movement ranging from college professors to confused teenagers as they march roughshod over our civilization.
Look, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about the etiology of precisely when someone can be diagnosed with the disease of SJWism. Maybe I think you only need to exhibit one symptom once to be diagnosed. Maybe for you it's 30 SJW tweets per minute; 29 or less and the label doesn't apply. It doesn't matter, and I don't care. This is as dumb as arguing about whether or not someone is really an agnostic in a religion thread.
You, me, and this thread would be better served by talking about Lumenick's idea rather than Lumenick himself, so I'll call the idea an SJW idea, rather than calling Lumenick an SJW. And I find that you have said nothing substantial concerning the specific idea in question here.
Look, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about the etiology of precisely when someone can be diagnosed with the disease of SJWism. Maybe I think you only need to exhibit one symptom once to be diagnosed. Maybe for you it's 30 SJW tweets per minute. It doesn't matter, and I don't care. Both myself and this thread would be better served by talking about Lumenick's idea rather than Lumenick himself, so I'll call the idea an SJW idea, rather than calling Lumenick an SJW. I find that nothing substantial is being said here about the specific idea I find objectionable.
But you said:
It seems that to the SJWs that now evidently hold a very significant degree of power and influence in commerce and media, the slippery slope isn't so much of a fallacy as it is a fun amusement park ride which will be ridden gleefully all the way to the bottom each and every time. Once you license SJW ideology as legitimate, even in a single reasonable compromise case like this one, you can't stop the foolish notion from propagating itself all over society. In this case, the notion of banning or otherwise reducing the visibility or availability of potentially offensive material has put us on the path that Milton and Mill and Hitchens warned us about.
This only makes sense if Lumenick is an SJW. If all he holds is one opinion about Gone With the Wind, and doesn't buy into or represent any other SJW ideology, then he's not a part of any slippery slope. He's not evidence of any media or commercial influence wielded by SJWs.
But of course, if all it takes to be a SJW is that you hold even a single opinion that sounds like something an SJW would think, then it's trivially true that the SJWs hold a very significant degree of power and influence. Everyone but the most hardened opposing ideologue is therefore an SJW. Maybe everyone in the world except you is.
I know he did. Heedless of what he said, you continue to use the word.
Not heedless at all. I read it, thought about it, and decided to continue to use the word deliberately. He wants the film to be consigned to museums as a racist historical artifact, and that is already sufficient to trigger all of my objections, but in addition to that, I see no realistic path where the highest-grossing movie of all time becomes a museum relic except by way of a de facto ban.
I'm still confused. How is refraining from talking about a ban ideologically the same as talking about a ban?
Did I say that it was or is this going to be another instance of your usual pattern of making up random gibberish? I don't even follow what you're asking here.
The two things I have ideological objections to are (a) banning some class of things and (b) consigning that class of things to a museum. The fundamental objection is the same in both cases -- namely, it makes it more difficult if not impossible for an individual person to view the object in question and make his own moral decision about its content, and replaces that decision with a delegation to some external censorship authority.
Thus, it matters not one whit to me whether Lumenick is literally talking about a de jure government ban or a de facto restriction outside of museums. Both positions are objectionable to me for the exact same underlying reasons.
If you have any trouble understanding that argument, then ask about that specific argument.
In that part I quoted earlier, you seemed to be trying to relate 'restricting public access' (aka: companies selling what they want to sell) with a ban. Now, I understand your main point on this thread is with regards to companies -in the short term- going down a slippery slope (something I can agree with).
Okay, so you agree with everything that I actually said...?
But, let us not make the same slippery mistake by conflating companies short term overreaction to public opinion with a Federal ban.
And you disagree with something I didn't say. Greatn.
Show me where I used the words "Federal ban." I didn't and still don't believe there is any immediate danger of the US federal government banning flags or movies. Then again, I didn't believe there was any danger of companies embargoing flags or movies either.
My central point here is that our intuitions about what free people will and won't do, and how far this type of thing will really go, need to be called into question in light of new evidence.
My confusion is only getting worse...
My google search for "Mill's arguments for free expression" brought me to a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page, but it's not helping understand how what you said in this quote has any baring on what people are talking about on this thread.
It actually has the most bearing on what you're talking about. You urge me not to conflate de facto consignment to museums with a de jure federal ban, but the reason I pointed out the applicability of Mill's arguments in both cases is that it wouldn't matter even if I had.
Both entities are exercising their freedom of speech, not curtailing it.
Why do people always say things like this? Like, that thread about banning the rapist from Magic tournaments is replete with people saying over and over again that Wizards can do whatever they want; that's freedom baby. Here you are saying the same is true for Apple, Walmart, et al. And yes, you and all the people saying this are, without question, completely correct, and yes, everyone knows it and already knew it before you ever said it.
It is an exercise of freedom to embargo these objects. As I said before, it is a paradox of freedom, known since at least ancient Greece, that by definition one becomes enabled, by the very virtue of his freedom, to advocate for unfreedom.
I am not here to argue that there should be some sort of restriction on companies to prevent them from not selling things. I don't know of any way of stopping this kind of thing without violating my own principles. I can only point out that it's a real thing that's happening in society and that it should be very disconcerting to you that these organizations are using their freedom, which they undeniably have, in this fashion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
It seems that to the SJWs that now evidently hold a very significant degree of power and influence in commerce and media, the slippery slope isn't so much of a fallacy as it is a fun amusement park ride which will be ridden gleefully all the way to the bottom each and every time. Once you license SJW ideology as legitimate, even in a single reasonable compromise case like this one, you can't stop the foolish notion from propagating itself all over society. In this case, the notion of banning or otherwise reducing the visibility or availability of potentially offensive material has put us on the path that Milton and Mill and Hitchens warned us about.
This only makes sense if Lumenick is an SJW. If all he holds is one opinion about Gone With the Wind, and doesn't buy into or represent any other SJW ideology, then he's not a part of any slippery slope. He's not evidence of any media or commercial influence wielded by SJWs.
But of course, if all it takes to be a SJW is that you hold even a single opinion that sounds like something an SJW would think, then it's trivially true that the SJWs hold a very significant degree of power and influence. Everyone but the most hardened opposing ideologue is therefore an SJW. Maybe everyone in the world except you is.
I think you are on to something here, arguing that "SJWs" do not hold power in society. I think it would be much more accurate to say that "SJW ideas" or "SJW modes of discourse" hold significant and increasing power over the way our culture talks about important issues.
