Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. J.P. Loo's avatar
  2. Sebastian Sunday Grève's avatar
  3. Giovanni Molteni Tagliabue's avatar
  4. Fabien Muller's avatar
  7. Saul Smilansky's avatar

“The Left and Appropriate Concern”

Brian Leiter

I received the following e-mail last week: 

I'm sending this email anonymously since, nowadays, being linked to even the mild views that I wish to get your opinion on is grounds for being tossed in the dustbin of "bigotry."

I've seen professional philosophers hint that they have these views, the ones I'm about to express, in places on your blog, but I'm hoping to get them conceretely addressed here.

I fear that the modern left has lost any sense of appropriate boundaries for moral concern and suffers from an obsession with identity recognition that's rapidly undoing the reasonable hierarchy of moral priorities that leftists once had. As this worry implies, I count myself, firmly, among the left. But I can't endorse the shrill, self-destructive ethos rapidly proliferating on this side of the political fence, which might well be an expression of the "Generation Wuss" mentality that you've gestured to at times.

Let me illustrate with an example. I recently read of a stranger's experience, in a Twitter thread that has since been deleted, with a transsexual friend. Having no malicious intent whatsoever, this former individual casually addressed a group of friends, of which the latter person was a part, with the word "guys." His transsexual friend (a woman) informed him sometime later that hearing the word "guys" "triggered" her, induced serious psychological distress, by way of a gender identity conflict that this word brought about. In recounting this story on the internet, the person with the transsexuxal friend stated that he wasn't interested in maintaining a relationship with this person, since he wasn't willing to "walk on eggshells" and self-police his language to accommodate what he perceived to be unreasonable fragility on the part of his transsexual friend. Unsurprisingly, the individual recounting this story was incessantly berated by victim-mongering identity politickers on Twitter, who suggested that he's an "evil bigot" with virtual unanimity.

The belief presumably animating such sickening moralizing strikes me as utterly perverse, where, by "belief", I mean the view that those who cause any offense to some vulnerable individual are morally required to take every step necessary to rectify the caused–and, in the future, avoid causing–offense. Is there no obligation on the part of "offended" persons to accept that not everything they hear will reflect the reality that they desire, and to develop some, dare I say, resilience in the face of this reality? And where will it end? Are we all to avoid speaking in public about the persons we find physically attractive, for fear that some self-aware, unattractive person will be psychologically traumatized by the experience? Though I've asked many people those questions, I'm yet to encounter a principled reason to care so deeply for the offense of "misgendering" transsexual people, while caring not at all for the exclusion that is part and parcel of recognizing that some are beautiful and others ugly. The "reasons" offered typically amount to nothing more than handwaving about how gender "matters more", as if identity politickers can, absent contradiction, merely put aside the social harm and isolation that follow from linguistic practices that establish aesthetic pecking orders, while frothing about "misgendering" and demanding radical revision of the features of language thought to be harmful to certain groups, because the latter "matters more." By that logic, it could be argued that we should dismiss (something, by the way, that I do not want to do) trans issues entirely, since trans folk constitute such a small minority of the population and, as such, the harm to them from misgendering is less serious than the harm to black people from racism. Clearly the former (the respose of identity politickers to my question about inclusion of the ugly) is to do with quality of harm while the latter (about racism) is to do with quantity, but the spirit of the notions is the same.

My correspondent gave permission to open this for general discussion.  I agree with the main themes of this e-mail, though less so with the last, long paragraph, which I don't entirely understand.  The hyper-sensitivity of coddled narcissists masquerading as moral righteousness is, indeed, tiresome, and it also does an injustice to those who actually suffer from PTSD who are entitled, including legally, to accommodation.  But what do readers think? 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

50 responses to ““The Left and Appropriate Concern””

  1. Ravi

    I sense this line of reasoning is, at bottom, not different from the anti-PC backlash of the 90s. I also think that as in that decade, excessive generalisation is made from anecdotal data. Almost always, these complaints start with “this happened to me” or “this happened to a friend”, and we are off to the races. I find no value in lectures from either end (language policing or stern condescension about resilience) but I also think that each of these positions is a tiny and negligible minority.

    BL COMMENT: Do we have more than anecdotal data to support the hope that "each of these positions is a tiny and negligible minority"?

    Reply
  2. Anon. Grad. Student

    I agree entirely, though as Brian says, the last paragraph seems a bit unclear. I actually find it frightening that we've gotten to the point we have with this, as illustrated for example in the most recent "New Infantilism" article linked on this blog — never mind sickening.

    That being said, I have a sense of humor about these things, and up until recently have had little trouble ignoring the fragility and hand-wringing of these people. Even the "safe space" discussed in the aforementioned article, where supposedly grown people (grown *women*?) curl up (presumably in the fetal position) with pillows and blankets, knead play-doh and watch puppy videos to neutralize the effect of hearing an opinion they don't like — even that I could still laugh at; it really appears like self-satire.

    The point when it is no longer a laughing matter is when such behavior is normalized, even valorized, to the point where laughing at it is considered a moral evil for which one can suffer real consequences. There is something deeply sick and disturbed about these people, who insist upon "safe spaces" that are the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "la la la la la — I can't hear you!" Such people have a right to exist, certainly; they can even have their "safe spaces" for all I care. But when the rest of us lose the right to recognize this for what it is — hypersensitivity, narcissism, infantilism — and to respond to it in the only reasonable way — with ironical amusement and mild disdain — that is a serious problem. It encourages this kind of behavior in people who have the potential to grow a thicker skin and take responsibility for themselves; it makes "victim" and "child in an adult's body" privileged and coveted statuses, and that is truly sickening.

    Reply
  3. Mohan Matthen

    I don't exactly understand where your correspondent is headed. As you suggest, Brian, the last paragraph is virtually incoherent.

    On the specific issue, the "stranger" addressed a "friend" in a manner that the friend seriously didn't like. Having been called out, stranger decided that he didn't want anything more to do with his friend. Very odd response, unless there's more to know. If you give a friend offence, why not apologize? This relationship must not have run very deep.

    On the more general issue, I agree that one shouldn't be taken as malevolent just because one uses language people don't like. But really, your correspondent doth protest too much. He (can we fairly make inferences about your correspondent's gender?) has worked himself into a big theoretical froth over something that's not worth more than a shrug. Why is he in such a tizzy about the travails of a stranger?

    Reply
  4. Anon Phil Instructor

    "I also think that as in that decade, excessive generalisation is made from anecdotal data."

    Even if the author is hastily generalizing from that anecdote (I suspect not too hastily, since I've seen a pattern of that sort of behavior as well) the author can still make a valid general point on the basis of it. The author's point is that we have no moral obligation to take every step necessary to rectify any offense we might cause to an individual in a vulnerable or oppressed group.

