This story ain't over yet, it seems. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/george-washington-mural-san-francisco-1424425 Liberalism and "wokeness" in irresolvable conflict here, it seems, and I'd still guess that "post-liberalism" has the edge. Allow me to quote myself, from here: https://medium.com/@drankf/dr-frank-weakly-reader-for-7-05-2019-2efe279645eb: "Of course, it’s not a matter of telling the difference or not telling the difference between criticism and approval. I’m sure these board members are quite capable of understanding the distinction, and indeed, of realizing that they are, rather inarguably it seems to me, in the wrong. And I expect they can also grasp a well-remarked irony: that the outlook on American history of the mural’s communist artist and that of the very same board that must decide to destroy it are quite likely in essence identical. None of that matters. What matters is the currently paramount ethic of therapeutic politics that equates ideas to violence and in which certain kinds of rhetoric are averred to do literal physical harm to those who witness them and to their communities. Given this inarguable article of faith, the decision in favor of the therapeutic erasure of art that is deemed offensive is effectively mandatory. What ideology demands, ideologues will do, or they remove themselves from the community of the righteous and join the ranks of the enemy, an unthinkable state of affairs." #art #censorship #liberalism #wokeness #minds
2Upvotes

More from Dr Frank

Facebook "Hate speech" update: just to follow up on that FB post that was zapped for alleged "hate speech" (and I'm sure everyone's dying to know), the appeal was successful and the deleted post has been restored. The message said "sorry we got it wrong." Which is nice, because, trivial as it undoubtedly is in this case, they did get it wrong and they should be sorry. "Hate speech" is an alarming thing to be accused of, even by a machine, even when you don't accept the premises of the designation, which I don't. What's not so nice: they still don't reveal what it was that tripped the "hate speech" wire, and there's no way to ask. This would be useful to know for future posts that you might not want to be quarantined for 24 hours during an appeal (in those cases when the option is offered, as it isn't always.) Again, the user is left with nothing but guesswork. And this is what I was getting at in my last essay on the matter (in last week's Weakly Reader): people who write things for public consumption have no reliable guidelines on how to self-censor in such a way as to avoid the increasingly numerous and restrictive tripwires for censorship. This leads to the development of a kind of folklore, a culture of what I called "kludging euphemisms." As the layers of speculation accumulate, discourse becomes ever more confusing to do and to interpret. My question is, why can't they just tell you what went wrong, from either direction? It would be a big help, especially for those who genuinely need the guidance because they really did write hate speechy stuff. But also, just as much, for people like me in this case, whose posts accidentally, inadvertently get swept up in the nets of the Banning Machine, like dolphins among the tuna. Maybe we want to avoid these waters and spare ourselves the nets next time. I *think* what probably tripped the wire was the quoted sentence about humanity's fallen state and our preference for attacking others rather than looking inward to the failings of our own selves and souls. All because it contained the word "men" with an ensuing deprecatory predicate, which was mechanically parsed as some kind of bigoted attack on a class of people by the Banning Machine on account of its grammatical form. I *think* that's what it was. But I don't know. I'd like to know because, as I said before, I'd like to be aware of the brain dead rules as they actually are so I can kludge work-arounds. At least when I quote Augustine of Hippo on the subject of "men" I'd know what I'm getting into. I don't like being accused of "hate speech" and I'm not eager to place myself in a position to be so accused by some robot because of some artificially unfortunate turn of phrase. I'd rather avoid the whole thing and frolic unmolested in the waters of my own narcissism and self-promotion. But also, more importantly, I'd like to know so that I can ridicule it more accurately and more specifically. Because it is all, of course, profoundly stupid. Then again, maybe it was "country music" after all. #socialmedia #censorship #hatespeech #minds

36 views ·

More from Dr Frank

Facebook "Hate speech" update: just to follow up on that FB post that was zapped for alleged "hate speech" (and I'm sure everyone's dying to know), the appeal was successful and the deleted post has been restored. The message said "sorry we got it wrong." Which is nice, because, trivial as it undoubtedly is in this case, they did get it wrong and they should be sorry. "Hate speech" is an alarming thing to be accused of, even by a machine, even when you don't accept the premises of the designation, which I don't. What's not so nice: they still don't reveal what it was that tripped the "hate speech" wire, and there's no way to ask. This would be useful to know for future posts that you might not want to be quarantined for 24 hours during an appeal (in those cases when the option is offered, as it isn't always.) Again, the user is left with nothing but guesswork. And this is what I was getting at in my last essay on the matter (in last week's Weakly Reader): people who write things for public consumption have no reliable guidelines on how to self-censor in such a way as to avoid the increasingly numerous and restrictive tripwires for censorship. This leads to the development of a kind of folklore, a culture of what I called "kludging euphemisms." As the layers of speculation accumulate, discourse becomes ever more confusing to do and to interpret. My question is, why can't they just tell you what went wrong, from either direction? It would be a big help, especially for those who genuinely need the guidance because they really did write hate speechy stuff. But also, just as much, for people like me in this case, whose posts accidentally, inadvertently get swept up in the nets of the Banning Machine, like dolphins among the tuna. Maybe we want to avoid these waters and spare ourselves the nets next time. I *think* what probably tripped the wire was the quoted sentence about humanity's fallen state and our preference for attacking others rather than looking inward to the failings of our own selves and souls. All because it contained the word "men" with an ensuing deprecatory predicate, which was mechanically parsed as some kind of bigoted attack on a class of people by the Banning Machine on account of its grammatical form. I *think* that's what it was. But I don't know. I'd like to know because, as I said before, I'd like to be aware of the brain dead rules as they actually are so I can kludge work-arounds. At least when I quote Augustine of Hippo on the subject of "men" I'd know what I'm getting into. I don't like being accused of "hate speech" and I'm not eager to place myself in a position to be so accused by some robot because of some artificially unfortunate turn of phrase. I'd rather avoid the whole thing and frolic unmolested in the waters of my own narcissism and self-promotion. But also, more importantly, I'd like to know so that I can ridicule it more accurately and more specifically. Because it is all, of course, profoundly stupid. Then again, maybe it was "country music" after all. #socialmedia #censorship #hatespeech #minds

36 views ·