I would generalize crashing's definition of "SJW" to an idea or mode of discourse that affirms following criteria:
1. Some ideas are so harmful that mere exposure to the idea is damaging. The harm occurs even if one does not believe the idea or give it any credence.
2. Society should restrict the dissemination and free flow of ideas that are harmful (either through outright banning or through "relegating the idea to a museum" or the like).
3. One should refuse to substantively engage with those who hold harmful ideas. Instead, one should attempt to silence or minimize these people (via direct censorship, or via more indirect methods like harassment and shaming).
Perhaps this set of tenets could be more accurately called "Social Dogmatism" because it also describes the behavior of religious fundamentalists and other social and political extremists. Religious fundamentalists just happen to take different positions on the issues that social justice fundamentalists. It's not the specific positions I'm arguing against here, it's the mode of discourse - "you're wrong and I'm right and I don't have to listen to you lalalala."
As Crashing said, we see this reflected more and more in society today. Strongly disagree with and SCG article about gender in MTG? The response is to call for it to be taken down rather than to argue against its substance. Strongly dislike the confederate flag and what it stands for? The response is to call for media depicting it to be hidden from view as much as possible, rather than brought out into the daylight where people can have a frank and honest discourse about it. This is pernicious; it leads people away from a world where they think critically and draw their own conclusions and into a bubble world of ideological homogeneity.
Framed this way, I think it's right to say that SJW people do not hold much power in society (depending on how you define an "SJW person"). This is because most people do not hold SJW ideas across the board. Instead, they endorse Social Dogmatism for certain ideas that have a strong emotional effect on them. Once a certain number of people agree about a particular viewpoint (say, the uncontroversial idea that slavery is wrong) and a large enough subset of these people endorse SJW discourse with respect to this viewpoint (anyone who supports anything associated with slavery must be silenced) then we reach a critical mass where this area of discourse shuts down and we get calls for banning, hiding, or otherwise eliminating all competing viewpoints. Even though I think the majority opinion is obviously right here, I don't think this calls for shutting down the opposition.
To be clear, this is not an argument about the government or the 1st Amendment. It's an argument about the value of an ideologically open society versus a dogmatic society. It's an argument about whether our culture is better off allowing all ideas to be expressed, or whether using social pressure to enforce social conformity is a better alternative.
I think you are on to something here, arguing that "SJWs" do not hold power in society. I think it would be much more accurate to say that "SJW ideas" or "SJW modes of discourse" hold significant and increasing power over the way our culture talks about important issues.
I would generalize crashing's definition of "SJW" to an idea or mode of discourse that affirms following criteria:
1. Some ideas are so harmful that mere exposure to the idea is damaging. The harm occurs even if one does not believe the idea or give it any credence.
2. Society should restrict the dissemination and free flow of ideas that are harmful (either through outright banning or through "relegating the idea to a museum" or the like).
3. One should refuse to substantively engage with those who hold harmful ideas. Instead, one should attempt to silence or minimize these people (via direct censorship, or via more indirect methods like harassment and shaming).
Perhaps this set of tenets could be more accurately called "Social Dogmatism" because it also describes the behavior of religious fundamentalists and other social and political extremists. Religious fundamentalists just happen to take different positions on the issues that social justice fundamentalists. It's not the specific positions I'm arguing against here, it's the mode of discourse - "you're wrong and I'm right and I don't have to listen to you lalalala."
As Crashing said, we see this reflected more and more in society today. Strongly disagree with and SCG article about gender in MTG? The response is to call for it to be taken down rather than to argue against its substance. Strongly dislike the confederate flag and what it stands for? The response is to call for media depicting it to be hidden from view as much as possible, rather than brought out into the daylight where people can have a frank and honest discourse about it. This is pernicious; it leads people away from a world where they think critically and draw their own conclusions and into a bubble world of ideological homogeneity.
Framed this way, I think it's right to say that SJW people do not hold much power in society (depending on how you define an "SJW person"). This is because most people do not hold SJW ideas across the board. Instead, they endorse Social Dogmatism for certain ideas that have a strong emotional effect on them. Once a certain number of people agree about a particular viewpoint (say, the uncontroversial idea that slavery is wrong) and a large enough subset of these people endorse SJW discourse with respect to this viewpoint (anyone who supports anything associated with slavery must be silenced) then we reach a critical mass where this area of discourse shuts down and we get calls for banning, hiding, or otherwise eliminating all competing viewpoints. Even though I think the majority opinion is obviously right here, I don't think this calls for shutting down the opposition.
To be clear, this is not an argument about the government or the 1st Amendment. It's an argument about the value of an ideologically open society versus a dogmatic society. It's an argument about whether our culture is better off allowing all ideas to be expressed, or whether using social pressure to enforce social conformity is a better alternative.
Does Lumenick meet any, let alone all of those criteria? He praises the inclusion of a "26-minute featurette" that engages with the racist influences of the film. In general, relegation to a museum is not the fate for ideas that we refuse to engage with. Museums are fundamentally a place of engagement with the ideas they present. The holocaust museum is not an instance of refusal to engage with the philosophies of Nazism. Nor is it a place for those who believe the mere exposure to Nazi ideas is damaging.
I would suggest, instead, that the casual airing of Gone With the Wind or the flag on the General Lee are instances of failing to engage substantively with an idea. What Lumenick is saying is that Gone With the Wind espouses ideas which should be addressed. It's best aired in a context where that can happen.
Not heedless at all. I read it, thought about it, and decided to continue to use the word deliberately. He wants the film to be consigned to museums as a racist historical artifact, and that is already sufficient to trigger all of my objections, but in addition to that, I see no realistic path where the highest-grossing movie of all time becomes a museum relic except by way of a de facto ban.
You might not see any other way, but he certainly does if you read the article. It's all about the steady decline of the movie in popularity. To quote: "I have a feeling the movie’s days as a cash cow are numbered." I will also say the writer's language isn't as strong as you seem to think it is. The last line is: "It's showing on July 4 at the Museum of Modern Art as part of the museum’s salute to the 100th anniversary of Technicolor — and maybe that’s where this much-loved but undeniably racist artifact really belongs." (emphasis mine) From that it's true he feels the film should be "consigned to museums," yet he's certainly not calling for the Government to do it. He seems to feel it should -eventually- be shown primary in museums because people don't want to spend money on it. Triumph of the Will is hailed as a great movie -and you can see it for free on youtube- but no one is making money on prime time advertisements for it.