    I don't how much I agree, but certainly the offense taken by the individual should be in some measure "reasonable" before an obligation to rectify the offense kicks in. In the case provided, the woman probably should have recognized that the intended casual use of the word "guys" is a non-gender-specific use. Though if the woman has suffered particularly severe discrimination, I can understand why she couldn't help but to feel the way she did.

    Reply
  5. Ravi

    Indeed there is no data. I prefer your choice of word: it is a hope.

    Reply
  6. Marc

    I can't help but wonder what Nietzsche would do with this phenomenon. Respecting the diversity of individuals is noble, but insisting on the unquestionable authority of the most victimized seems like a classic case of the inversion of values in slave morality.

    I'd also like to observe that, having lived through the PC era in the 90s, I notice a structural similarity between then and now. In both times, a young generation (mine, then) frustrated with their poor economic prospects, but certain that they were more progressive and less compromised than their elders, found it quite effective to bully older progressives by telling them they weren't progressive enough, and marginalizing some of the "old guard" for wholly obsolete and pernicious views.

    This opened up influence and opportunities for those that could play this card well…

    Reply
  7. Tamler Sommers

    I agree with Ravi, these worries seem a bit overblown. These episodes (and those described in Judith Shulivetz's op-ed on Sunday) are much more the exception than the rule. They certainly don't reflect my experience in philosophy or academia in general. My podcast with Dave Pizarro is full of borderline inappropriate humor and nobody has complained. Or take trigger warnings. If all you read is The New Republic, NYT, etc. you'd think they were mandated across the U.S. But nobody has so much as suggested to me that I should have a trigger warning on my syllabi.

    True, I teach at a southern university. But I get out some too and I've never seen this degree of hypersensitivity or anything close. My guess is that almost all these episodes take place at a few hyper-elite institutions. (Look at Shulevitz's examples.) They're then generalized into a plague that's infecting academia as a whole. Many of my students have jobs and sometimes families to support. They don't have time to worry about being triggered.

    Regarding Brian's reply to Ravi, I think that the burden of proof is on people who think that this is a major crisis. Until we get more hard data to supplement the few genuinely appalling anecdotes, it's hard to take this a serious threat. And of course, the irony is that unnecessary alarmism is exactly what we're supposed to be against.

    BL COMMENT: I don't know what any of this has to do with "unnecessary alarmism"!

    Reply
  8. Grad Student

    With large and growing pockets of the United States resembling the third world and with the country permanently at war, it seems that the moral indignation of our identity politicians could be put to better use. I don't mean to be sanctimonious when I say this.

    Reply
  9. Unfortunately Anon

    My sympathies are with Brian's correspondent. One reason why I think we do not have a responsibility to take every step necessary to avoid causing offence in this hyper-sensitive age (in addition to a basic belief in freedom of speech) is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell what things will be claimed to cause offence. The political spectrum, on its far left edge, is moving leftwards at such a vertiginous rate that it is difficult to know what will be deemed non-progressive tomorrow, or even later on today. This applies even to things that have traditionally, and very recently, been seen as left-wing. Want to put on a performance of the formerly feminist Vagina Monologues at Mount Holyoke? You can't any more, because it excludes the experiences of women who do not have vaginas. Want to assign Marx (who I believe is not without influence on left-wing thought) in a course on classical social theory at Berkeley? You'll be subject to protests, unless you add in some counterbalancing people who are not male and white. Are you a feminist student who is inclined to clap, and possibly even whoop, in response to a particularly rousing anti-patriarchal speech in a student union's women's conference? Stop right there! Such behavior might 'trigger anxiety' among other attendees.

    (In case you haven't seen the last example before, a relevant link is here:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010872/Students-told-wave-jazz-hands-conference-speakers-whooping-clapping-scary.html

    )

    I'm inclined to ask, in fact, whether there is any normal social interaction, artistic performance, or subject of academic study that is not at imminent risk of being deemed non-progressive and offensive. I'm sure there are some examples, but when you think of one, I would urge you to stop and ask yourself, "Really? Am I sure?"

    Some professors, especially those without tenure, are beginning to find this downright scary:

    http://whitehotharlots.tumblr.com/post/114067452180/a-personal-account-of-how-call-out-culture-has

    I hate to post anonymously, by the way, but I am about to start a new job and the consequences of being associated with un-PC sentiments could be catastropic.

    BL COMMENT: May I suggest that it is a mistake to associate the hypersensitivity of coddled narcissists with "the left."

    Reply
  10. Ravi

    I agree that the author can legitimately make a general point about individual obligations in such circumstances. However, s/he also starts the message out by diagnosing this as a malaise of the modern Left. I would assume that the claim then is that this sort of excessive attention to syntax is prevalent widely in the modern Left and is to "our" detriment. There is also the aggregation of all these under a single description called "identity politics", which some today use to describe and criticise much larger movements including feminism and anti-racism.

    If on the other hand, the analysis is limited to the general moral claims implied in the scolding described in these anecdotes, then yes, the point about data and generalisation does not apply.

    Regards.

    Reply
  11. Unfortunately Anon

    In response to Brian… I would not associate such hypersensitivity with all of the left, certainly. Far from it. You yourself are a fine example of someone who is on the left politically but who has stood up against this kind of thing. But I think a lot of these goings on arise from the political concerns of people at the far left of the political spectrum. I find it difficult to believe, for example, that conservatives would be quick to condemn the Vagina Monologues for excluding the experiences of women who do not have vaginas, as happened at Mount Holyoke.

    Reply
  12. Anon grad student

    Hi Tamler,

    I'm glad someone is preaching caution. It's easy to get ourselves in a froth over a non-issue (if a non-issue it turns out to be).

    However, I would make a few points that, I hope, speak to your experience. Firstly, I think philosophy is an outlier in the humanities with respect to these issues. (My joke/slogan is that philosophy is still very much a modernist discipline, while the other humanities are thoroughly postmodern.) So I think trying to extrapolate from our experience as professional philosophers would not produce approximately true generalizations.

    Secondly, you are right that most of this is happening at elite universities. But I would be surprised if campus culture doesn't percolate downward from there; again, this is just a guess on my part based on how cultural trends, in general, tend to percolate down from the most privileged to the less.

    Thirdly, I agree in general with you and the other posters who are emphasizing the value of hard data over anecdotes. However, I'm a little confused about what 'hard data' would look like in this situation. Percentages of speakers who get disinvited citing the possibility that they'll create an 'unsafe' environment for the students? In any case, how do we decide what percentage is problematic? Is it acceptable if this stuff is pervasive only in elite SLACs? Or if only 10% of speakers come under threat of disinvitation? It's also important to remember that the effect of this movement (if it is a movement, rather than isolated spasms) would not always be overt; for example, how many speakers *never* get invited, for fear of the 'safety' backlash? these sorts of concerns might hamper decision-making long before it can appear in statistics.

