Read on Twitter
I'm trying to cut down on complaining about Rod Dreher. But he's gone and written a post about the silly, James Lindsay 'when will you confess to having beaten your wife on the road to serfdom?' tweet. I must object to any love for such unlovable illogic. 1/ https://twitter.com/jholbo1/status/1275688819602358277
There are nationwide protests, in response to serious injustice; and, since they are mostly peaceful, critics are forced to coin 'statucide'. Yes, it's bad some wrong statues are being pulled down by idiots on an angry tear to pull stuff down. 2/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/statues-woke-breaking-point-law-of-merited-impossibility/
For good measure it's bad - very dumb - that people are saying dumb stuff on listserv's, as Jonathan Chait rightly points out. 3/ https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-racism-racism-progressive-progressphiles-david-shor.html
But what Dreher and Lindsay are saying is obviously every bit as foolish as anything Chait quotes and, what may be worse, it's historically illiterate. Which is bad! What good is the right without memory? Not a lot, I think. 4/
What is so bad about the Listserv stuff? It's bullying. Philosophically, it's self-sealing. There is a deliberate refusal to consider criticism and alternative views. And, of course, that's people for you. Lindsay and Dreher, for example. 5/
In my original response to Lindsay I accused him of playing butterfingers logic games with the paradox of the heap, which is funny, but better to say he is plain presupposing his conclusion. His thought exercise is premised on us barreling dangerously to Stalinism. 5/
But that neglects the basic question: ARE we barreling dangerously to Stalinism? If not, then 'when will you admit this is Stalinism?' is not the right question. 6/
Me: drinks coffee.
Lindsay: when is the breaking point when you will admit coffee drinking is totalitarian?
Me: when it's coffee with Stalin in it.
And the same goes for statues. When will I admit pulling down statues is Stalinism? When it's Stalinism, is when. 7/
Lindsay: when is the breaking point when you will admit coffee drinking is totalitarian?
Me: when it's coffee with Stalin in it.
And the same goes for statues. When will I admit pulling down statues is Stalinism? When it's Stalinism, is when. 7/
But isn't it bad that the wrong statues are coming down? YES! Isn't it bad that people are idiots on Listservs? YES! Isn't a bunch of other stuff someone did on the left excessive, at least arguably? YES! But here's the thing: not everything bad is a tragic hinge of history. 8/
Lindsay and Dreher are both upset about the 1619 project, the proposition that America was 'founded on slavery'. But they are presupposing, not even arguing, the 1922 project. The proposition that America (the left half) is founded on the rise of Stalin. 9/
But why should it be? That just shows preposterous poverty of historical imagination plus determination to see the contemporary scene out of only one eye. /10
To me it's common sense that the biggest problem we face is what she said. Change my mind! But that would mean arguing, be it noted. 10/ https://twitter.com/thegarance/status/1275762108769189888
And isn't this worse than the statues? Seriously? Isn't it? 11/ https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1275855187538841600
What if it turns out that BLM is on the whole a good thing? Since that very well could be so, you can't just assume the opposite without considering. https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1275454284105084930
BLM needs to be seen against the backdrop of the problems to which it is a response. It is not right to ignore the excesses of a protest movement. But it is far, far more foolish to assume any excesses are, necessarily, its essence, so you can ignore everything else. 11/
One last note: there is symmetry to the arguments on both sides. The cops kill someone. Their defenders say: a few bad apples. The protesters pull down the statue of some abolitionist. Their defenders say: well, that was wrong but mostly it's been Confederate stuff. 12/
But there is a difference. One side has excesses to point to PLUS systematic, institutional critiques and normative arguments against the status quo. The other side has excesses and 'what if this turns into Stalin?' and ... that's it. That's very weaksauce 'what if'. 13/
In conclusion, rightwingers get to complain about the wrong statues and Woke stupidness. Fair is fair, and excesses should be critiqued or they will get worse. But the right doesn't get to pretend there is a reason to think these things are indicative of incipient Stalinism. 14/
Why should they be? There's too many other ways things could go, and many of them - way more likely than the Stalin worst-case - could be good. 15/