But, I'm not sure what the article matters. I think it's very reasonable for me to say no reasonable person is calling for a ban of any sort. If the author of that piece was calling for a ban (de facto or otherwise), then he would be unreasonable. But, he's not. He is asking people to rethink how they view the piece and vote with their wallet. Indeed, he thinks it's already happening.
Something literately no one even tangentially related to this discussion is advocating. I'm sure you could find people saying that, but you'd have to look harder.
The one article you found where the author seems to think this might be a good idea is advocating doing it with free market forces. Do you have a problem with outdated things naturally being retired to museums? I assume not, but at this point I'm not sure of anything.
The fundamental objection is the same in both cases -- namely, it makes it more difficult if not impossible for an individual person to view the object in question and make his own moral decision about its content, and replaces that decision with a delegation to some external censorship authority.
Is this a slam on museums? You think that banning something makes that thing comparably as hard to see as displaying it in a museum? Heck, I thought displaying scarce things in museums made them more desirable.
But -again- this is all moot. No one is saying it should be restricted to only museums (not even you're movie critic, who -not once- uses the word 'restricted'). And, if they were, no one here would agree with them.
Thus, it matters not one whit to me whether Lumenick is literally talking about a de jure government ban or a de facto restriction outside of museums. Both positions are objectionable to me for the exact same underlying reasons.
I can agree, it wouldn't matter which of those he was saying.
But, he's not saying either of those things. And -if he was- literally no one here would agree with him.
And you disagree with something I didn't say. Greatn.
Show me where I used the words "Federal ban." I didn't and still don't believe there is any immediate danger of the US federal government banning flags or movies. Then again, I didn't believe there was any danger of companies embargoing flags or movies either.
Alright. So what DO you mean when you say "ban?"
Who would be doing the "banning?"
I am not here to argue that there should be some sort of restriction on companies to prevent them from not selling things. I don't know of any way of stopping this kind of thing without violating my own principles.
I can only point out that it's a real thing that's happening in society and that it should be very disconcerting to you that these organizations are using their freedom, which they undeniably have, in this fashion.
Why?
So far, the only thing I didn't like was Apple's actions, which they undid. But, if they hadn't I don't think I would find it "disconcerting." It would just mean the majority of people voting with their wallet disagreed with me, and I would have to find some other way to get my Civil War games if I wanted any.
Also, I've never seen Gone with the Wind, but all this talk is making want to. I have a feeling I'm not alone in that.
the point i should of made earlier is that monuments and museums often fall under the same jurisdictions and governing bodies and/or catagory. where they put them within a municipality isn't an exact science but often is on state or government land, which is what kind of land the state house is. So for those saying leave it in a museum, it sort of already is in a museum setting because South carolina is using the State house grounds to display historical displays. In this case displaying a monument to the confederacy and flying the confederate flag adjacent to it.
If you can't see the hand of the SJWs in this, I don't know what to tell you. One minute we're having semi-rational conversations about the appropriateness of flying this flag on a government building, the next minute, the Dukes of Hazard is retroactively hateful, Confederate merchandise isn't sold in Gettysburg, and Apple is cool with the simulated violence of civil war games just so long as the stars and bars aren't displayed up front.
What makes SJW so dangerous isn't its political positions per se, it is the way in which it handles conflict. It is not enough for SJWs to talk, to persuade, to rally for a cause. It does this, of course, but not with the intention of winning in the marketplace of ideas, but rather, destroying the market outright.
The flag is the enemy---this has been decided. Once decided, they must not engage in any discourse beyond that which is absolutely necessary to purge the flag from the present, and the past if possible as well. If that requires desecrating property with hashtag creeds (as they've started doing), fine. The most preferable route involves leveraging political pressure against both individuals and corporate entities to such an extreme degree that any who resisted would be blacklisted McCarthy style: racist, sexist, homophobic, religious, whatever the flavor of the day might be.
Notice the way they did this with Obama detractors (insta-racists) or with an enemy like Thomas (Blacklisted by the revolution as an Uncle Tom). Hobby Lobby, nuns that dare hold a position other than "free love", Donald Trump, Chick Fil-a, and so on.
Why do people always say things like this? Like, that thread about banning the rapist from Magic tournaments is replete with people saying over and over again that Wizards can do whatever they want; that's freedom baby. Here you are saying the same is true for Apple, Walmart, et al. And yes, you and all the people saying this are, without question, completely correct, and yes, everyone knows it and already knew it before you ever said it.
It is an exercise of freedom to embargo these objects. As I said before, it is a paradox of freedom, known since at least ancient Greece, that by definition one becomes enabled, by the very virtue of his freedom, to advocate for unfreedom.
Because when they're using their freedom of speech to oppress someone they don't like, it's a valid use of freedom of speech.
But when someone uses their freedom of speech to oppress you, it's not a valid use of freedom of speech.
If you can't see the hand of the SJWs in this, I don't know what to tell you. One minute we're having semi-rational conversations about the appropriateness of flying this flag on a government building, the next minute, the Dukes of Hazard is retroactively hateful, Confederate merchandise isn't sold in Gettysburg, and Apple is cool with the simulated violence of civil war games just so long as the stars and bars aren't displayed up front.
What makes SJW so dangerous isn't its political positions per se, it is the way in which it handles conflict. It is not enough for SJWs to talk, to persuade, to rally for a cause. It does this, of course, but not with the intention of winning in the marketplace of ideas, but rather, destroying the market outright.
The flag is the enemy---this has been decided. Once decided, they must not engage in any discourse beyond that which is absolutely necessary to purge the flag from the present, and the past if possible as well. If that requires desecrating property with hashtag creeds (as they've started doing), fine. The most preferable route involves leveraging political pressure against both individuals and corporate entities to such an extreme degree that any who resisted would be blacklisted McCarthy style: racist, sexist, homophobic, religious, whatever the flavor of the day might be.
Notice the way they did this with Obama detractors (insta-racists) or with an enemy like Thomas (Blacklisted by the revolution as an Uncle Tom). Hobby Lobby, nuns that dare hold a position other than "free love", Donald Trump, Chick Fil-a, and so on.
Maybe if you didn't argue like the sky was falling because someone had the gall to have an opinion you don't like then there would be less mockery.