    Reply
  13. Norms

    I'm surprised that there are people that think this is abnormal. Have you never visited Feminist Philosophers, or the comments section of Daily Nous? People have complained about the term "blind" review, for goodness sake!

    Reply
  14. Rob

    In his draft paper for the recent Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology, Nick Haslam has interesting and relevant observations on the trend of expanding meaning and application of concepts in psychology associated with harm:

    http://www.sydneysymposium.unsw.edu.au/2015/chapters/chapters.htm

    Reply
  15. Anon. Grad. Student

    Yes, I think it is likely that this behavior will not remain confined to the elite schools. While it is not surprising for it to begin there, since these schools are probably home to more coddled and narcissistic students than their less prestigious (and expensive) counterparts, I think there is good reason to suspect that it will spread to these schools as well. My main reason for thinking this is based on the position publicly-funded universities find themselves in. There is a reason why this mentality is showing up so strongly in academia and not in the private business sector, and it's called Title VII. I'm not blaming Title VII per se, but rather a group of hypersensitive malcontents who have realized they can use it to extort special treatment from universities, which are afraid of being subject to a government inquiry and losing their public funding. This is the reason so many of these complaints are framed in terms of race and sex, and why they are stated using quasi-medical terminology. Rather than being *offended*, you're now "traumatized." People couldn't get away with this in the private sector, and they don't try; but universities can be blackmailed into accommodating these students because of their fear of being investigated for violating the Civil Rights Act. This is being taken advantage of.

    Reply
  16. s. wallerstein

    Isn't the left about getting together, organizing and pressuring to pass legislature or to change attitudes so that we get a bit more of liberty, equality and (non-gendered)fraternity rather than about always saying "the right thing"?

    I know that lots of people have gone through horrid experiences as a result of discrimination and unfeeling/unthinking people, and we should be sensitive to that fact but victims of past injustices at times use a bit of emotional blackmail to get other to feel guilty when it might be more useful to tell others what they can do to deal with injustices.

    I was the world's worst athlete as a child, always picked last for all sports, jeered at, mocked, insulted and scorned by numerous classmates and physical education teachers. My parents loved sports and forced me to participate in all of them: even my little sister (I grew up well before 2nd generation feminist) was better at sports than I was. I had utterly had no idea as child that after I finished the last compulsory physical education class in the university around 50 years ago I would never have to play another sport. At times I thought of suicide since the world, as I imagined it as a child, was one endless ball game.

    As you can imagine, I hate sports, never watch them and still less participate in them. I suspect that there are more people traumatized by childhood sports than me, but we've never organized or formed a group to voice our grievances. Still, I find that people all around me talk about sports constantly, completely unaware of how sensitive the issue is for me. Should I scream at them that there are making me relive past traumas, should I form an online group of childhood "spastics" (that's what they used to call me) or should I move on to work for issues that should count for the huge mass of exploited and alienated people who live around me, free quality healthcare, decent wages, pollution, climate change, etc.?

    Reply
  17. Tamler Sommers

    Anon Grad Student,

    In terms of hard data, someone could provide stats on trigger warnings for example. What percentage of professors use them? What percentage of universities or departments require them? I'd guess below well below 1% for the former, and either 0 or fewer than 10 for the latter. If I'm right, then these are two examples of unnecessary alarmism (to answer your question as well, Brian):

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116842/trigger-warnings-have-spread-blogs-college-classes-thats-bad

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/us/warning-the-literary-canon-could-make-students-squirm.html

    If I'm wrong, then they're legitimate stories and we should have this debate for real.

    As for disinvited speakers, if the number were anywhere close to 10% then again I'd be very worried. But in fact, I think the number is much closer to 0 then 10%. Yes, there were a couple of high profile examples and they were genuinely alarming. But there's no trend. And while this attitude may "percolate down" and spread throughout the U.S., I'm skeptical and more than willing to wait to see if it happens.

    As for Unfortunately Anon's example, it's Mount Holyoke for Christ's sake! What did you expect?

    Lastly, for professors who are genuinely worried about this, I'm curious–why are you staying anonymous? Isn't public opposition the only way to stop the trend. What do you think is going to happen to you if you attach your name to these comments? What catastrophic consequences are you referring to? Not being snarky, I really want to know.

    Reply
  18. Anon

    The lesson from the correspondent's anecdote is modest but still worth remembering: failure of discretion on the part of offended parties shouldn't be given a free pass. There is still such a thing as taking something personally when you shouldn't have. The remedy is putting in the effort to come to a mutual understanding with each other. The example seems so ridiculous because "guys" is used gender-free constantly in modern talk. "You guys" has become a very popular second person plural form of address ("You guys, did you see the sharks at the Superbowl?") A person of any gender can use it to address persons of any gender. I'd bet this phrase got this usage and felt so natural because of how casually the word "guys" gets used anyway nowadays. Walking up to a mixed gender group of friends and saying "sup guys" or "hey guys" feels to me interchangeable with saying "sup people." All of which is just to say: if the person walked up to the group and did something like put on a faux military demeanor saying "Men, it's time to go to the bar" or something like that, it would have probably been a little insensitive, especially if the person knew that their friend is still working through their transition emotionally. Or, if they didn't know, it would be understandable why they might have gotten upset in hindsight. She is looking for the right kind of address from society. The word "men" in that context really does emphasize masculinity in a gendered way, indeed it's the point of talking that sort of silly way. So if they did know about their friend's sensitivity, it would feel natural to take them as just trolling or, in short, being an asshole to their friend. But the original example is nothing like that! Part of coming to be addressed by society in the right way involves understanding how they are addressing you and being sensitive to the actual usage of words like "guys." Gender and meaning are in important ways socially constructed, after all! If this sort of sensitivity policing starts digging into ordinary usage without any effort by people to come to an understanding of what's meant, it's I think ridiculous and, importantly, entirely exhausting and contrary to the aims of increased sensitivity and emotional awareness that someone like the trans person in the example is presumably interested in (although isn't it something we should all be interested in if we're trying to be good people?) I also think that this is the extent of the point. We don't need a bunch of theorizing about the morality of offending people (as interesting as that might be to work through theoretically) to be reminded of what's actually important in this kind of example for our day to day practices. You can't be lazy about this kind of stuff. If you're going to make accusations that something is offensive, you have to be open to the possibility that you misunderstood what was said and that what was said wasn't offensive, and if you're on the other side, you have to also try to understand why what you said might actually be offensive even if you didn't realize it at the time. You cannot avoid the effort involved in mutual understanding in these kinds of cases on pain of being a kind of meaning-tyrant.

    Reply
  19. Lexington

    If it's convincing statistics that one wants, I think one need go no further than comment sections in just about any setting connected with higher education. Compare the proportion of those who support the PC program who are willing to use their own names to the proportion of those who are in any way critical of that program who are so willing. While I haven't compiled such statistics, I don't think there's much question as to how it would turn out; and it would be apparent, I'm sure, that those on the side critical of PC overwhelmingly don't want their names associated with that view.

