I agree except for your weighting of the sources. You ignore microaggressions. These were developed in the 70s and defined in quite a sensible way. They were redefined by critical race theorists who explicitly called themselves that in 2000. They were professors at the University of California and by 2014 they were giving lectures to the office of the President. Soon after that the UC system was half a million students sent out a memo listing 50 crazy microaggressions. They also visited all the campuses and put on an aget prop skit. I know it's a little hard to believe, but that's the history. Soon after that they were crowing about how they had organized tons of students on social media to spread the word. And if you look into the operation of critical race theory in schools, you'll find all kinds of tools that they use to make the kind of arguments that you are describing. Well I accepted the sources use site have played and still do play a role. I think it's a mistake to leave out the most organized Force behind this problem. Apologies for voice typing mistakes. My internet is out
"While they may be violating the spirit of liberal toleration, they are not violating the letter of it, and so they have difficulty seeing any problem in their views."
Doesn't this formulation have YIPs inverted? They readily violate the letter of liberal doctrine under the pretense of defending its spirit, to wit: "I'm abridging your freedom of speech (i.e. shouting you down, assaulting you physically, surrounding you and screaming at you, rioting, etc.) because your words promote fascist ideas, you fascist."
I found that a confusing locution too. I *think* the author was pointing out that the YIPs are not violating the letter (they are stretching the letter to accommodate enforcement of their preferred moralities), they were violating the spirit because they make use of the "exceptions" already provisioned within liberalism (the state may coerce people not to kill or appropriate the property of others, etc.). They use the coercion inherently allowed within liberalism, stretching and bending it to cover their preferred coercions.
The expansion of rights to include the social and economic rights (e.g., the rights to education and an adequate standard of living) and the rights of groups (e.g., the rights of peoples to self-determination and of nations to sovereignty) were driven by twentieth century socialist movements throughout the world. They represented a reconceptualization of the “rights of man” from the vantage point of the colonized and the peripheralized, thus bringing the Western concept of natural rights to a more universal formulation. They therefore possess much greater legitimacy than the protection from harm invoked by the YIPs, which has been emerging only recently from a very limited social and philosophical base.
“Knowledge, ideology, and real socialism in our times”
That expansion is the thin entering wedge which started this.
Self determination is arguable, and national sovereignty is definitional.
Education and standards of living are something people arrange for themselves. Making governments responsible for them tends to have undesirable side effects, such as mass indoctrination and mass starvation, along with general impoverishment.
In the Global South, the expansion of rights to include the social and economic rights of citizens and the rights of nations to sovereignty (non-interference in their internal affairs and control over their national economies and natural resources) was not the "thin entering wedge which started this" but the foundation to the advancement of political theory and practice to a more advanced stage. This can be seen through careful observation and respectful listening to the leaders of the Global South.
Knowledge, ideology, and real socialism in our times”
Liberalism construes "self-determination" as an individual (rather than collective) attribute.
An argument can be made that concentrations of power (e.g, in the form of capital) are inimical to legitimate social and economic rights -- but to be liberal, that argument must be focused on the impediments that those concentrations of power pose to individual agency (or personal freedom) as such, rather than on some arbitrary notion of "the common good" or "social justice."
This is a tricky and nuanced (but nonetheless crucial) distinction. Perhaps one way of viewing this is that liberalism resolves such situations by negotiation rather than by decree.
An abusive monopoly is vulnerable to disruption -- but not when they're spying on you. I'd say, "Tell that to Google," but you needn't bother; they already know who you are and where you are and what you think. Remember, your very attention is the product.
Even they are vulnerable. They pay for your attention with useful search results. If the results are biased then they aren’t as useful. That’s an opportunity for other search engines.
We also should be aware that YIPs are also young, inexperienced and siloed. What happens to their views after they leave the friendly confines of the university? Undoubtedly, some will find employment where their views are accepted and, perhaps, even nurtured, for example academe. However, most will go into environments where personal opinions and feelings are less important than the products and services that must be delivered at a profit or at least within budget.
The influence of college professors is primarily on the course material that they teach and secondarily on the students who are taught. Further, I suspect that the media overemphasize the influence of college professors. The media are almost exclusively college educated professionals who, of course, find it easier to interview, understand and find common cause with people on college campuses than people in rural America (or even suburban America).
I think the article hits the trees but missed the forest. What is the cost of liberalism? After all, humanity lived most of its history in ‘illiberalism’. Was that voluntary? The YIPs were simply ignorant of the pre-conditions for liberalism and behaved in ways that will destroy hard earned liberalism and plunge humanity back into dark history …
To reconcile your argument with the reasonable arguments presented in some comments that X ideology (Marxism, postmodernism, etc.) Is the true source of illiberalism...
People have beliefs about what constitutes a harm for reasons. Those reasons are sometimes drawn from these other ideologies (directly, by people who adhere to the ideology, and indirectly by people influenced by or sympathetic to them without consistently adopting them).
Sometimes the reason is simple, we want to arrive at a certain conclusion and we are biased to arguments that support that conclusion. The author suggests as much.
So ideology can be the source (even the "true source") of expansive or skewed notions of harm (etc.) and their framing within liberal terms can still be important or crucial as well. The latter means real intellectual work must be done by liberal thinkers to define and refine the ideas of liberalism, not (only) to argue FOR liberalism over illiberalism.
I'm inclined to attribute a lot of illiberalism postmodernism, but you make a very convincing case to the contrary.
Details of positions matter, not just big picture ideologies. And ambiguity in the meaning and limits of the concepts of harm, rights, and coercion/voluntary certainly provide space for intolerance that is is easy enough to justify to oneself and others.
Your examples make it plain that this ambiguity has, in fact, been used this way. These examples are familiar but it is now easy to see them in this new light.
Your premise is faulty - I'm a Progressive Communist. Those to the right of the SPM hyphen are indeed Fascists but those to the left of the hyphen are as well : but I have no problem with Nazi-fascists having equal time with "kindler and gentler" fascists ( I.F. Stone) all that's presented via newspapers, magazines, social media in the USA is all Nazi-fascist propaganda. Most "Americans" are Nazi-fascists and don't even realize it. The SPM foreign policy is race based Nazi-fascism. Carl Schmitt is one of their "founding fathers" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt. Confession I didn't read the remainder of the article because like most SPM diatribes it proceeds from a faulty premise i.a., the SPM is all of reality anything outside of it is insanity or unwashed ignorance.
I'll be back for more later, but for now I just wanted to record and disseminate this comment from a prominent progressive guy on yt. He's a bit too old to be a YIP-proper and displays an interesting bit of self-awareness: "Let's just be clear. Lefties are not just a minority political ideology, which we are, but we're also know-it-all, killjoy assholes. It's just the truth. I need all of us to recognize that more fully and, like, move with that in mind, more efficiently." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwCckKEMtZc&t=938s
A special (and especially ironic) complement to the "harms" trope -- whereby the stretching is taken in the opposite direction, toward exoneration: "Root Causes"!
I agree except for your weighting of the sources. You ignore microaggressions. These were developed in the 70s and defined in quite a sensible way. They were redefined by critical race theorists who explicitly called themselves that in 2000. They were professors at the University of California and by 2014 they were giving lectures to the office of the President. Soon after that the UC system was half a million students sent out a memo listing 50 crazy microaggressions. They also visited all the campuses and put on an aget prop skit. I know it's a little hard to believe, but that's the history. Soon after that they were crowing about how they had organized tons of students on social media to spread the word. And if you look into the operation of critical race theory in schools, you'll find all kinds of tools that they use to make the kind of arguments that you are describing. Well I accepted the sources use site have played and still do play a role. I think it's a mistake to leave out the most organized Force behind this problem. Apologies for voice typing mistakes. My internet is out
"While they may be violating the spirit of liberal toleration, they are not violating the letter of it, and so they have difficulty seeing any problem in their views."
Doesn't this formulation have YIPs inverted? They readily violate the letter of liberal doctrine under the pretense of defending its spirit, to wit: "I'm abridging your freedom of speech (i.e. shouting you down, assaulting you physically, surrounding you and screaming at you, rioting, etc.) because your words promote fascist ideas, you fascist."
Or would only a fascist say something like that?
I found that a confusing locution too. I *think* the author was pointing out that the YIPs are not violating the letter (they are stretching the letter to accommodate enforcement of their preferred moralities), they were violating the spirit because they make use of the "exceptions" already provisioned within liberalism (the state may coerce people not to kill or appropriate the property of others, etc.). They use the coercion inherently allowed within liberalism, stretching and bending it to cover their preferred coercions.
The expansion of rights to include the social and economic rights (e.g., the rights to education and an adequate standard of living) and the rights of groups (e.g., the rights of peoples to self-determination and of nations to sovereignty) were driven by twentieth century socialist movements throughout the world. They represented a reconceptualization of the “rights of man” from the vantage point of the colonized and the peripheralized, thus bringing the Western concept of natural rights to a more universal formulation. They therefore possess much greater legitimacy than the protection from harm invoked by the YIPs, which has been emerging only recently from a very limited social and philosophical base.
“Knowledge, ideology, and real socialism in our times”
https://charlesmckelvey.substack.com/
That expansion is the thin entering wedge which started this.
Self determination is arguable, and national sovereignty is definitional.
Education and standards of living are something people arrange for themselves. Making governments responsible for them tends to have undesirable side effects, such as mass indoctrination and mass starvation, along with general impoverishment.
In the Global South, the expansion of rights to include the social and economic rights of citizens and the rights of nations to sovereignty (non-interference in their internal affairs and control over their national economies and natural resources) was not the "thin entering wedge which started this" but the foundation to the advancement of political theory and practice to a more advanced stage. This can be seen through careful observation and respectful listening to the leaders of the Global South.
