Read on Twitter
I've posted some scattered thoughts about "The Letter" here over the last day. I think my thoughts have settled now. Prepare for the One Correct Take...
I'm on the side of the letter writers, in general. Open inquiry and free speech for life, etc. But I think it's a mistake to frame this as a debate over free speech. The illiberal left isn't actually suppressing free speech.
Public shaming is speech. Calls for deplatforming are speech. Speech is being met with speech. The bad thing that the illiberal left is doing isn't censorship.
The bad thing is rhetorical Calvinball.
The bad thing is rhetorical Calvinball.
Calvinball, for the unfamiliar, is a game that Calvin and Hobbes play in "Calvin and Hobbes." There are no set rules; the rules are made up on the fly. The actions you take matter very little. You win by making all your actions victories and all your opponents actions penalties.
Rhetorical Calvinball is when you approach rhetoric and debate like a game of Calvinball. The way you win is by making the opponent tap out. Any rhetorical maneuver is legitimate so long as it results in victory.
Liberals are used to playing by a fixed set of rules. Attack the argument, not the speaker. Failing to do that is a fallacy: the ad hominem fallacy. If your opponent attacks you, not your argument, you get to recognize the fallacy and call them on it. "Ad hominem. Foul. Penalty."
But the illiberal left just isn't playing by the same rules. They won't recognize the illegitimacy of the move. They're not playing the same game. They're playing Calvinball. You call ad hominem, they call you out for silencing them.
Misrepresent my argument? That's the straw man fallacy! (Foul. Penalty.) But they don't recognize the foul. "You're invalidating my truth." How do you respond to that? You can't. There's no page in the playbook to turn to.
The rules of liberal debate exist because they promote cooperative, agonistic progress toward the truth. But the illiberal left isn't playing the cooperative agonistic progress game. They're playing Calvinball.
For those of us who are interested in rational pursuit of truth, this is infuriating and intolerable. These rhetorical maneuvers are irrational and uncooperative, they don't take us closer to the truth. They're unfair. They don't play by the rules.
"Don't play by the rules?" Ha! This is Calvinball. I'll see your "That's not a rational response to my argument" and raise you a "You're endangering vulnerable members of marginalized groups."
Absurd! "I'm not endangering anyone. That's a strong claim! Can you offer any evidence for that?!"
Evidence? Fool; this is Calvinball. "Check your privilege. That's just a dog whistle for white supremacy."
Evidence? Fool; this is Calvinball. "Check your privilege. That's just a dog whistle for white supremacy."
I don't know the way forward. But the solution can't be to play Calvinball ourselves. It's not a rational enterprise. And they're better at it. We've got no choice but to keep playing our game and hope the referees take our side eventually.
There are referees, of course.
Who are they?
HR departments and college administrators.
...
Things are bleak.
Who are they?
HR departments and college administrators.
...
Things are bleak.
Addendum: There are versions of these pathologies on the right as well. I'm discussing the left version because it's in the news. The illiberal right plays rhetorical Calvinball too. They just use a different set of maneuvers. Oh, and they control the government!