    This would certainly seem to imply that the great majority of people critical of the PC program are so apprehensive over how openly expressing such criticism might damage their lives that they refuse to do so. How is that fact alone not direct evidence of the harm to intellectual, political, and moral discourse wrought by PC culture?

    Unless one wishes simply to close down discussion of certain ideas, how can one regard that as a good thing?

    Reply
  20. anon_adjunct

    I agree that for now, these ugly incidents represent isolated and atypical instances. However, they are still worth talking about, because each time this sort of intimidation succeeds, it encourages more. The notion of being "triggered" by the expression of an idea did not spontaneously arise at many places at once. This is an attempt to start a coordinated movement. The people who launch these complaints not only aim to rectify the specific "triggering" wrong that they allege, but to also legitimate the idea that "triggering prevention" deserves to trump the right to free speech on university campuses.

    Those of us who think that this would be a bad idea tend to be silent about it, because the human decency in us makes us loathe to pick fights with people who express emotional fragility, many of whom have been genuinely injured by others earlier in life. But there should be some way to express empathy and understanding for such people while firmly opposing the movement that seeks undermine the expression of ideas. Whoever is trying to push this through must encounter clear, firm public opposition from as many sources as possible, especially from those who have earned the respect of others for their accomplishments, insights and integrity. This is important, because so far, the response to scattered expressions of opposition have been ad hominem attacks, and these work depressingly well at getting people to shut up. We gain nothing by waiting for this pattern of atypical anectdotes to become a new normality before we denounce it.

    Reply
  21. Original Emailer

    I'm the person who sent Prof. Leiter the email featured in his post here. I see that some have found the last paragraph of my message unclear. That is understandable, since even I was unsure about how effectively it delivered my intended points. Nevertheless, I (foolishly) assumed that it wouldn't be a problem and sent the email off anyway. I'll try to clarify the view that I tried to get across in that paragraph in the remainder of this comment.

    It's very common for some on the political left to take issue with disadvantages that persons suffer by virtue of factors that they lack control over and, by extension, aren't responsible for (I failed to make the importance of this explicit in my first email). For example, many support LGBTQ causes by arguing that LGBTQ persons "can't help" being the way that they are. (I take issue with this approach to justifying LGBTQ inclusion, in that it strikes me as implying that we wouldn't have sufficient reason to include such persons if they could "change," which seems wrong.) The "identity politickers" (IPs) to whom I referred in my first email have parlayed this concern about non-responsible disadvantages into a demand that we do everything possible to ensure that no offense befalls any person in virtue of that person's being, say, of a particular gender. The problem with this is that the IPs have taken this demand so far that it isn't clear what the limits of our duties to include are. To illustrate the consequences of this problem, I noted that it'd be difficult for the IPs to explain why we don't have a duty to make sure that no ugly person feels at all excluded for his or her ugliness, provided that persons aren't responsible (at least in large part) for their level of physical attractiveness and that they're disadvantaged by being physically unattractive.

    Reply
  22. Pat Dolan

    "Want to put on a performance of the formerly feminist Vagina Monologues at Mount Holyoke? You can't any more, because it excludes the experiences of women who do not have vaginas."

    This is, by the way, a lie: "A student group at Mount Holyoke College has decided to cancel its annual performance of The Vagina Monologues, saying the play excludes the experiences of transgender women who don’t have a vagina."

    The group decided not to put on the play. They were not censored.

    Reply
  23. Pat Dolan

    This is pretty hilarious:

    "This would certainly seem to imply that the great majority of people critical of the PC program are so apprehensive over how openly expressing such criticism might damage their lives that they refuse to do so. How is that fact alone not direct evidence of the harm to intellectual, political, and moral discourse wrought by PC culture?"

    So, we are to assume that the people complaining about PC program (usually, but not always, white dudes) are right to be fearful, while the transgender, gay, black and female people who complain about being dissed in class and other places are not right. Probably because of the long history of oppression white people and men have suffered, especially in philosophy departments.

    I have another way of accounting for the phenomenon. People afraid of so-called PC culture are bullies. And like most bullies, they are cowards.

    And, by the way, if you are offended by this, ask yourself the question, "Why are so sensitive you whiny, entitled doofus?"

    Reply
  24. Russell Blackford

    It's difficult to measure these things, but I've had plenty of my own experience of infantilising, authoritarian, and/or Orwellian rules being written for the purposes of conferences, organisations, etc., and of people who protest (even in a civil and thoughtful way) then being subjected to dogpiles, smear campaigns, and general efforts at public shaming and character assassination.

    The attitude complained of in the OP really is being translated into formal rules and various kinds of formal and informal policing, and is thereby having effects in the real world beyond the Internet. The rules are often not enforced according to the full sweep of their literal meanings, but the cumulative effect of all this is an environment where we often have to walk on eggshells.

    I've been at the receiving end of smearing by a cyber-mob, and it's not a pleasant experience. Other people (Justine Sacco, etc.) have had their real-world careers and lives ruined by cyber-mobs. As a result, I completely understand why so many people who want to discuss the issues candidly are prepared to do so only behind the protection of anonymity. I'm now linked publicly with opposition to this sort of infantilising and policing (and to call-out culture, public shaming, etc.), so I figure I may as well continue to comment here and elsewhere under my real name. But I always feel a certain amount of trepidation at the possibility of (once again) being subjected to smearing from platforms far larger than any that are available to me.

    Reply
  25. Tim Maudlin

    I find this discussion odd and in fact morally obtuse. Let's take everyone in the anecdote recounted at their word. The original Twitter poster uses the term "guys" with no malicious intent, but the term does provoke a very strong negative psychological reaction in someone the poster characterizes as a "friend". The friend informs the poster privately of this reaction and asks that the poster (now aware of the situation) to try to avoid having the same thing happen again. The poster apparently finds this rather mild request (especially coming from a friend) too much to stand, so rather than try to avoid causing distress in the future cuts off all relationship with the person. People online find this reaction on the part of the poster reprehensible.

    Well, isn't it? If you have a friend, and if something you do (initially with no intent) causes psychological distress to your friend, and with a little care you could avoid repeating that (to no detriment to yourself) but you refuse to, and end the friendship instead, who exactly is being self-involved here? Where does the self-righteousness of the Twitter poster come from? Is it really too onerous to take care about your language once you know you are causing distress to someone, even if not a friend but more so for a friend?

