I completely agree with this. Bravo! I wonder whether it would make sense for the folks at Persuasion to think more concretely about HOW people can support due process and open civil discourse. We are encouraged to speak up, which is fine — but what exactly might that mean? Not all of us are on Twitter, and I’m not sure that is always the best means anyway. What are some concrete things that people can do to help?
Well said, Yascha. What's particularly troubling about this particular wave of polarization is that for the first time (to my knowledge) educated people in American academia and media have open contempt for "western" tenets of free inquiry and fair trial.
I'm not entirely hopeless about the basic tenets of civility and justice winning out in the end. Assuming that the majority of the outrage crowd on twitter isn't aware of the critical theory and post-modernism that their movement is based on, it's still possible to reach out and bring them back to reasonable ground. (Fingers crossed.)
This is so right. But how can one get the wokees read it ? And understand it ? I live in Norway and this is creeping over the border, into our country to.
I have recently found myself defending the most (to me) unlikely people, with these cowardly preambles such as “I am no fan of (x) but”. I have to do better. The times demand it.
During this summer in Denmark there has been a heated debate regarding an ice cream popsicle called "Kæmpe Eskimo"/"Giant Eskimo". Many people from Greenland think the term Eskimo is derogatory and want to be called inuit, which means human. Thus many on social media call for the renaming of the ice cream and indeed one of the ice cream manufacturers has changed the name to "O'paya" - the name of the chocoloate beans being used.
When you have lived your life without thinking the ice cream popsicle could be offensive you start to wonder what is going on exactly. Inspired by Persuasion I decided to investigate the matter for a few hours and there seems to be a lot of myths involved in the discussion.
Eskimo is an umbrella term denoting people of Inuit, Aleut and Yupik origin. So what should we then call Eskimo if not Eskimo? Inuit? A prominent group of people of Inuit origin wants that. But Aleut and Yupik people seem to prefere Eskimo since they are not Inuit (from the Thule-culture).
In my opinion, the real issue could be a power struggle on who is going to define the arctic peoples. In fact, by coinsidence I found an article on Eskimo ice cream, which happens to be an important part of the Yupik culture! And it is based on berries like the ice cream popsicle! Could it be that the ice cream popsicle was inspired by and an hommage to the authentic Eskimo ice cream aka. Akutaq?
Additionaly, it is claimed in the debate that the word Eskimo comes from a Native American people that used it in derogatory sense and that it means "those who eat raw food". First of all, that people would not find eating raw food derogatory. Secondly, the terms most likely comes from French esquimeaux which referes to their snow-shoes.
This debate indicates that it is not about finding out the truth, but a power struggle since it is about words, but only in a way where it becomes a symbol of opression and a deeper and wider understanding of the word is unimportant. The so-called opressed ends up running the risk of becoming the opressor by not focusing on the truth.
At basic argument level this reasoning of "guilt by association" is fallacious and something that should be taught in freshman-level college courses. The "logic" behind it argues one should only communicate with family and friends who are like-minded. This leads one back to the same subjective place: one's own ideas as right and infallible.
This is so true, and more people need to be saying it loud and proud. However, I worry that our voices won’t matter when institutions and businesses fold so completely under attacks by the social media mob. Every concession gives power and momentum to the next mob demand. It validates and makes righteous the cause of silencing “unjust” voices, encouraging the hunt for more wrongthink to “correct”, by any means necessary.
Lately I’ve felt like Berenger in the last act, surrounded by rhinoceroses, shouting “I won’t capitulate!”
How timely, as I just posted a comment on Yoffe's essay making an analogy to the Czech Charter 77 (correcting my mistaken year) and Vaclav Havel & co-signatories' using samizdat to stand up for the band 'Plastic People of the Universe' and others unjustly prosecuted.
I completely agree with this. Bravo! I wonder whether it would make sense for the folks at Persuasion to think more concretely about HOW people can support due process and open civil discourse. We are encouraged to speak up, which is fine — but what exactly might that mean? Not all of us are on Twitter, and I’m not sure that is always the best means anyway. What are some concrete things that people can do to help?
Well said, Yascha. What's particularly troubling about this particular wave of polarization is that for the first time (to my knowledge) educated people in American academia and media have open contempt for "western" tenets of free inquiry and fair trial.
I'm not entirely hopeless about the basic tenets of civility and justice winning out in the end. Assuming that the majority of the outrage crowd on twitter isn't aware of the critical theory and post-modernism that their movement is based on, it's still possible to reach out and bring them back to reasonable ground. (Fingers crossed.)
This is so right. But how can one get the wokees read it ? And understand it ? I live in Norway and this is creeping over the border, into our country to.
Orwell was one of the great prophets of an intensely violent century
I have recently found myself defending the most (to me) unlikely people, with these cowardly preambles such as “I am no fan of (x) but”. I have to do better. The times demand it.
Excellent piece!
During this summer in Denmark there has been a heated debate regarding an ice cream popsicle called "Kæmpe Eskimo"/"Giant Eskimo". Many people from Greenland think the term Eskimo is derogatory and want to be called inuit, which means human. Thus many on social media call for the renaming of the ice cream and indeed one of the ice cream manufacturers has changed the name to "O'paya" - the name of the chocoloate beans being used.
When you have lived your life without thinking the ice cream popsicle could be offensive you start to wonder what is going on exactly. Inspired by Persuasion I decided to investigate the matter for a few hours and there seems to be a lot of myths involved in the discussion.
Eskimo is an umbrella term denoting people of Inuit, Aleut and Yupik origin. So what should we then call Eskimo if not Eskimo? Inuit? A prominent group of people of Inuit origin wants that. But Aleut and Yupik people seem to prefere Eskimo since they are not Inuit (from the Thule-culture).
In my opinion, the real issue could be a power struggle on who is going to define the arctic peoples. In fact, by coinsidence I found an article on Eskimo ice cream, which happens to be an important part of the Yupik culture! And it is based on berries like the ice cream popsicle! Could it be that the ice cream popsicle was inspired by and an hommage to the authentic Eskimo ice cream aka. Akutaq?
https://whatscookingamerica.net/History/Akutaq_EskimoIceCream.htm
Additionaly, it is claimed in the debate that the word Eskimo comes from a Native American people that used it in derogatory sense and that it means "those who eat raw food". First of all, that people would not find eating raw food derogatory. Secondly, the terms most likely comes from French esquimeaux which referes to their snow-shoes.
This debate indicates that it is not about finding out the truth, but a power struggle since it is about words, but only in a way where it becomes a symbol of opression and a deeper and wider understanding of the word is unimportant. The so-called opressed ends up running the risk of becoming the opressor by not focusing on the truth.
At basic argument level this reasoning of "guilt by association" is fallacious and something that should be taught in freshman-level college courses. The "logic" behind it argues one should only communicate with family and friends who are like-minded. This leads one back to the same subjective place: one's own ideas as right and infallible.
This is so true, and more people need to be saying it loud and proud. However, I worry that our voices won’t matter when institutions and businesses fold so completely under attacks by the social media mob. Every concession gives power and momentum to the next mob demand. It validates and makes righteous the cause of silencing “unjust” voices, encouraging the hunt for more wrongthink to “correct”, by any means necessary.
Lately I’ve felt like Berenger in the last act, surrounded by rhinoceroses, shouting “I won’t capitulate!”
How timely, as I just posted a comment on Yoffe's essay making an analogy to the Czech Charter 77 (correcting my mistaken year) and Vaclav Havel & co-signatories' using samizdat to stand up for the band 'Plastic People of the Universe' and others unjustly prosecuted.