You don't seem to understand my position. As I tried to explain, if someone had posted a week ago along the lines of "Don't remove the flag, because the next thing you know they'll be pulling Dukes of Hazzard and Gone with the Wind and Hot Wheels cars and Civil War games from store shelves," I would have joined you in mocking that person. I never for an instant believed it would take place. And then it did.
This is what actually happened. I'm not predicting that the sky will fall. This is a postmortem analysis taking place after the sky actually fell. I'm looking at the shattered pieces of the sky that are already on the ground and saying "hey, maybe it's time to re-evaluate my predictive methodology."
I mean really not everything is part of some vast overwhelming conspiracy to remove things you seem to hold dear. We have a company overreacting, someone who thinks a movie white washes racism and people not wanting to be associated with a literal symbol of racism.
The only "conspiracy" I believe in is a collection of unassociated people endorsing ideologies with consequences they don't understand and wouldn't like if they did. Most of the people who are silently going along with this nonsense are going to wake up one day in the world they created for themselves and wonder what went wrong.
The confederate flag is a racist symbol, it was made for a racist war for slavery and was used for racist persecution of black people. People not wanting that flying around state building is not a coming apocalypse and acting like it is does not do you any favours. Neither is categorising anyone who you don't agree with a sjw.
I know I'm wasting my time talking to someone who deliberately misinterprets my positions to this extent, but since someone actually thanked you for posting this nonsense, I'll say it again: I myself wouldn't have thought that removing the Confederate flag from a state house was the sign of some "coming apocalypse" -- but the "apocalypse" happened all the same. Now I have to update my beliefs in response to that evidence.
It seems that to the SJWs that now evidently hold a very significant degree of power and influence in commerce and media, the slippery slope isn't so much of a fallacy as it is a fun amusement park ride which will be ridden gleefully all the way to the bottom each and every time. Once you license SJW ideology as legitimate, even in a single reasonable compromise case like this one, you can't stop the foolish notion from propagating itself all over society. In this case, the notion of banning or otherwise reducing the visibility or availability of potentially offensive material has put us on the path that Milton and Mill and Hitchens warned us about.
This only makes sense if Lumenick is an SJW. If all he holds is one opinion about Gone With the Wind, and doesn't buy into or represent any other SJW ideology, then he's not a part of any slippery slope. He's not evidence of any media or commercial influence wielded by SJWs.
Nothing I've said, including the specific statement you quoted, turns on whether or not the label "SJW" can be hung on Lumenick. A simple examination of the truth tables is sufficient to show this:
Suppose I prove to a degree satisfactory to all concerned that Lumenick is an SJW. What impact does this have on the first sentence you quoted? Almost none. Insofar as Lumenick has influence, proving he's an SJW would be very weak Bayesian evidence of its truth, but not enough to be dispositive by anyone's lights. What impact does this have on the second sentence? None whatsoever. Whether or not some particular person is an SJW doesn't bear on that sentence at all.
On the other hand, suppose you prove that Lumenick isn't an SJW. What impact would that have on the quoted sentences? Well, it would be extremely weak Bayesian evidence against the first sentence, since there are finitely many people in the world and everyone that isn't an SJW reduces the number of possible affirmative cases, but again, not dispositive in any sense of the word. And as for sentence #2, it has no bearing, for the same reasons as above.
So, as I said, trying to label Lumenick is pointless. I further submit that if you need to abandon your basic reasoning process to the extent you have done here just to get me to fit in some kind of box, you might want to instead consider the hypothesis that I don't in fact fit in that box. Just a thought.
But of course, if all it takes to be a SJW is that you hold even a single opinion that sounds like something an SJW would think, then it's trivially true that the SJWs hold a very significant degree of power and influence. Everyone but the most hardened opposing ideologue is therefore an SJW. Maybe everyone in the world except you is.
If I thought everyone but me was an SJW, I wouldn't bother arguing at all.
Despite what you might think, I actually don't like the word "SJW," for reasons that to present company should be all too clear. Nevertheless, it's part of the lexicon now. bitterroot is probably right to attempt to reformulate the argument in different terms, but I'm not sure the parties that are presently representing the opposition in this thread would be moved from their positions by such an effort. I'm still waiting for so much as one single person on the opposition to understand what I'm actually arguing. If you think I believe in a vast SJW conspiracy consisting of everyone but me who's ruling the world, then you're wrong.
Let's recall that YOU, not me, brought up Lumenick as evidence to support your thesis that SJWs now hold a significant amount of power in society. If you feel his status is at the very best, "extremely weak Bayesian evidence" for that claim, why bother bringing him up?
From that it's true he feels the film should be "consigned to museums," yet he's certainly not calling for the Government to do it.
I agree with you that the article does not call for government action, I never said that article called for government action, and it does not matter for the purposes of any argument I'm making whether or not that article calls for government action, which, to reiterate, it doesn't.
Quote from Taylor »
He seems to feel it should -eventually- be shown primary in museums because people don't want to spend money on it. Triumph of the Will is hailed as a great movie -and you can see it for free on youtube- but no one is making money on prime time advertisements for it.
...The one article you found where the author seems to think this might be a good idea is advocating doing it with free market forces.
This particular article, which is indeed only one article and also the thing we're talking about, is one in which the author endorses favorably a vision of the world in which Gone with the Wind is something that is consigned to museums. Now, he doesn't actually specify how we get from the world we're in now to that world except by way of insinuation, and I would say that it's outright delusional to expect everyone everywhere to just stop liking the most popular movie ever to exist, so he must actually be talking about something that we both would likely call a ban -- but in the interest of maximum charitability, let's put that inference aside. Let's call it free market forces at work. Everyone simply decides to stop liking the movie. Fine.
The thing is, regardless of how it's brought about, it's already objectionable enough just for him to desire that world.
I actually had what is essentially this very argument with my wife a few months ago, only at the time I was on the equivalent of Lumenick's position. We were in the car and I was flipping through radio stations and Taylor Swift was being simulcast on what felt like 99% of the FM spectrum. No matter which button I pushed I couldn't get rid of her. I wanted to punch the dashboard. The ensuing discussion went something like this:
Me: "I wish we lived in a world where Taylor Swift wasn't making records." Her: "That's creepy." Me: "Why's that?" Her: "Well, what are you going to do, push everyone who buys her records off a cliff? Push her off a cliff?" Me: "No, no, in my dream people just decide her music sucks and stop listening to it, and then she stops making it." Her: "So in your dream everyone shares your questionable taste in music? And this is supposed to be a good dream?" Me: "If everyone agrees with me that Taylor Swift is bad, yeah, that seems pretty good to me." Her: "But I love Taylor Swift, so I guess I don't feature in your dream. You said something about 'we' earlier but I obviously wouldn't exist as part of your plan. So have fun there by yourself, I guess."