    The original emailer describes the situation as follows: "The "identity politickers" (IPs) to whom I referred in my first email have parlayed this concern about non-responsible disadvantages into a demand that we do everything possible to ensure that no offense befalls any person in virtue of that person's being, say, of a particular gender." But that is not the situation at all. There was no demand to do "everything possible", but a request, by a particular individual, to do a particular simple thing, that just requires being aware of the distress you are causing. Nor do I see that identity politics has any particular part to play here. I recently read of people who find certain noises, such as chewing popcorn, extremely distressing. Suppose I go to the movies with a friend who (unbeknownst to me) has this condition and have popcorn. And after the movie the friend informs me of the annoyance this causes, and asks me to refrain in the future. And I respond by severing all relationship with the person rather than foregoing the popcorn. This sounds to me like dreadful behavior. The case of a transsexual friend is somewhat worse, because with a little thought one might even imagine that certain gendered terms might be inappropriate. But the issue isn't even the lack of foresight here: it is the refusal to make a simple accommodation to someone that requires no more than attention once the issue has been made clear.

    Do people who are distressed by the sound of chewing popcorn deserve more consideration than transsexuals? I don't know that the Twitter poster is an "evil bigot", but that person does sound like a jerk. And one could certainly suspect that the actual psychological distress being caused is being discounted because it is a transsexual who is experiencing it. I don't see this as the transsexual friend asking for a remarkable accommodation, but rather as asking for a simple accommodation that would, in other cases, be granted by any friend without trouble. Goodness, giving up popcorn is a bigger accommodation in one sense, but wouldn't anyone do that for a friend?

    Reply
  26. Anon Candidate

    I'm at a great department and I've listened as fellow graduate students debated whether or not it is appropriate to compliment someone's work, because (it was claimed) other students might then assume that their work isn't as good because they didn't also receive a compliment. At one point one of the students referred us to a parenting manual regarding the 'dangers' of over-complimenting children. (no, I'm not exaggerating in the slightest). I've also listened to my fair share of arguments of the form: this concept x is only useful for old, dead, able-bodied, heterosexual white men. (also not exaggerating)

    These trends are built upon bullshit non-reasoning and moral posturing. They're bad for the left and, more importantly, bad for philosophy. So while I'm sympathetic to calls for data, we shouldn't wait until 10% of speakers are being disinvited or 30% of new professors feel obliged to provide trigger warnings before assigning 'traumatizing' readings. We shouldn't wait especially because it doesn't require a tremendous investment of resources to combat this junk. Rather, we should deny these folks the moral high ground by patiently but confidently asserting that it is possible to reasonably disagree about how to prioritize and do justice to liberal values.

    Of course, it's a bit sad that now one has to first prove one's 'credentials' before engaging in these debates, but such are the times.

    Reply
  27. Phil H

    I think BL and all of the commenters here have been if anything too kind to the emailer.

    On the specifics of his anecdote: a young man caused unintentional offence to a friend. Rather than apologise and move on, he chose to end the friendship and announce the event to the world – specifically to the others in his social group. What an asshole. Now, it might be that the trans woman who took offense took it wrongly. But it seems to me that all of us have our sensitive moments and weak spots. Her failure – if any – was to be a little oversensitive; she expressed her sensitivity in private. His failure was to be highly unpleasant. Dumping a friend on Twitter?! Is that acceptable behaviour these days?

    No matter how one reads the anecdote, in this interaction the young man seems to have behaved considerably worse than the young woman. If he was then criticised for his poor conduct, that hardly seems to constitute a worrying social trend.

    And it is my impression that most anecdotes alleged to illustrate this trend involve massive inversions of the truth. Take the story linked to above: http://whitehotharlots.tumblr.com/post/114067452180/a-personal-account-of-how-call-out-culture-has

    The first thing to note about that post is that it does not describe any events. "All it takes is one slip…kids are bringing mattresses to your office hours and there’s a twitter petition out demanding you chop off your hand in repentance. Is this paranoid? Yes, of course." The problems here are entirely the author's hypotheticals.

    "All it would take was one bougie, liberal student to get offended by them, call them triggering, and then boom, that’s it, that’s the end of me." Let's consider the point about sensitivity again. Exactly who is being oversensitive here? The author of the post is suggesting that if s/he were to be criticised by a student, it would be impossible for him/her to swallow her pride, apologise and move on. Instead, criticism by a student must be a career-ending event, because… well, why?

    My suspicion is that criticism (of this type?) by a student must be a career-ending event because instructors of that type are unwilling to accept criticism (of this type?), and will engage in some kind of conflict with the student – which might well lead to professional consequences. Again, who is the over-sensitive one here?

    The other inversion of the truth is of course the claim that the offended have all the power. They do not, and even a cursory examination of structures of power and influence would reveal this to be the case. The fact that many people now recognise that it is wrong to be offensive to gay people does not mean that gay people have taken up a position of social power.

    Reply
  28. Original Emailer

    To Tim Maudlin: The specifics of the example on which you focus are rather irrelevant, since it was, as suggested by the "evil bigot" comment, the individual's lack of sensitivity to this trans issue that drew ire, not the choice to leave a friend for a seemingly superficial reason per se; he would've received no comments as vicious as those he in fact received had he said that he was leaving a friend because the latter complained about his chewing noises. My clarifying comment refers to the moral demand given by identity politickers generally, not to the request of the particular transsexual person written of in the OP, which is that social practices that might offend persons in virtue of their, e.g., gender are to be dispensed with. Unsurprisingly, many IPs argue that we ought to do away with the word "guys", because, among other reasons, it might "trigger" certain people.

    To Phil H: The transsexual person referred to in the OP was not party to the Twitter conversation, so she was not "dumped" on Twitter (nowhere was it suggested that she was involved in the Twitter exchange). Indeed, this transsexual person wasn't even referred to by name in the Twitter thread. The following leads me to suspect that you're unaware of much of the "activism" that takes place on the internet nowadays: "[I]t is my impression that most anecdotes alleged to illustrate this trend involve massive inversions of the truth."

    Reply
  29. Anon Phil Instructor

    Phil H:

    I don't think we're "all" being too kind to the e-mailer. My impression is that the extent and the force of the e-mailer's worry probably aren't warranted; however, there is a legitimate worry expressed by the e-mailer's anecdote.

    In the anecdote, the offending individual probably should have apologized and just moved on; but you can't blame him for feeling uncomfortable, or fearing that he might again say or do something which is unintentionally interpreted offensively, and therefore no longer wanting a friendship with the woman.

    I doubt that the e-mailer has provided us every relevant detail of the story, and the man probably was an asshole in the way he said he wouldn't "walk on eggshells". Still, he probably wasn't deserving of being regarded as bigoted and hateful (if that's what really happened).

    While it's likely that the e-mailer is seeing a larger problem here than there really is, it's also likely that, within some enclaves of academics, particularly young academics within the humanities, individuals have said or done something intended as benign, but which was uncharitably interpreted in the most offensive way, where then that individual was then unfairly attacked and regarded as bigoted or hateful. I've seen it happen to other people (particularly on social media) and it happened to me once. I doubt that my experience is all that special.

    You're right, the person in that post is being oversensitive. But people are being oversensitive or hyper-sensitive on both sides. The sooner we can all recognize this, the better.

