"These examples underscore a critical lesson: the original sin of cancel culture does not rest with any single ideology or group, but rather with our species' hard-wired tendencies towards tribalistic behavior and the self-righteous urge to punish outgroups who transgress taboos.”
This is the key sentence in the article. Admittedly I speak as one trained in anthropology, but the depth of what the author refers to as ‘tribalism' is actually something even deeper - territoriality. Our genetic inclination to territoriality goes so far back into the mists of our animal heritage that we would never be able to find its origins. But its effects are strong because they had to be. A group’s survival often depended on the lengths to which its members would go if they had to in order to defend their ground and their own, and those lengths often included the sacrifice of life itself. Therefore natural selection worked to maintain it at a high level. We make somewhat light of it in our regular references to phrase like ‘the home court advantage’, but it is very and deeply real.
As humans we have extended territoriality out of the purely geographical and added it firmly in the intellectual and emotional spheres of our existence. The instinct is to draw the line, and we do so at a level well below our thought processes. They only come into play as we decide where the line is to be drawn, and not whether or not to draw it.
The Nature v Nurture argument is as old as we are, and there’s a good reason for that. As a species that prizes our sense of ourselves and our ability to make decisions on our own, we find it hard to admit that we are also prey to some forces deeper than our self-vaunted thought processes. But until we recognize the power of those deeper instincts, we will be powerless to free ourselves from them when we have to.
Those forces fuel our nationalism and our religious, political, and social divisions. They are the basis of our stubborn determination to focus more on what we believe differentiates us from ’those others’ than on what we share as human beings, all too often in the course of which differentiation we descend into that uniquely human catastrophe we call war. It is a force all too well understood and used by demagogues like Donald Trump and all his predecessors, by all the authoritarians who used ‘fear of the other’ to maintain their power.
We have been prey to those forces for as long as we’ve been human, but up until August 6th, 1945, their effects, while increasingly horrendous as science and technology gave the means to make them so, were not at the extinction level. Now we’ve reached that pinnacle, and our future as a species, along with all other life on earth, is going to depend more than ever on our ability to understand and to deal far more successfully with what we’ve been just playing with all this time.
Until introductory logic classes are required there will be no way to stop this. Once we eliminated the tools for informal and formal logical argument then only Gorgias and Protagoras remain, persuasion without regard for truth.
The Cultural Marxist (CM) controls contemporary discourse. The CM left rules K-12 education, academia, Hollywood, the media, NGOs, SV, Tech, Wall Street, corporate America, the FBI/CIA/military, etc. Let me use a few examples. For example, consider the case of Caster Semenya. Did the Associated Press, Reuters, NY Times, NPR, Washington Post, and BBC mention that he is 46-XY (5-ARD)? No, they did not. To use a more modern example, the media was virtually unanimous in denouncing the Biden dementia ‘theory’ until it was obviously true. Another example is that Wikipedia says that CM is a ‘conspiracy theory’.
When it comes to controversial speech and expression, the most important activity is the community discussing openly whether particular speech and expression should be (or have been) protected under the First Amendment of our constitution. Make no mistake about it that communities will use somewhat different interpretations of First Amendment rights in reaching a decision about acceptability. Some decisions will be seen to be wrong in hindsight. However, only a healthy community allows for open discussion.
Your comment is confusing. Whether or not lies are protected speech (they most definitely are) is irrelevant to what non-state entities do about them.
Also, I disagree with the non-state entities part. If a lie is demonstrable, should be easy to counter with that demonstration. My experience is that most lies are not of that kind -- or they are only of that kind if one is already disposed to look at them that way. No institutions are so good at judging truths to the point where they should be allowed to quash dissent. No institutions in such a situation can be trusted not to become corrupt. The ability to speak freely is critical to liberal social function.
"These examples underscore a critical lesson: the original sin of cancel culture does not rest with any single ideology or group, but rather with our species' hard-wired tendencies towards tribalistic behavior and the self-righteous urge to punish outgroups who transgress taboos.”
This is the key sentence in the article. Admittedly I speak as one trained in anthropology, but the depth of what the author refers to as ‘tribalism' is actually something even deeper - territoriality. Our genetic inclination to territoriality goes so far back into the mists of our animal heritage that we would never be able to find its origins. But its effects are strong because they had to be. A group’s survival often depended on the lengths to which its members would go if they had to in order to defend their ground and their own, and those lengths often included the sacrifice of life itself. Therefore natural selection worked to maintain it at a high level. We make somewhat light of it in our regular references to phrase like ‘the home court advantage’, but it is very and deeply real.
As humans we have extended territoriality out of the purely geographical and added it firmly in the intellectual and emotional spheres of our existence. The instinct is to draw the line, and we do so at a level well below our thought processes. They only come into play as we decide where the line is to be drawn, and not whether or not to draw it.
The Nature v Nurture argument is as old as we are, and there’s a good reason for that. As a species that prizes our sense of ourselves and our ability to make decisions on our own, we find it hard to admit that we are also prey to some forces deeper than our self-vaunted thought processes. But until we recognize the power of those deeper instincts, we will be powerless to free ourselves from them when we have to.
Those forces fuel our nationalism and our religious, political, and social divisions. They are the basis of our stubborn determination to focus more on what we believe differentiates us from ’those others’ than on what we share as human beings, all too often in the course of which differentiation we descend into that uniquely human catastrophe we call war. It is a force all too well understood and used by demagogues like Donald Trump and all his predecessors, by all the authoritarians who used ‘fear of the other’ to maintain their power.
We have been prey to those forces for as long as we’ve been human, but up until August 6th, 1945, their effects, while increasingly horrendous as science and technology gave the means to make them so, were not at the extinction level. Now we’ve reached that pinnacle, and our future as a species, along with all other life on earth, is going to depend more than ever on our ability to understand and to deal far more successfully with what we’ve been just playing with all this time.
Until introductory logic classes are required there will be no way to stop this. Once we eliminated the tools for informal and formal logical argument then only Gorgias and Protagoras remain, persuasion without regard for truth.
The Cultural Marxist (CM) controls contemporary discourse. The CM left rules K-12 education, academia, Hollywood, the media, NGOs, SV, Tech, Wall Street, corporate America, the FBI/CIA/military, etc. Let me use a few examples. For example, consider the case of Caster Semenya. Did the Associated Press, Reuters, NY Times, NPR, Washington Post, and BBC mention that he is 46-XY (5-ARD)? No, they did not. To use a more modern example, the media was virtually unanimous in denouncing the Biden dementia ‘theory’ until it was obviously true. Another example is that Wikipedia says that CM is a ‘conspiracy theory’.
When it comes to controversial speech and expression, the most important activity is the community discussing openly whether particular speech and expression should be (or have been) protected under the First Amendment of our constitution. Make no mistake about it that communities will use somewhat different interpretations of First Amendment rights in reaching a decision about acceptability. Some decisions will be seen to be wrong in hindsight. However, only a healthy community allows for open discussion.
Demonstrable lies are not protected speech and should be censored by non-state entities whenever possible.
Your comment is confusing. Whether or not lies are protected speech (they most definitely are) is irrelevant to what non-state entities do about them.
Also, I disagree with the non-state entities part. If a lie is demonstrable, should be easy to counter with that demonstration. My experience is that most lies are not of that kind -- or they are only of that kind if one is already disposed to look at them that way. No institutions are so good at judging truths to the point where they should be allowed to quash dissent. No institutions in such a situation can be trusted not to become corrupt. The ability to speak freely is critical to liberal social function.