At that moment I realized she was right. It was a creepy notion. In fact, it was downright depraved. In my new world, I would have erased someone I loved from existence (or if that's too melodramatic for you, detracted from the richness of the human condition by removing something that (inexplicably) makes a lot of people happy) -- and for what? So I could live in a hugbox where I wouldn't have to be exposed to something that offends me? Upon reflection I find that to be a monstrous moral tradeoff.
One reason why I intend to keep using the term SJW despite all the mental friction it generates is because sometimes as a metaphor it's just beautifully apt. I was playing the role of a "Music Justice Warrior" in that argument: I put my helmet on, lowered my visor, set my lance, and charged headlong at the only thing I could see out of the narrow slit, which was a particular bit of music I hated. In the end, I concocted a scenario in which I squarely hit the target, but I was totally oblivious to the fact that my steed was trampling all of the spectators underfoot.
Even interpreted in the generous terms you suggest here, Lumenick is making the same awful mistake. In fact, my wife likes Gone with the Wind too, so Lumenick can take his fantasy and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
The core SJW idea at the root of this, the thing I'm opposed to, is this kind of soft totalitarianism, this notion that we're somehow better off if our thoughts and beliefs, even in so trivial a matter of which entertainments we indulge in, are brought into conformance with someone else's ideology. This is an evil notion.
It doesn't matter whether this happens because a state imposes it by force, or because someone sprinkles some modal-logic faerie dust around and wishes really hard that a world in which everyone is a drone copy of Lumenick with respect to taste in movies is not only possible but somehow becomes actualized. In fact, the latter scenario is arguably worse in some respects; in the former scenario there is at least the possibility of dissent.
Quote from Taylor »
What I am 'disagreeing' with (or -more accurately- am 'confused by') is this perception of persecution you're giving off.
You're confused by something you're making up in your head. Just stop doing that and you would cease to be confused.
Quote from Taylor »
Alright. So what DO you mean when you say "ban?" Who would be doing the "banning?"
I don't want anything banned and I hope nobody does any banning, so I don't know how I somehow became the person that is being called upon to answer this question. The only thing I can think to say is this: in the only possible worlds I can think of that have even a tangential relationship to the actual world, it is the case that if Gone with the Wind appears only in museums, it is because the people who like Gone with the Wind, who, pace Lumenick, will never simply cease to exist, have had their private copies removed and have somehow been prevented from acquiring further copies. The manner in which this could happen can run over a gamut of possibilities which I encourage you to think about yourself if you really think determining the mechanism of banning is a pressing matter.
I don't consider a world in which everyone magically becomes infected with SJW movie tastes to be remotely plausible or desirable.
Quote from Taylor »
Why? So far, the only thing I didn't like was Apple's actions, which they undid. But, if they hadn't I don't think I would find it "disconcerting." It would just mean the majority of people voting with their wallet disagreed with me, and I would have to find some other way to get my Civil War games if I wanted any.
Who "voted with their wallets," exactly? People didn't stop buying Civil War games -- Apple stopped SELLING them, and damn the demand side of the economy altogether.
It seems like Dylann Roof "voted" with his bullets, and then an SJW outrage mob "voted" with their Tweets that the Confederate flag was to blame. Or maybe you could say that Apple "voted" with its freedom to control its storefront. Either way, nobody else got a vote. Christ knows I didn't. This wasn't a principled economic decision that resulted from an actual absence of demand.
You should be disconcerted when corporations that occupy arterial positions in the US economy pull products based on social media outrage, because, well, it's disconcerting. I don't think either of us wants to be in a world where companies with that kind of power make decisions in that fashion. It affects a lot of people when Wal-Mart or Apple elects not to sell something, so they should be responsible about how they make those decisions.
Quote from Taylor »
Also, I've never seen Gone with the Wind, but all this talk is making want to. I have a feeling I'm not alone in that.
Its position on the list of all time great movies is entirely meritorious, and it is my humble opinion that you would have to be pretty far gone as a human being to come away from watching it longing for a world where it was deliberately made more difficult for others to see it.
In what way do you dispel the delusion by banning or otherwise restricting one's ability to see the artifacts resulting from the supposed delusion? Far from dispelling the delusion, this action would ensure that people forget there ever was such a delusion. And that can only increase the chances that in the future, someone will have the delusion again.
And we may only be exposed to those things which are sacrosanct moral and physical necessities for our culture? And who decides what those things are?
One can't judge art that one can't see.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I understand that somewhere -out there- 'people' are calling for the ban of things like Gone With the Wind and the Dukes of Hazzard (as well as anything else you might imagine). But, does anyone -on this thread- agree with that view? Does anyone here feel the Federal Government should be banning the highest-grossing film (adjusted for inflation) of all time? I don't like the Confederate Flag as much as the next man, but I know I don't support any Federal banning.
Conversely, does anyone here think that private business shouldn't be able to sell or -as it were- not sell whatever they want?
Or, are 'we' (people posting on this thread) all in agreement on that score as well?
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
How about destroying no copies? How about not consigning it anywhere? How about continuing to sell it for as long as people want to buy it and in sufficient quantities without embargo or restriction, but saying that on your view, which you may also freely publicize, it constitutes Confederate apologia? How is that not a sufficient course of action?
It's still available. In fact it is one of very few films with a perfect 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Most of the reviewers, having written their reviews before the world started inexplicably transforming into an SJW hellscape, explicitly recognize the difference between praising good art and endorsing the subject matter being depicted.
If you don't read it yourself, then you are placing your access to and perception of the truth in a subordinate position to the subjective judgments of another fallible human being.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
This is a false dichotomy. You can choose not to take a position on issues about which you are uninformed. What value is there in adopting a public consensus viewpoint simply because you didn't have time to form your own opinion?
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I guess I was being too charitable by assuming the SJW label would be based on a reading of more than one article. Then again, I'm sure you've assigned it on the basis of single tweets, so I shouldn't be surprised. I'm going to guess, however, that feeling that Gone With the Wind should not be consigned to museums is not sufficient to make one not an SJW?
So Lumenick is not a spokesman or a representative of anything, but he is somehow a compatriot of both feminist academia and an entire Tumblr-verse of opinions?
I know you love the SJW label. You see them everywhere you look, and it's so tempting to slap it on people. But it's getting ridiculous. A quick google search suggests that, prior to this one article, no one in the history of the internet has ever called Lou Lumenick an SJW. Not once. And yet, one disagreement over Gone With the Wind later, and you've decided he's vanguard an entire nebulous movement ranging from college professors to confused teenagers as they march roughshod over our civilization.
Interestingly enough, when I went to spell "refrain" spellcheck thought I meant "re-frame," which seems to me to be what you're doing to this argument. In that part I quoted earlier, you seemed to be trying to relate 'restricting public access' (aka: companies selling what they want to sell) with a ban. Now, I understand your main point on this thread is with regards to companies -in the short term- going down a slippery slope (something I can agree with). But, let us not make the same slippery mistake by conflating companies short term overreaction to public opinion with a Federal ban.
Everyone on this thread seems to think companies should sell what they want, and the Federal Government shouldn't ban flags. Trying to make it seem otherwise is unfair at best.
Now, if you're nonplussed people don't like Dukes of Hazzard Hot Wheel toys anymore -believe me- I understand. Nostalgia is definitely an emotion I can sympathize with. But, voting with your dollars isn't subversive. Even your linked article seems to be talking about people expressing themselves with their dollars when it comes to Gone With the Wind. It certainly isn't talking about banning anything. My confusion is only getting worse...
My google search for "Mill's arguments for free expression" brought me to a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page, but it's not helping understand how what you said in this quote has any baring on what people are talking about on this thread. All I can guess at would be your will to hyperbolically recast this argument is larger than I imagined. Do you really think Apple -a private company- pulling Civil War games for a few days and some movie critic calling for people to rethink their views on a 75-year-old movie must invoke John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle?
Both entities are exercising their freedom of speech, not curtailing it.
Look, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about the etiology of precisely when someone can be diagnosed with the disease of SJWism. Maybe I think you only need to exhibit one symptom once to be diagnosed. Maybe for you it's 30 SJW tweets per minute; 29 or less and the label doesn't apply. It doesn't matter, and I don't care. This is as dumb as arguing about whether or not someone is really an agnostic in a religion thread.
You, me, and this thread would be better served by talking about Lumenick's idea rather than Lumenick himself, so I'll call the idea an SJW idea, rather than calling Lumenick an SJW. And I find that you have said nothing substantial concerning the specific idea in question here.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
But you said:
This only makes sense if Lumenick is an SJW. If all he holds is one opinion about Gone With the Wind, and doesn't buy into or represent any other SJW ideology, then he's not a part of any slippery slope. He's not evidence of any media or commercial influence wielded by SJWs.
But of course, if all it takes to be a SJW is that you hold even a single opinion that sounds like something an SJW would think, then it's trivially true that the SJWs hold a very significant degree of power and influence. Everyone but the most hardened opposing ideologue is therefore an SJW. Maybe everyone in the world except you is.
Not heedless at all. I read it, thought about it, and decided to continue to use the word deliberately. He wants the film to be consigned to museums as a racist historical artifact, and that is already sufficient to trigger all of my objections, but in addition to that, I see no realistic path where the highest-grossing movie of all time becomes a museum relic except by way of a de facto ban.
Did I say that it was or is this going to be another instance of your usual pattern of making up random gibberish? I don't even follow what you're asking here.
The two things I have ideological objections to are (a) banning some class of things and (b) consigning that class of things to a museum. The fundamental objection is the same in both cases -- namely, it makes it more difficult if not impossible for an individual person to view the object in question and make his own moral decision about its content, and replaces that decision with a delegation to some external censorship authority.
Thus, it matters not one whit to me whether Lumenick is literally talking about a de jure government ban or a de facto restriction outside of museums. Both positions are objectionable to me for the exact same underlying reasons.
If you have any trouble understanding that argument, then ask about that specific argument.
Okay, so you agree with everything that I actually said...?
And you disagree with something I didn't say. Greatn.
Show me where I used the words "Federal ban." I didn't and still don't believe there is any immediate danger of the US federal government banning flags or movies. Then again, I didn't believe there was any danger of companies embargoing flags or movies either.
My central point here is that our intuitions about what free people will and won't do, and how far this type of thing will really go, need to be called into question in light of new evidence.
Look here.
It actually has the most bearing on what you're talking about. You urge me not to conflate de facto consignment to museums with a de jure federal ban, but the reason I pointed out the applicability of Mill's arguments in both cases is that it wouldn't matter even if I had.
Why do people always say things like this? Like, that thread about banning the rapist from Magic tournaments is replete with people saying over and over again that Wizards can do whatever they want; that's freedom baby. Here you are saying the same is true for Apple, Walmart, et al. And yes, you and all the people saying this are, without question, completely correct, and yes, everyone knows it and already knew it before you ever said it.
It is an exercise of freedom to embargo these objects. As I said before, it is a paradox of freedom, known since at least ancient Greece, that by definition one becomes enabled, by the very virtue of his freedom, to advocate for unfreedom.
I am not here to argue that there should be some sort of restriction on companies to prevent them from not selling things. I don't know of any way of stopping this kind of thing without violating my own principles. I can only point out that it's a real thing that's happening in society and that it should be very disconcerting to you that these organizations are using their freedom, which they undeniably have, in this fashion.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I think you are on to something here, arguing that "SJWs" do not hold power in society. I think it would be much more accurate to say that "SJW ideas" or "SJW modes of discourse" hold significant and increasing power over the way our culture talks about important issues.
I would generalize crashing's definition of "SJW" to an idea or mode of discourse that affirms following criteria:
1. Some ideas are so harmful that mere exposure to the idea is damaging. The harm occurs even if one does not believe the idea or give it any credence.
2. Society should restrict the dissemination and free flow of ideas that are harmful (either through outright banning or through "relegating the idea to a museum" or the like).
3. One should refuse to substantively engage with those who hold harmful ideas. Instead, one should attempt to silence or minimize these people (via direct censorship, or via more indirect methods like harassment and shaming).
Perhaps this set of tenets could be more accurately called "Social Dogmatism" because it also describes the behavior of religious fundamentalists and other social and political extremists. Religious fundamentalists just happen to take different positions on the issues that social justice fundamentalists. It's not the specific positions I'm arguing against here, it's the mode of discourse - "you're wrong and I'm right and I don't have to listen to you lalalala."
As Crashing said, we see this reflected more and more in society today. Strongly disagree with and SCG article about gender in MTG? The response is to call for it to be taken down rather than to argue against its substance. Strongly dislike the confederate flag and what it stands for? The response is to call for media depicting it to be hidden from view as much as possible, rather than brought out into the daylight where people can have a frank and honest discourse about it. This is pernicious; it leads people away from a world where they think critically and draw their own conclusions and into a bubble world of ideological homogeneity.
Framed this way, I think it's right to say that SJW people do not hold much power in society (depending on how you define an "SJW person"). This is because most people do not hold SJW ideas across the board. Instead, they endorse Social Dogmatism for certain ideas that have a strong emotional effect on them. Once a certain number of people agree about a particular viewpoint (say, the uncontroversial idea that slavery is wrong) and a large enough subset of these people endorse SJW discourse with respect to this viewpoint (anyone who supports anything associated with slavery must be silenced) then we reach a critical mass where this area of discourse shuts down and we get calls for banning, hiding, or otherwise eliminating all competing viewpoints. Even though I think the majority opinion is obviously right here, I don't think this calls for shutting down the opposition.
To be clear, this is not an argument about the government or the 1st Amendment. It's an argument about the value of an ideologically open society versus a dogmatic society. It's an argument about whether our culture is better off allowing all ideas to be expressed, or whether using social pressure to enforce social conformity is a better alternative.
Does Lumenick meet any, let alone all of those criteria? He praises the inclusion of a "26-minute featurette" that engages with the racist influences of the film. In general, relegation to a museum is not the fate for ideas that we refuse to engage with. Museums are fundamentally a place of engagement with the ideas they present. The holocaust museum is not an instance of refusal to engage with the philosophies of Nazism. Nor is it a place for those who believe the mere exposure to Nazi ideas is damaging.
I would suggest, instead, that the casual airing of Gone With the Wind or the flag on the General Lee are instances of failing to engage substantively with an idea. What Lumenick is saying is that Gone With the Wind espouses ideas which should be addressed. It's best aired in a context where that can happen.
But, I'm not sure what the article matters. I think it's very reasonable for me to say no reasonable person is calling for a ban of any sort. If the author of that piece was calling for a ban (de facto or otherwise), then he would be unreasonable. But, he's not. He is asking people to rethink how they view the piece and vote with their wallet. Indeed, he thinks it's already happening.
Something literately no one even tangentially related to this discussion is advocating. I'm sure you could find people saying that, but you'd have to look harder.
The one article you found where the author seems to think this might be a good idea is advocating doing it with free market forces. Do you have a problem with outdated things naturally being retired to museums? I assume not, but at this point I'm not sure of anything.
Is this a slam on museums? You think that banning something makes that thing comparably as hard to see as displaying it in a museum? Heck, I thought displaying scarce things in museums made them more desirable.
But -again- this is all moot. No one is saying it should be restricted to only museums (not even you're movie critic, who -not once- uses the word 'restricted'). And, if they were, no one here would agree with them.
I can agree, it wouldn't matter which of those he was saying.
But, he's not saying either of those things. And -if he was- literally no one here would agree with him.
Much of it, yes. What I am 'disagreeing' with (or -more accurately- am 'confused by') is this perception of persecution you're giving off.
Alright. So what DO you mean when you say "ban?"
Who would be doing the "banning?"
Good.
Why?
So far, the only thing I didn't like was Apple's actions, which they undid. But, if they hadn't I don't think I would find it "disconcerting." It would just mean the majority of people voting with their wallet disagreed with me, and I would have to find some other way to get my Civil War games if I wanted any.
Also, I've never seen Gone with the Wind, but all this talk is making want to. I have a feeling I'm not alone in that.
What makes SJW so dangerous isn't its political positions per se, it is the way in which it handles conflict. It is not enough for SJWs to talk, to persuade, to rally for a cause. It does this, of course, but not with the intention of winning in the marketplace of ideas, but rather, destroying the market outright.
The flag is the enemy---this has been decided. Once decided, they must not engage in any discourse beyond that which is absolutely necessary to purge the flag from the present, and the past if possible as well. If that requires desecrating property with hashtag creeds (as they've started doing), fine. The most preferable route involves leveraging political pressure against both individuals and corporate entities to such an extreme degree that any who resisted would be blacklisted McCarthy style: racist, sexist, homophobic, religious, whatever the flavor of the day might be.
Notice the way they did this with Obama detractors (insta-racists) or with an enemy like Thomas (Blacklisted by the revolution as an Uncle Tom). Hobby Lobby, nuns that dare hold a position other than "free love", Donald Trump, Chick Fil-a, and so on.
Because when they're using their freedom of speech to oppress someone they don't like, it's a valid use of freedom of speech.
But when someone uses their freedom of speech to oppress you, it's not a valid use of freedom of speech.
Like, duh.
Is that really unreasonable? You can't buy a swastika ballcap at the holocaust museum either.
i'm missing something, what does SJW stand for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#Social_justice_warrior
You don't seem to understand my position. As I tried to explain, if someone had posted a week ago along the lines of "Don't remove the flag, because the next thing you know they'll be pulling Dukes of Hazzard and Gone with the Wind and Hot Wheels cars and Civil War games from store shelves," I would have joined you in mocking that person. I never for an instant believed it would take place. And then it did.
This is what actually happened. I'm not predicting that the sky will fall. This is a postmortem analysis taking place after the sky actually fell. I'm looking at the shattered pieces of the sky that are already on the ground and saying "hey, maybe it's time to re-evaluate my predictive methodology."
The only "conspiracy" I believe in is a collection of unassociated people endorsing ideologies with consequences they don't understand and wouldn't like if they did. Most of the people who are silently going along with this nonsense are going to wake up one day in the world they created for themselves and wonder what went wrong.
I know I'm wasting my time talking to someone who deliberately misinterprets my positions to this extent, but since someone actually thanked you for posting this nonsense, I'll say it again: I myself wouldn't have thought that removing the Confederate flag from a state house was the sign of some "coming apocalypse" -- but the "apocalypse" happened all the same. Now I have to update my beliefs in response to that evidence.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Nothing I've said, including the specific statement you quoted, turns on whether or not the label "SJW" can be hung on Lumenick. A simple examination of the truth tables is sufficient to show this:
Suppose I prove to a degree satisfactory to all concerned that Lumenick is an SJW. What impact does this have on the first sentence you quoted? Almost none. Insofar as Lumenick has influence, proving he's an SJW would be very weak Bayesian evidence of its truth, but not enough to be dispositive by anyone's lights. What impact does this have on the second sentence? None whatsoever. Whether or not some particular person is an SJW doesn't bear on that sentence at all.
On the other hand, suppose you prove that Lumenick isn't an SJW. What impact would that have on the quoted sentences? Well, it would be extremely weak Bayesian evidence against the first sentence, since there are finitely many people in the world and everyone that isn't an SJW reduces the number of possible affirmative cases, but again, not dispositive in any sense of the word. And as for sentence #2, it has no bearing, for the same reasons as above.
So, as I said, trying to label Lumenick is pointless. I further submit that if you need to abandon your basic reasoning process to the extent you have done here just to get me to fit in some kind of box, you might want to instead consider the hypothesis that I don't in fact fit in that box. Just a thought.
If I thought everyone but me was an SJW, I wouldn't bother arguing at all.
Despite what you might think, I actually don't like the word "SJW," for reasons that to present company should be all too clear. Nevertheless, it's part of the lexicon now. bitterroot is probably right to attempt to reformulate the argument in different terms, but I'm not sure the parties that are presently representing the opposition in this thread would be moved from their positions by such an effort. I'm still waiting for so much as one single person on the opposition to understand what I'm actually arguing. If you think I believe in a vast SJW conspiracy consisting of everyone but me who's ruling the world, then you're wrong.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I agree with you that the article does not call for government action, I never said that article called for government action, and it does not matter for the purposes of any argument I'm making whether or not that article calls for government action, which, to reiterate, it doesn't.
This particular article, which is indeed only one article and also the thing we're talking about, is one in which the author endorses favorably a vision of the world in which Gone with the Wind is something that is consigned to museums. Now, he doesn't actually specify how we get from the world we're in now to that world except by way of insinuation, and I would say that it's outright delusional to expect everyone everywhere to just stop liking the most popular movie ever to exist, so he must actually be talking about something that we both would likely call a ban -- but in the interest of maximum charitability, let's put that inference aside. Let's call it free market forces at work. Everyone simply decides to stop liking the movie. Fine.
The thing is, regardless of how it's brought about, it's already objectionable enough just for him to desire that world.
I actually had what is essentially this very argument with my wife a few months ago, only at the time I was on the equivalent of Lumenick's position. We were in the car and I was flipping through radio stations and Taylor Swift was being simulcast on what felt like 99% of the FM spectrum. No matter which button I pushed I couldn't get rid of her. I wanted to punch the dashboard. The ensuing discussion went something like this:
At that moment I realized she was right. It was a creepy notion. In fact, it was downright depraved. In my new world, I would have erased someone I loved from existence (or if that's too melodramatic for you, detracted from the richness of the human condition by removing something that (inexplicably) makes a lot of people happy) -- and for what? So I could live in a hugbox where I wouldn't have to be exposed to something that offends me? Upon reflection I find that to be a monstrous moral tradeoff.
One reason why I intend to keep using the term SJW despite all the mental friction it generates is because sometimes as a metaphor it's just beautifully apt. I was playing the role of a "Music Justice Warrior" in that argument: I put my helmet on, lowered my visor, set my lance, and charged headlong at the only thing I could see out of the narrow slit, which was a particular bit of music I hated. In the end, I concocted a scenario in which I squarely hit the target, but I was totally oblivious to the fact that my steed was trampling all of the spectators underfoot.
Even interpreted in the generous terms you suggest here, Lumenick is making the same awful mistake. In fact, my wife likes Gone with the Wind too, so Lumenick can take his fantasy and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
The core SJW idea at the root of this, the thing I'm opposed to, is this kind of soft totalitarianism, this notion that we're somehow better off if our thoughts and beliefs, even in so trivial a matter of which entertainments we indulge in, are brought into conformance with someone else's ideology. This is an evil notion.
It doesn't matter whether this happens because a state imposes it by force, or because someone sprinkles some modal-logic faerie dust around and wishes really hard that a world in which everyone is a drone copy of Lumenick with respect to taste in movies is not only possible but somehow becomes actualized. In fact, the latter scenario is arguably worse in some respects; in the former scenario there is at least the possibility of dissent.
You're confused by something you're making up in your head. Just stop doing that and you would cease to be confused.
I don't want anything banned and I hope nobody does any banning, so I don't know how I somehow became the person that is being called upon to answer this question. The only thing I can think to say is this: in the only possible worlds I can think of that have even a tangential relationship to the actual world, it is the case that if Gone with the Wind appears only in museums, it is because the people who like Gone with the Wind, who, pace Lumenick, will never simply cease to exist, have had their private copies removed and have somehow been prevented from acquiring further copies. The manner in which this could happen can run over a gamut of possibilities which I encourage you to think about yourself if you really think determining the mechanism of banning is a pressing matter.
I don't consider a world in which everyone magically becomes infected with SJW movie tastes to be remotely plausible or desirable.
Who "voted with their wallets," exactly? People didn't stop buying Civil War games -- Apple stopped SELLING them, and damn the demand side of the economy altogether.
It seems like Dylann Roof "voted" with his bullets, and then an SJW outrage mob "voted" with their Tweets that the Confederate flag was to blame. Or maybe you could say that Apple "voted" with its freedom to control its storefront. Either way, nobody else got a vote. Christ knows I didn't. This wasn't a principled economic decision that resulted from an actual absence of demand.
You should be disconcerted when corporations that occupy arterial positions in the US economy pull products based on social media outrage, because, well, it's disconcerting. I don't think either of us wants to be in a world where companies with that kind of power make decisions in that fashion. It affects a lot of people when Wal-Mart or Apple elects not to sell something, so they should be responsible about how they make those decisions.
Its position on the list of all time great movies is entirely meritorious, and it is my humble opinion that you would have to be pretty far gone as a human being to come away from watching it longing for a world where it was deliberately made more difficult for others to see it.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.