    Reply
  30. Anonymous6206

    I once had a girlfriend who hated the word "hilarious". She told me that hearing that word made her feel the way many of us do when we hear fingernails scraping against a chalkboard, and she asked/insisted that I never use that word in her presence. But, like most people, I sometimes use the word "hilarious". And it was irritating, when I wanted to share with her my excitement over seeing an hilarious new movie or comedian, to have to stop my train of thought in consideration of her eccentricities and supply an authorized synonym. It was doubly irritating to have her scold me for using the word "hilarious" when talking to other people while she was in earshot.

    It doesn't strike me as reprehensible if I were to conclude, on the basis of the above behavior, that she's just too high maintenance, and continuing to date her is not worth the aggravation. Perhaps, when I explain the breakup to others, I'll say I found her controlling or that I just couldn't be myself around her. It seems to me that, if it's reasonable to end a romantic relationship on such grounds (didn't something like this happen in an episode of Seinfeld), it's certainly reasonable to end a relationship with someone who's just a friend on similar grounds.

    In other words, I think you're placing much too much emphasis on the word "friend" in the original anecdote. One probably wouldn't end a lifelong friendship over popcorn, but one might stop hanging out with an acquaintance with whom one is friendly on such grounds.

    Reply
  31. anonymy

    Tim is right. Why agonize over other people's emotions? How is it even appropriate to question them and what can you hope to achieve besides exacerbate harm? Do you think you can convince someone they haven't really suffered? How's that eork for you in your relationships? I'm guessing, not weLl.

    Reply
  32. Subtle

    A lot of this is dancing around the real issue of importance to philosophers, namely that in certain heavily-trafficked parts of our blogosphere, one cannot use such everyday words as "dumb" or "crazy" without potentially being called out for ableism. The tenor is not usually "I'm sorry, this is a quirk of mine, but what you said bothers me." That would be harmless. Rather, the tenor is, "What you said is objectively offensive."

    This gets to the thing I find strangest about call-out culture: People within this culture often seem to think that violations of even very controversial and arguable ethical principles ought to be called out. These are principles accepted by only a tiny segment even of progressive academics.

    That says nothing whatsoever about the truth or falsehood of these principles, of course. But it seems to me that it does have import for whether it makes sense to call people out. My vegan friends don’t publicly call me to account whenever I drink milk in their presence. I think they’re making the right decision by not doing so, and I thank them for it.

    (Of course I’m always happy to have a substantive discussion about whether some controversial ethical thesis is right. What I find odious is being on the receiving end of social opprobrium for holding the nearly-universally-accepted opposite view.)

    In reply to Tamler Sommers's question:

    I don't use my own name when posting about this sort of issue because I have philosophy friends on the other side of this issue, and they feel strongly enough that I suspect it would hurt my friendships with them if they knew my views. Also, I would rather they not know that I'm posting on Leiter Reports, which many of my friends are boycotting!

    I agree that in the actual IRL environment of the university, this language-policing problem is almost nonexistent. It is, however, very prevalent on the web.

    BL COMMENT: Given the volume of traffic on this blog, you must not have many friends! (I'm kidding, I know that there are benighted souls out there who think they are acting righteously by allegedly boycotting–though in my experience, they read even more religiously than regular readers.) I'm glad you made this point, the phenomenon is very real in cyberspace, but also real in those academic communities with large numbers of coddled narcissists.

    Reply
  33. Ravi

    "Inversion of truth" captures the situation quite well, I think. Not only anecdotes generalised, often they are hypothetical as you point out. Thank you for your post.

    Anon Candidate is "sympathetic" to the call for data but doesn't want to wait anyway, because these things can be combatted easily right now. This misses the whole point of waiting for data (not to forget, an analysis of what the data suggests). It echoes the logic (note: not the politics) of "let's bomb Iraq first anyway" because we have the ability to do so right now. It is not possible to "patiently… asserting that it is possible to reasonably disagree" after accusing fellow travellers of "moral posturing".

    BL COMMENT: The Iraq analogy seems rather inapt in so many ways!

    Reply
  34. Subtle

    On the issue I mentioned, this post from the Feminist Philosophers blog was refreshing:

    https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/call-out-culture-the-case-of-ableist-language/

    Reply
  35. Anon Candidate

    In case I wasn't explicit enough, let me restate: it is clear to many of us that some aspects of "call out" culture and its associated practices are intellectually and morally dubious. One of the chief harms of this phenomenon is that it forecloses reasonable debate by morally discrediting anyone who disagrees with its priorities, principles, linguistic practices, etc. We ought not wait until this has become normalized in a broad swath of the profession to vigorously and publicly criticize the underlying ideas, such as they are. This is especially true because part of the process of normalization so far favors appealing to administrators or applying pressure to non-tenured faculty as opposed to argumentative persuasion.

    I hope that helps you to see the difference between my argument and the 'logic' of pretextually invading a foreign country!

    Reply
  36. Brian Leiter

    I just want to note my strong agreement with #35. I'm surprised this is even controversial.

    Reply
  37. Tim Maudlin

    It is again odd that the specifics of the example are "irrelevant". It was your example, chosen supposedly to illustrate something worth complaining about. if the specifics are irrelevant, then it was a bad choice.

    Maybe the complaint is hyperbolic rhetoric. That seems to be endemic to social media, having nothing at all to do with "identity politics". "evil bigot" is hyperbolic. But so is "a demand that we do everything possible to ensure that no offense befalls any person in virtue of that person's being, say, of a particular gender", which was how you chose to describe the situation. and again, in the original post, you reference a supposed moral obligation "to take every step necessary to rectify the caused–and, in the future, avoid causing–offense." Who is making such a demand to do "everything possible" or "every step necessary" which would be unreasonable? What was actually requested was a simple attempt to become aware of the actual psychological effect of word choice for some fellow humans, and be a little careful about it. So if the point of this whole thing is a suggestion to avoid hyperbolic rhetoric, fine. The world would be a better place. But good practice begins at home. It's just polite to try to use gender-appropriate terminology when addressing people (even collectively), too.

    We see exactly this above. Brian somehow decided that any psychological distress caused to a transsexual by inappropriate gender terminology is "The hyper-sensitivity of coddled narcissists masquerading as moral righteousness", whereas the psychological distress caused to "those who actually suffer from PTSD" is worthy of accommodation. Where does this judgment come from? Do you, or Brian, feel you have any means of insight into the psychological state of this human being who you have never met and do not know, to judge that her distress should be dismissed with such—one might call it self-righteous— contempt?

    Maybe you are not complaining that, say, transsexuals actually speak up at all (although one could read it that way) but that they, or others, are being too "shrill". Maybe you can look over the rhetoric of your own post at see if there are not parts of it that come across as "shrill". Maybe your concern is not even about that but about "moral hierarchies": whose concerns take precedence over others. But it is hard to see how your anecdote has any bearing on that: there was no ranking of different concerns to be made, just a single, discrete issue.