Knowledge, ideology, and real socialism in our times”
https://charlesmckelvey.substack.com/
Economic rights include economic liberty and private property ownership. Socialism violates both.
The history of socialism is hidden under piles of corpses.
Liberalism construes "self-determination" as an individual (rather than collective) attribute.
An argument can be made that concentrations of power (e.g, in the form of capital) are inimical to legitimate social and economic rights -- but to be liberal, that argument must be focused on the impediments that those concentrations of power pose to individual agency (or personal freedom) as such, rather than on some arbitrary notion of "the common good" or "social justice."
This is a tricky and nuanced (but nonetheless crucial) distinction. Perhaps one way of viewing this is that liberalism resolves such situations by negotiation rather than by decree.
I have fewer problems with concentration of capital so long as people are not allowed to hire goons. An abusive monopoly is vulnerable to disruption.
An abusive monopoly is vulnerable to disruption -- but not when they're spying on you. I'd say, "Tell that to Google," but you needn't bother; they already know who you are and where you are and what you think. Remember, your very attention is the product.
Even they are vulnerable. They pay for your attention with useful search results. If the results are biased then they aren’t as useful. That’s an opportunity for other search engines.
We also should be aware that YIPs are also young, inexperienced and siloed. What happens to their views after they leave the friendly confines of the university? Undoubtedly, some will find employment where their views are accepted and, perhaps, even nurtured, for example academe. However, most will go into environments where personal opinions and feelings are less important than the products and services that must be delivered at a profit or at least within budget.
That may apply to the YIP's but what about their professors who are no longer young and have a great deal of influence.
The influence of college professors is primarily on the course material that they teach and secondarily on the students who are taught. Further, I suspect that the media overemphasize the influence of college professors. The media are almost exclusively college educated professionals who, of course, find it easier to interview, understand and find common cause with people on college campuses than people in rural America (or even suburban America).
I think the article hits the trees but missed the forest. What is the cost of liberalism? After all, humanity lived most of its history in ‘illiberalism’. Was that voluntary? The YIPs were simply ignorant of the pre-conditions for liberalism and behaved in ways that will destroy hard earned liberalism and plunge humanity back into dark history …
To reconcile your argument with the reasonable arguments presented in some comments that X ideology (Marxism, postmodernism, etc.) Is the true source of illiberalism...
People have beliefs about what constitutes a harm for reasons. Those reasons are sometimes drawn from these other ideologies (directly, by people who adhere to the ideology, and indirectly by people influenced by or sympathetic to them without consistently adopting them).
Sometimes the reason is simple, we want to arrive at a certain conclusion and we are biased to arguments that support that conclusion. The author suggests as much.
So ideology can be the source (even the "true source") of expansive or skewed notions of harm (etc.) and their framing within liberal terms can still be important or crucial as well. The latter means real intellectual work must be done by liberal thinkers to define and refine the ideas of liberalism, not (only) to argue FOR liberalism over illiberalism.
Excellent article.
I'm inclined to attribute a lot of illiberalism postmodernism, but you make a very convincing case to the contrary.
Details of positions matter, not just big picture ideologies. And ambiguity in the meaning and limits of the concepts of harm, rights, and coercion/voluntary certainly provide space for intolerance that is is easy enough to justify to oneself and others.
Your examples make it plain that this ambiguity has, in fact, been used this way. These examples are familiar but it is now easy to see them in this new light.
Really eye-opening! Thank you for this article.
Where in the spectrum of illiberal liberalism's methods would you see concept-creep?
Some concepts (like "trauma") were pushed so far as to be nearly semantically void, still they facilitate the use of the "harm" argument.
Your premise is faulty - I'm a Progressive Communist. Those to the right of the SPM hyphen are indeed Fascists but those to the left of the hyphen are as well : but I have no problem with Nazi-fascists having equal time with "kindler and gentler" fascists ( I.F. Stone) all that's presented via newspapers, magazines, social media in the USA is all Nazi-fascist propaganda. Most "Americans" are Nazi-fascists and don't even realize it. The SPM foreign policy is race based Nazi-fascism. Carl Schmitt is one of their "founding fathers" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt. Confession I didn't read the remainder of the article because like most SPM diatribes it proceeds from a faulty premise i.a., the SPM is all of reality anything outside of it is insanity or unwashed ignorance.
I'll be back for more later, but for now I just wanted to record and disseminate this comment from a prominent progressive guy on yt. He's a bit too old to be a YIP-proper and displays an interesting bit of self-awareness: "Let's just be clear. Lefties are not just a minority political ideology, which we are, but we're also know-it-all, killjoy assholes. It's just the truth. I need all of us to recognize that more fully and, like, move with that in mind, more efficiently." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwCckKEMtZc&t=938s
Good article, but the author shouldn't have assumed that everyone is familiar with the 'YIP' (young illiberal progressive) acronym.
A special (and especially ironic) complement to the "harms" trope -- whereby the stretching is taken in the opposite direction, toward exoneration: "Root Causes"!