    One last point. In your own post, you write "Is there no obligation on the part of "offended" persons to accept that not everything they hear will reflect the reality that they desire, and to develop some, dare I say, resilience in the face of this reality?" Somehow, this judgment is supposed to be directed at the transsexual in the anecdote. But of course, the Twitter poster was offended and upset by being called an "evil bigot". Did it ever occur to you to proffer this very judgment to the Twitter user: just develop some resilience? No—you take the Twitter user's complaint to be valid, and you are asking for an accommodation (stop using terms like like to describe him) because he finds it psychologically distressing to be referred to in that way. Isn't there a touch of irony in this?

    BL COMMENT: It is obviously false that I dismissed "any psychological distress caused to a transsexual by inappropriate gender terminology"; my comment pertained to the particular example (the use of "guys"), for which there is no reasonable explanation. "The hyper-sensitivity of coddled narcissists masquerading as moral righteousness" is an inference to the best explanations of cases like this and similar ones with which I am familiar, including familiarity with some of the protagonists. PTSD is an actual DSM diagnosis, and I have no doubt some people really suffer from it, and those people have a legal entitlement to accommodation from, among others, academic institutions. Comment #5 here brings out what is objectionable about the appropriation of the language of PTSD for the vanity of coddled narcissists: http://dailynous.com/2015/03/23/scary-ideas/#comment-57733.

    Reply
  38. Anon. Grad. Student

    It really shouldn't be controversial. I'm always suspicious of people who focus on "facts" where questions like this are concerned; that is, those who suggest that large-scale studies of some scientific nature need to be done before we can recognize a phenomenon as even existing. Sure, we could learn more about the prevalence of such things by doing studies, and perhaps about the causes of them, but the demand for "evidence" of this kind often seems to me like a strategy of stalling and stonewalling when one doesn't want to discuss an issue. "Either provide me with three to five peer-reviewed studies confirming that what you're referring to exists at all, or else it doesn't and I won't discuss it." This too seems infantile, and more than a little dishonest. We should all be capable of identifying broad trends in the profession without the need for a statistical analysis (though, as I said, this could be useful for other purposes).

    Reply
  39. howard berman

    The language of 'triggers' evokes the practice of cognitive therapy, which is helpful with anxieties and troubled thoughts.
    When distress is triggered, you go down a checklist including items like: what is the proof of my automatic thought? What kind of distorted thought I am guilty of? What is the worst thing that can happen?
    Anybody smart enough for college can definitely practice these techniques on themselves.
    This therapy is rooted in the traditions of philosophy and enables people to overcome their problems rather than dramatize them.
    And if you make an effort, they work at alleviating suffering, and people can and do implement these exercises on themselves

    Reply
  40. Ravi

    It is arguable/ambiguous what constitutes legitimate "argumentative persuasion", in practise (to quote Phil H: "criticism (of this type?) by a student must be a career-ending event because instructors of that type are unwilling to accept criticism (of this type?), and will engage in some kind of conflict with the student" — is such hypothetical conflict argumentative persuasion; is characterisation of mental attitudes — "moral posturing" — a valid form of argumentative persuasion or reasonable debate? Do arrangements permit all parties to enjoy equal ground in such arguments? Is there one party that retains the advantage of the status quo should the differences remain?).

    Second, the reference to data was in response to the claim that this is a malaise of the modern Left, that it is rapidly proliferating, so on. If I lack evidence that there is any such widespread, concerted phenomenon, then I am bound to treat these anecdotes as rare, small, internal group skirmishes or disagreements. Not something that requires alarm and a potential collective effort to address/combat (assuming we all agree it needs combatting, not acceptance).

    I do agree (as I have said in a comment near the top) that an attempt can be made, independent of generalisation, to describe the underlying justifications and examine their validity, etc. It is possible I misunderstood your response as directly addressed to mine.

    Reply
  41. s. wallerstein

    This thread is suppposed about the left, so I'll one more strange comment.

    If I were an advisor for the 1% or the CIA or the power elite in general, I would advise my clients to manipulate internet fora and other areas where the left debate ideas so as to make them lose time and energy worrying about saying the "right thing" to transgender people.

    Don't get me wrong. It's good to be sensitive to the needs of others, including transgender people, but there's a horrid world out there where lots of people do not have access to decent healthcare, where your government (I'm not from the U.S.) runs a torture center in Guantánamo and rains drones on innocent civilians in poor countries, where people, often of female gender, slave in factories reminiscent of Dickens or Marx to make our hi-tech gadgets, etc.

    Given that world and given global warming which will do all of us in, are the hurt feelings of transgender people or of anyone else, including me, a priority for the left?

    Reply
  42. Original Emailer

    Note that I didn't say that the "specifics" (of the example that I gave) tout court are irrelevant. I said that "The specifics of the example on which you focus are rather irrelevant . . . ."

    You seem to think that the primary focus of my email is on the individual who was "triggered" by use of the term "guys." That interpretation isn't right. What's at issue is whether those who called the person on Twitter an "evil bigot," given that person's alleged lack of appropriate sensitivity to his friend's troubles, were motivated by a sensible conception of moral duties. I don't think that they were. As I already pointed out, but as you conveniently ignored, the reaction to the "evil bigot" wouldn't have been nearly as strong had he said, "I don't want to be friends with someone anymore, because she complained that my chewing noises bother her." Those who berated the "evil bigot" were of the view–and this is not uncommon among the identity left–that gendered speech is to be eliminated because its use is offensive to persons of certain genders. Until that day, they'd have us self-police ourselves to ensure that no one is offended by a gender-specific pronoun. What I object to is the thoughtless moralizing of such people grounded in their seemingly total lack of a reasonable sense of appropriate moral concern. As to your last point, I find it preposterous that you take me as being committed to tell someone being wrongfully berated (by multiple persons) as an "evil bigot" (together with related insults) that he should just develop some resilience, in the light of the fact that I've written that that response is appropriately given to someone suffering psychological distress over the non-malicious use of a culturally common–indeed, ubiquitous–word like "guys". I would hope that the relevant distinction between those cases is obvious. Finally, if you take the language used by the identity leftists in question to be mere "hyperbole," you're not familiar enough with them. Spending a bit of time examining the output of various identity leftists on Twitter or YouTube is sufficient to appreciate their sincerity.

    Reply
  43. Lexington

    I have to say, I find many of the comments here just maddeningly obfuscatory.

    Look, the basic issue raised by Original Emailer seems pretty simple: where do we draw the line between, on the one hand, the obligations we have not to offend others in virtue of their "identity", and on the other hand, the obligation those others may have not to take offense, and/or not to take great offense, and/or not to demand that we change our behaviors toward them in ways they specify?

    Does anybody seriously believe that no such line can be drawn, and that in all instances one side or the other must prevail?

    What does it matter if the particular case that started this conversation is or is not one that clearly falls on one side (or the other) of such a line? Why can't it be simply an inspiration for a hypotheticals regarding this question? Are we not philosophers — isn't this what we often do?

    Why can't we engage this issue instead of obfuscating it?

    Reply
  44. Tim Maudlin

    This is really getting odder and odder. You brought up the example. A natural reading is that the strong reaction to the Twitter poster was not because that person used "guys" in the first place, but to the reaction to the request not to do so again when he knows he is addressing (even as part of a collective) this particular woman. There is just nothing at all in the example suggesting that "gendered speech is to be eliminated" but that the gendered speech used to address people (even collectively) be appropriate to the gender of the people addressed. You then, with no justification I can see, want to liken this quite reasonable request with a demand to eliminate all gendered speech? Well, if that latter demand was the one you are worried about, use an actual example of it, not an example that does not at all suggest it.

    Now you are suggesting watching YouTubes? Why in the world? I thought the idea was that people were being accosted by unreasonable demands by "identity leftists". I can say that in my own career teaching, I have never been so accosted. Your own example was, so it seemed, supposed to illustrate how bad it is. But having failed, you suggest seeking out "identity leftists" on You Tube and Twitter. One can find all sorts of obnoxious content, of all political persuasions, if you go looking for it. That's news?

    Reply
  45. A "guy" of unknown gender

    What's odd is that anyone thinks the use of the word "guys" on Twitter requires any response at all. It's not derogatory, it's used for mixed gender groups all the time by all kinds of people. This whole discussion is becoming slightly insane. See comment #35. Read it carefully.

    Reply
  46. Leslie Glazer PhD

    I think the particular example has distracted from what may be the more relevant failures of philosophy here. I am not expert enough to trace out the history and dialects, …but the history of ideas leading from liberalism, through the social movements of the 60s, through the identity politics and pc anxieties of the 80s and 90s, to the increasing hypersensitivity to offense, the fear of seeming bigoted and characterizable under some category of _____ist [racist, sexist, or whatever], and the attack on 'microaggressions', which while illuminating of some unconscious aspects of our language and interactions, more often than not seems to mask its own anger and defensiveness…. this history remains socially lived but has outstripped philosophy's critique and philosophy's moral grounding. The philosophical issue seems in part to be philosophy's surrender to culture and fashion, or philosophy's irrelevance. Judgement seems lost. And, as in the way in which philosophical skepticism and relativism can often be taken up by adolescent skepticism and relativism, but once one 'gets real' can often seem to prime examples of what Frankfort meant by 'bullshit', the whole set of arguments about gender bending and/or micro aggressions fall into the same BS but without anyone to call it such on any grounds other than ones that, as the original emailer noted, themselves become subsumed into the category of bigot. what we need is a moral philosophy that can both acknowledge the subtle forms of prejudice and illusion we may have, while at the same time cut through the BS, shine a light on the ways in which anger or resentment play in such discourse, and lead us to practical wisdom. maybe this is what nietszche was hoping for from his free spirits, and why he thought they were somewhere in the future.

    Reply
  47. Leslie Glazer PhD

    I hope I am not overstepping protocol by making a second comment here. I wanted to comment on a point here which has surfaced in some posts to the effect that the issue isn't pervasive, or they have never come across such things outside some ny times article about trigger warnings, or in some other ways marginalizing the issue in some quantitative way— statistically insignificant perhaps— and therefor not an issue. My point is twofold: a) even if this point only occurred one time it may have philosophic significance; and b) it has broader echos and ripples than might appear at first glance. The importance of language has been obvious at least since wittgenstein and heidegger as at times leading thought, action, and social structure in certain questionable directions. Even in the ways in which academics have sought over the past 20 or 30 years to use more gender neutral language in their articles expresses an understanding that our language can unconsciously form our thought about gender to whatever it is we are discussing. In a sense the original theme here is about how far to take such language deconstruction and effort at neutralization of prejudice, and how political and moral agendas creep in through the back door. As I mentioned before, I think the issue is one of judgement and its grounds. As someone mentioned before, the issue is whether one can draw lines, and where, and on what basis, can one draw them. One the other hand, it remains a theme whether and how to deal with one's own feeling offended, whether it is possible to challenge such feelings and reactions, to illuminate them, whether or not some such things can be true or false, important or unimportant, things to stand up against or to let go of, and so on. again, the issue of judgement.

    Reply
  48. Original Emailer

    You stated that you thought (or are at least inclined to think) that the "evil bigot" language is just hyperbole. I claimed that the persons employing such language–and, when they do similar things, those who make up the larger "movement" of which the latter persons are a part–are sincere in their accusations, and that any familiarity with them would make that sincerity clear. That can be taken as a recommendation to poke around on Twitter and/or YouTube if you care to investigate this matter for yourself and acquaint yourself of the "movement" of which I write. You can happily pretend that this whole phenomenon exists only in a few "obnoxious" pockets of the internet, but that doesn't seem to cohere with many of the experiences written of in this thread or those that I've heard of countless times elsewhere.

    "A natural reading is that the strong reaction to the Twitter poster was not because that person used 'guys' in the first place, but to the reaction to the request not to do so again when he knows he is addressing (even as part of a collective) this particular woman." Before, your argument was that the real problem with the situation that I described is that the person called an "evil bigot" was willing to leave a friend for a trivial reason. In response, I pointed out that he wouldn't have received the opprobrium that he was in fact dealt had the trivial reason for ending his friendship been one unrelated to the identity left's concerns (e.g. chewing noises). In so doing, nowhere did I suggest that those who berated him did so just because he used the term "guys." It was his unwillingness to deal with his friend's hypersensitivity, precisely because that hypersensitivity was understood by those berating him as a trans issue, that he was berated. His excoriation was thought to be justified by his critics because of their sense of our duties to include trans people. No one gets called a "bigot" for leaving friends on account of such friends being annoying, uninteresting, or what have you because it isn't thought that anyone is morally defective (at least, not so defective as to deserve vituperation) for deciding that those things prevent a friendship from being worthwhile. Things are different in, e.g., this case with the trans person because accommodating the problems of trans people qua trans people is thought to be a duty of the "privileged."

    Reply
  49. Daniel A. Kaufman

    This is really excellent. I agree entirely.

    Reply
  50. Tim Maudlin

    Your term "hypersensitive" betrays the whole problem here. It suggests, as you apparently believe (as did the original Twitter user). that it is unreasonable for a woman to ask to be addressed by a gender-appropriate term. This is just common courtesy, and has nothing at all to do with "privilege". It might come as a surprise to you that a woman would be particularly concerned about this, but she explained why this is the case. Maybe a little thought about the situation would clear that up. Or maybe you can explain why you consider this to be an unreasonable request. It is certainly an easy one to meet.

    BL COMMENT: Comment #45 seems relevant to this.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress