As ever, we must resist authoritarian instincts that restrict our liberties, demonize anybody who appears to be different and — as is happening in Turkey — outlaw freedom of expression, judiciary independence and pluralism.That's from the op-ed "Why Does Our Side Keep Losing Elections?," by Orhan Pamuk.
Of course he means:
As ever, we must resist authoritarian instinctsBut the first time I read it I saw:
that
1. restrict our liberties,
2. demonize anybody who appears to be different and...
3. outlaw freedom of expression, judiciary independence and pluralism.
As ever, we mustThat's such a terrible thing to say that I was puzzled and reread it until I saw the other meaning.
1. resist authoritarian instincts that restrict our liberties,
2. demonize anybody who appears to be different and...
3. outlaw freedom of expression, judiciary independence and pluralism.
Now, why does this guy get the Nobel Prize?!
I chose not to slog through the rest of his prose, so I don't know why he thinks "our side" keeps losing elections or even what side he's on. He's Turkish.
Posts
164 comments:
Maybe he's been taking lessons from Scott Adams.
Maybe he didn't write it in English and it's the translator's fault.
Conceivably, the prose in his native language is beautiful, but somebody ought to care about protecting his reputation.
You've got a Nobel-for-literature person writing for you. Edit!!
Didn't they just lay off a lot of their copy editors ?
Now, why does this guy get the Nobel Prize?!
A tiresomely re-occurring question with an obvious answer. In the 21st Century, laureates are selected for merits having nothing to do with the subject of the prize. The same sickness unto death that is destroying Europe has destroyed the integrity of the Nobel Prize.
Maybe, just maybe, you read it right the first time.
Maybe he’s an antifa sympathizer.
All of my comment deletions the AA blog are because I left out a word. Proof read failure. I guess I have good company. Or maybe not.
so I don't know why he thinks "our side" keeps losing elections
Our side is Western Civilization, and he thinks it keeps losing elections because in Turkey it does. Turkey quickly went from the perfect example of secular Islam to yet another Islamic theocracy.
Swedish participation ribbons.
Restrictions on free speech come from the left.
AT first I thought maybe they were afraid to edit a Nobel Laureate, but when you said it was translated, well, then they're not really his words anyway.
The sentence is too long and complicated to appear in a newspaper. It's susceptible to multiple readings, including embracing some kinds of authoritarianism.
I write worse sentences every day.
Judge not.
Possibly he actual meant it the second way. Is he connected to any American university?
"The same sickness unto death that is destroying Europe has destroyed the integrity of the Nobel Prize."
This. It was obvious when Rigoberto Menchu was awarded the Peace Prize for a scam.
"authoritarian instincts that restrict our liberties, demonize anybody who appears to be different and — as is happening in Turkey — outlaw freedom of expression, judiciary independence and pluralism."
Huh. Turkey? This was all happening in America. That's why so many of us voted for Trump, because we opposed all these things that leftists were imposing on this country.
But why is he talking about his side losing elections? This time we won.
If "Judge not" is the rule, there should be no prizes. Pamuk is just another writer.
Twitter schooled me in ‘that’ avoidance.
Now that I have 280, that is creeping in again.
Non-English writers must always be forgiven when complicated English sentence constructions defeat their best writing efforts. Catching the errors is nearly impossible when the Swedes are tasked with the reading chore.
Drawing a comparison between the election of Donald Trump and the authoritarian Islamic regression in Turkey seems pretty problematic to say the least. I guess in the minds of progressive globalists, enforcing immigration policies and being concerned about border security equals being authoritarian though.
Lem, agreed--I used to tweet by writing what I wanted to say, and then I stripped it down to its barest essential to fit 140 characters. It was a good exercise. 280 characters allows for all sorts of flabbiness.
The ‘that’ seared in my head is when then president Bill Clinton referred to Lewinsky as ‘that woman’.
Now whenever I want to deride something or someone I refer it as ‘that’.
Like in this tweet... #SanctuaryCities now means what that California jury says it means. Meanwhile, the serious #MeToo movement defies the notion proposed by #KateSteinle trial verdict, that people should be allowed to go unpunished, based on factors other than guilt. He did it, BUT #NoJusticeForKate
Maybe I need a coma-toss after the second that.
He should have tried for the Nobel Peace Prize. They're a lot easier to get.
Missing an Oxford comma as well.
I don't know Pamuk's politics -- in classic who-whom fashion, I infer that he is against Erdogan, and is therefore probably our friend, but I don't know more than that. But the formulation here --
1. restrict our liberties,
2. demonize anybody who appears to be different and...
3. outlaw freedom of expression, judiciary independence and pluralism.
Strikes me as ironic, because you see progressives arguing against, e.g., Orban in Hungary on this basis, or the current Polish government. But people like Orban and the rightists in power in Poland got there precisely because the liberal governments and super-governments (EU) seemed hell-bent on
restricting liberties
demonizing anyone who disagreed with them (e.g. on migrants), and
outlawing freedom of expression
When liberals and progressives squeal now about, say, Orban cracking down on "civil society", they'd be on much firmer ground if they hadn't been trying to do the exact same thing to people like Orban.
If I had even a little affinity for Turkish Islamism, I'd probably feel the same way about Erdogan too, seeing as Islamist parties were forced out of government in 1997, and Erdogan himself was imprisoned and banned from politics for reading a poem in public.
As it is, though -- who-whom. Erdogan is not on my side. Orban and his ilk . . . well, they're not stirring up trouble for America, so much luck to them!
I make my living by yelling, not writing.
What do you expect from those Swede foreigners gabbing away in their heathen lingo? It's a wonder they have a written language at all. Had they not stolen the English alphabet (and corrupted that!) they'd still be scratching runes on pieces of antler.
Yes, that sentence is almost the exact opposite of what was intended. I don't blame the author though- it is likely that English is not his first language. Blame the editors and/or the proofreaders.
I’ve always felt a little queasy when hearing a news anchor say to a field reporter “thank you for ‘that’”.
It just sounds a little microagressiony. A little bit.
Yeah! We all know people who are awarded Nobel literature prizes are expected to write in clear, unambiguous ways that convey their meaning without the possibility of incorrect or alternate interpretations.
Pure Dylan bait, Professor. I'm on to you.
It is, to be fair, a very weaselly article. The quality of the ideas does not make up for the sentences.
Let’s face it. We don’t need that. It’s a weak string.
Orhan is arguing against living in a bubble.
Very badly.
Q: Why Does Our Side Keep Losing Elections?.
A: Two reasons. First, because we're fucking stupid and live in a bubble. Second, see No.1
The larger problem with that sentence is the assertion that "his side" wants to preserve freedom of expression.
They most assuredly--and most explicitly--do not.
The Left differs with authoritarians like Erdogan only in the content of the expression they want to suppress (using the power of the State/violence), not in the desire or willingness to do so.
The Left wishes to punish blasphemy just as harshly as your standard state-running religious authoritarian--they just disagree over what counts as blasphemy. Sometimes it's only a very slight disagreement!
Hate grammar.
Has Mr. Pamuk ever heard of famous New Yorker writer, Pauline Kael?
I quote Ms. Kael on her observations on the 1972 Presidential election:
“I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.'”
1972 Presidential election results:
1. Pop vote: Nixon 61%, McGovern 38%
2. Electoral College vote: Nixon 520, McGovern 17
My attorney friends would say, Res Ipsa Loquitur
Nonapad
Drawing a comparison between the election of Donald Trump and the authoritarian Islamic regression in Turkey seems pretty problematic to say the least. I guess in the minds of progressive globalists, enforcing immigration policies and being concerned about border security equals being authoritarian though.
It becomes even more problematic when you consider Obama's response to the attempted "coup" in Turkey last year.Consider the NYT headline from last year: Obama’s Support of Erdogan Is a Stark Reminder of Turkey’s Value to U.S. Obama's support was an implicit green light for Erdogan to do whatever in response to the "coup."
Guess what? Nobel prize winner Pamuk didn't like what Erdogan did after the "coup." Orhan Pamuk, JM Coetzee, Elena Ferrante and others: Turkey has detained a prominent novelist. We unite to say this vendetta must end. Unfortunately for the narrative, Pamuk supported Erdogan after the "coup," - just like Obama.
The background to this letter is the coup attempt on 15 July 2016, which mercifully failed and was quickly subdued. Had the Turkish people themselves not resisted this assault on their institutions, the result would have been years of misery.
In the aftermath of that coup, it is understandable that the government would have imposed a temporary state of emergency. However, the failed coup should not be a pretext for a McCarthy-style witch-hunt nor should that state of emergency be conducted with scant regard for basic rights, rules of evidence or even common sense.
Pamuk supported Erdogan,he got Erdogan- good and hard. No sympathy whatsoever for Nobel Prize winner Pamuk. Erdogan's authoritarian tendencies were blatantly obvious well before the "coup."
Conflating Trump with Erdogan's Islamic authoritarianism was a way for Nobel Prize winner Pamuk to deflect attention from his and Obama's response to the "coup."
Of course he means that...of course.
Oh groovy! Smashing. Yay Capitalism!
@ Rehajm
Now THAT was funny.
The author follows the ambiguous quote with:
But we must also ask how this illiberal wind has taken hold in spite of our well-intentioned avowal of egalitarianism and humanism. Why does our side keep losing elections?
The answer why: because you are massive hypocrites. You avow those beliefs but do not follow them. You push policies that restrict liberty (gun control, ACA, onerous taxes and regulations); you demonize anybody who thinks differently (xenophobic misogynistic homophobic raaaaacist Nazi!); you oppose freedom of expression (for those on the right), judiciary independence (when you don't like the ruling) and pluralism (just bake the damn cake).
We see you touting these values and acting morally superior while acting in the complete opposite manner and deem you phony. While the right perhaps doesn't champion these values as hard as you, or in the same terms, they actually seem better at following them. Which is why centrists and classical liberals like myself feel more at home with the right than the left.
My daughter lives in Turkey. She wholeheartedly believes that Trump is an authoritative dictator exactly like Erdogan. She had quite a Facebook meltdown after the election. Because she used to work for a newspaper that was shuttered by Erdogan she knows people who are still jailed as enemies of the state. Yet she persists in believing she is safer in Turkey than here where The Orange Hitler has yet to arrest a single member of the press or a single one of his political opponents. Not even Lock Her Up Hillary.
It's amazing to see someone as bright as she is become so unhinged. Sad.
@HoodlumDoodlum "The Left wishes to punish blasphemy just as harshly as your standard state-running religious authoritarian--they just disagree over what counts as blasphemy. Sometimes it's only a very slight disagreement!"
I've been thinking a lot about this blog recently. Specifically, about comments such as this one, whereby a broad, sweeping statement is made about "The Left" or "lefties" that I simply don't recognise as containing any truth.
May I ask: how did you arrive at the very harsh view copied above? Did Obama imprison opposition thinkers, like Erdogan? Journalists, like Erdogan? Did any European politician?
I know this is the internet - and anyone can say/write anything and no one can possibly know if someone else is joking, or exaggerating, or just a bit mad. But I am asking as honestly and politely as I can: do you honestly think this is true?
I think you need to start the Althouse Prize for Good Grammar.
Pamuk has written many stunning books, but his best is probably his non-fiction portrait of Istanbul: Istanbul: Memories and the City. I strongly recommend it.
The one novel I've read of his is My Name is Red, a historical fantasy that deals with the nature of art and iconoclasm in manner similar to The Name of the Rose. Also recommended, especially for a visual person.
@Susan
It must be very scary for your daughter in Turkey at the moment, and for you. Maybe focussing on Trump is a way for her to take her mind off the worrying situation where she is or a way to feel things are not so bad there.
Anyway, hope everything is OK with her. Sending you best wishes and strength from an internet stranger.
Lost in Translation. The movie so few understood, but so many enjoyed.
Did Obama imprison opposition thinkers, like Erdogan? Journalists,
No....he just used the government to spy on them and harass them.
Pamuk is also quite familiar with literary persecution by the state having been tried and convicted by the Turkish government for statements he made about the Armenian genocide.
@ Gahrie "No....he just used the government to spy on them and harass them."
I've never heard of that. The USA has such a strong judicial system, I find it hard to believe that this actually happened.
My honest view: if you think that Obama behaved like an authoritarian dictator, you have never had the misfortune to live in a country under an authoritarian regime. (And good for you!)
Believe me, it is NOT like living in America under 8 years of Obama, whatever you might have thought of his politics.
Mastering the power of writing an English sentence goes a long, long way. It was the basis of Winston Churchill's success in life. And before he learned how, he was about the biggest failure known to exist in England.
And LaAlthouse does it the best.
"May I ask: how did you arrive at the very harsh view copied above?"
In the case of the tech industries and the executive ranks of the F1000, experience.
This is a not-untypical case -
https://medium.com/@marlene.jaeckel/the-empress-has-no-clothes-the-dark-underbelly-of-women-who-code-and-google-women-techmakers-723be27a45df
"To me, it seems obvious that Women Who Code and Google Women Techmakers don’t really care about all women and, frankly, they don’t seem to care that much about tech either. Instead, they focus on divisive identity politics, and they expect their members to remain submissive inside the echo chamber if they wish to be accepted."
This is, as I noted, typical.
It is the same across professional organizations of all kinds.
Besides this among middle and upper management it is career death to openly espouse conservative politics even in private. The same is not true for liberal politics.
It's a little awkward, but I think the Intense, Awful Ambiguity is a personal interpretation problem, not a general case.
Althouse, I was rather surprised by this post, since I was quite sure Pamuk was on your radar. There are three blog posts about him already -- one about him winning the Nobel prize and two earlier ones about his trial.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/search?q=Pamuk.
Of course three blog posts from over ten years ago is not a lot of blips.
@buwaya puti
Thanks for your response.
I understand where you're coming from, although I find myself taking a different position. However, what I find "difficult" is the rhetorical leap from "here are some positions that liberals in our free society that I don't agree with" to (for example from Balfegor) "the liberal governments and super-governments (EU) seemed hell-bent on restricting liberties, demonizing anyone who disagreed with them (e.g. on migrants), and outlawing freedom of expression."
That's a very big leap. So big that it jumps into the realm of not being true.
Freedom of speech, liberty, respectful acceptance of people with different views - these are fundamentally liberal values. Or, if you prefer, these are values that all good thinking people, whether we skew right or left on other stuff, can agree on.
It saddens me that some people here demonise "lefties" on matters on which we have so much in common and on which we can agree.
Freedom of speech, liberty, respectful acceptance of people with different views - these are fundamentally liberal values.
Which is why the Left calls itself progressive or socialist now instead of liberal.
KatyM
@HoodlumDoodlum "The Left wishes to punish blasphemy just as harshly as your standard state-running religious authoritarian--they just disagree over what counts as blasphemy. Sometimes it's only a very slight disagreement!"
May I ask: how did you arrive at the very harsh view copied above? Did Obama imprison opposition thinkers, like Erdogan? Journalists, like Erdogan? Did any European politician?
Bing Search; Amy Wax Controversy. What was SO controversial ? "Penn Prof Faces Backlash for Saying “Not All Cultures Are Created Equal.”
Try putting the following into the Bing Search Engine: Ben Weinstein Evergreen College; Punish Climate-Change Deniers; Charles Murray Middlebury.
Are you informing us you were NOT previously aware of the above? Are you in agreement with the mass shout-down of Professor Weinstein for stating that not all cultures are created equal? Are you in agreement with the lefty students who hounded Professor Weinstein at Evergreen? Are you informing us that you have no problem with arresting/punishing those who disagree with AGW? Are you in agreement with the Middlebury students who shouted down Charles Murray and assaulted or "aggressively confronted" the Middlebury prof who accompanied Murray on stage?
Just wondering.
“It's amazing to see someone as bright as she is become so unhinged. Sad.”
It’s sad that you’d say this about your own daughter. I have a daughter who voted for Trump, yet I would never denigrate her the way you have your own daughter. I can’t agree with her that she’s safer in Turkey however.
I've never heard of that. The USA has such a strong judicial system, I find it hard to believe that this actually happened.
You missed the whole IRS thing? Does the name Rosen ring a bell?
KittyM
@ Gahrie "No....he just used the government to spy on them and harass them."
I've never heard of that. The USA has such a strong judicial system, I find it hard to believe that this actually happened.
Bing Search: Rosen journalist Obama.
Are you REALLY that unaware, or are you just playing dumb?
I would never denigrate her the way you have your own daughter
You are too harsh. I see no denigration in a simple statement of facts.
FWIW -- I agree with Kitty. I think the daughter is freaking about Trump as a coping mechanism. That things aren't happening in the USA when Trump is just like Erdogan means that things aren't happening in Turkey.
@RichardJohnson "Are you in agreement with the mass shout-down of Professor Weinstein for stating that not all cultures are created equal? Are you in agreement with the lefty students who hounded Professor Weinstein at Evergreen? Are you informing us that you have no problem with arresting/punishing those who disagree with AGW? Are you in agreement with the Middlebury students who shouted down Charles Murray and assaulted or "aggressively confronted" the Middlebury prof who accompanied Murray on stage?"
No. I do NOT agree with the shouting down of Charles Murray, etc. I personally am a VERY big believer in free speech and in the old-fashioned concept of the "market place of ideas".
I know (from personal experience) that there is a vocal minority of left-wingers, in particular, students, and they are not proponents of freedom of speech. I find that very problematic. I think they are wrong.
But the fact that they exist does not surprise me - there were always radical young people at university - and more than that, they do not worry me. I don't see a serious, worrying connection between those guys and, say, serious liberal political figures.
We live - hooray! - in a democracy and of course, there will always be idiots / assholes / impressionable young people of all political colours wandering around, being noisy and saying offensive things. I don't take those guys seriously. (Though I would step in if it was actually in my life e.g. if I was at a university campus. And indeed I have)
As you well know, I could just as easily make a connection between right-wing thinkers and some very unpleasant people on the fringes (neo-nazis, etc). But if I said "everyone on the right is a terrible racist!", you would (rightly) shout me down and accuse me (again, rightly), of drawing a conclusion that is grossly unfair to good-thinking people who are of a more conservative bent.
This is my simple point. On this blog, there are so many horrible, sweeping, nasty statements about the Left and I think that is part of the problem today - that we are "tribal", that we are not seeking out the values we share, but are instead magnifying those disagreements between us.
KittyM said...
Freedom of speech, liberty, respectful acceptance of people with different views - these are fundamentally liberal values.
Thus the distinction between liberals and left wingers. Our left doesn't support free speech and thus should not be referred to as liberals. Defining their support by reference to words when their own actions deny that support is flat out wrong.
What are the "authoritarian instincts" that we must not resist? Specific examples, please.
"No....he just used the government to spy...."
The government is spying on all of us, and has been since before Obama was President. Why don't you condemn Bush for authorizing or allowing it, or Trump for letting it continue?
@ RichardJohnson "Are you REALLY that unaware, or are you just playing dumb?"
I never followed that case so much. That seemed to be an FBI thing to do with spying?
Whatever it was, the very FACT of FOX news - its incredible success and ever-growing popularity since then - is just proof that, no, we do not live in any kind of dictatorship now - nor did we under Obama.
I can only reiterate: this is NOTHING like living in an autocratic and unfree regime. Nothing at all.
And all the liberals and "lefties" I know would go to the barricades to defend American freedoms. You are quite simply wrong if you worry that there is a majority on the left that would like to, say, lock up Fox journalists or whatever.
The government is spying on all of us, and has been since before Obama was President. Why don't you condemn Bush for authorizing or allowing it, or Trump for letting it continue?
I was specifically talking about spying on journalists....do you have any evidence that Bush or Trump did so as Obama did?
@Rick "Thus the distinction between liberals and left wingers. Our left doesn't support free speech and thus should not be referred to as liberals. Defining their support by reference to words when their own actions deny that support is flat out wrong."
This is just being tricky with words. On the comments here, "The Left" and "lefties" are used interchangeably the vast majority of the time to refer to everyone to the left of the Republican party (I would say). Hardly anyone ever uses the term "liberals" here, because "lefty" is considered a bit more hostile, I think. It's more demeaning and insulting.
Also, I have noticed that these great, sweeping statements (e.g. "Lefties are against freedom of speech") are often made in response to very moderate, but liberal, statements made by the one or two more liberal commenters here. It drives me nuts!
KatyM:
"May I ask: how did you arrive at the very harsh view copied above?"
Also google "film-maker Nakoula" and "Colorado cake baker".
These people had their lives destroyed by you leftys for their freedom of speech, yes right here in America. There are also many, many people destroyed by the doxing of left wing online mobs. Yes Katy, your side can be very hateful and vindictive. In America you don't need the governments approval to destroy someone, you just need the lack of a certain kind of morality (hint: it rhymes with bolerence).
We live - hooray! - in a democracy
No we don't. (thank God) We live in a republic. Things have gotten worse the more democratic our republic has become.
I know (from personal experience) that there is a vocal minority of left-wingers, in particular, students
One method of supporting the anti-free sppech crowd is denying they exist or have any influence off campus. This blunts criticism of them and provides political support to the campus administrations who protect them. Usually this takes the form of claiming the campus antics are limited to that institution.
But this is not true. We're seeing those antics off campus more and more often. When James Damore was fired from Google we saw the typical left wing playbook: grossly mischaracterize the arguments and use those mischaracterizations to demonize the opposition.
Here's an example found through Instapundit of a mayor copying the campus tactic of crybullying.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/12/the-sjw-playboo.html
The simple fact is that it doesn't matter whether the majority of the left don't support these tactics. They don't fight them either. Those who employ them benefit from the full support of the left making the distinction irrelevant.
Hardly anyone ever uses the term "liberals" here, because "lefty" is considered a bit more hostile, I think. It's more demeaning and insulting.
I don't use the term "liberal" precisely because most Lefties aren't in fact liberals.
He got the Nobel for literary writings in Turkish. His English not bad for a native Turkish speaker.
As ever, we must resist authoritarian instincts that restrict our liberties, demonize anybody who appears to be different ...
Why do you think the progressive mis-spoke? They have been violently attacking people they disagree with on a regular basis for over a year now.
They are violent enemies of freedom. Both in action and in word.
I grew up in not one but two authoritarian dictatorships (Franco's Spain and Marcos' Philippines), both with controls on the press and broadcast media.
In the Philippines in the days of Marcos I was active in the anti-Marcos movement. It was perfectly possible to privately hold anti-regime views, even if these were known. Up and down Ayala Avenue (their Wall Street) there was no secret about dissatisfaction with the government. It was not career suicide to be "anti". The universities were wall to wall anti, and nobody cared who knew it.
This was also true in Spain, from the later 1960s at least.
These dictatorships had "free speech" as a powerful cultural value even as it was blocked by dictatorial decrees. The opposite is true in the modern US. Speech is officially free but blocked for individuals due to powerful sanctions. Unless their positions are unassailable or they have nothing to lose.
This is a real thing, I assure you.
"lefty" is considered a bit more hostile, I think. It's more demeaning and insulting.
It's making an important distinction. It's revealing you're refusing to recognize that distinction when it allows you to take offense and criticize others even as you assert the distinction exists in other contexts.
The only regular left leaning regular poster on this site who could be described as a liberal rather than a lefty is Althouse. And as I said before regardless of what numerical numbers exist between the groups the polity functions as left wing because (a) the far left controls the institutions and (b) liberals don't actively oppose the far left. Althouse is again the exception and note that she's so rare the broad left concludes she's a conservative.
Gahrie said...
The government is spying on all of us, and has been since before Obama was President. Why don't you condemn Bush for authorizing or allowing it, or Trump for letting it continue?
I was specifically talking about spying on journalists....do you have any evidence that Bush or Trump did so as Obama did?
During the Bush administration while we were in Iraq/Afghanistan we were pulling complete audio transcripts for all calls and all texts for months against individuals straight off the networks.
Bush started using it domestically with the "Patriot Act" going after "domestic terrorists." Obama weaponized it explicitly against domestic political enemies. I am disappointed Trump is letting the program continue.
The top levels of the FBI, CIA and NSA have become part of the aristocracy. It is an inevitable development in a democracy for the institutions to become aristocracy. We were founded as a Republic for a reason. The founders knew democracy always becomes aristocracy.
@LakeLevel "These people had their lives destroyed by you leftys for their freedom of speech, yes right here in America" Thank you for giving me a great example of the use of "lefty" as a way of insulting a commenter who is more liberal politically than the majority here.
There are some interesting and complicated issues in both of those cases. I would strongly disagree with the broad description of what happened in either case as "lives destroyed by you leftys".
But I would add that the USA is a very very big country. There will always be things worth fighting for, bad situations that need to be corrected, on both sides of the political divide. And of course, there will be disagreements about whether these things are even bad, worth fighting for etc etc.
So to your point - "Yes Katy, your side can be very hateful and vindictive." - I don't think I can disagree because that would be ridiculous. Was no one on the left ever hateful or vindictive? Of course not! There must be hundreds and thousands of examples of awful shitty people who are liberals.
But that is not a solid argument because, after all, there are hundreds and thousands of examples of awful shitty people who are conservatives.
My point remains: I wish you guys would step back from the horrible generalisations and mean-spirited comments about liberals - or leftys - or whatever you want to call people who have different political views to yours. We are all neighbours. And there are surely many values that we share.
To advocate free speech in the US, especially in the commanding heights of the economy, is extremely hazardous.
This goes one way only.
The only way to be pro-free speech here, without hypocrisy, is to utterly oppose the liberal cultural hegemony. Because suppression of speech is, these days, an essential part of that identity. You cannot belong and buck that, because very quickly you will not belong.
It is a dreadful situation.
I try to be as fair as possible, but "liberal" doesn't describe the left. "Lefties" is dismissive and insulting. Pretty much all the old labels have been rendered useless.
@Achilles "Why do you think the progressive mis-spoke? They have been violently attacking people they disagree with on a regular basis for over a year now. They are violent enemies of freedom. Both in action and in word."
OK another perfect example. Here Achilles says of "progressives": "They are violent enemies of freedom."
What am I, then, if I consider myself left-leaning / liberal but not "a violent enemy of freedom"?
Can't you see how poisonous this rhetoric is?
Let me try to put it another way: a lot of people here are particularly incensed by the idea that their views are attacked as "racist". That feeling you get when you feel you are being accused of racism, but you know for yourself that you aren't, you know that your conservative views are something quite different - that frustration and feeling of being insulted and misunderstood...
That's how I feel here when Achilles writes that I am a "violent enemy of freedom".
The biggest example made in the tech business was Brendan Eich. He was eminence itself, in that industry, a pioneer of the web, of web based app development. A founder of everything they make their billions on.
And still he was gotten rid of, not even for saying anything, but for making campaign contributions. If they could so forcefully eject Brendan Eich nobody was safe. Nobody IS safe.
I slogged through the article a couple of times to find Pamuk's answer to the question posed in the headline. I couldn't find it.
Maybe this:
"The power of such movements seems stronger to us when we confuse our liberal fantasies with reality."
That's how I feel here when Achilles writes that I am a "violent enemy of freedom".
Wait, I thought you were claiming to be a liberal.
The US situation re free speech is an utter unmitigated cultural disaster. There is no pocket of freedom really, unless, as I said, one has nothing to lose.
The only free men in the US are billionaires and paupers. Hence Trump. Even that poor Nazi slob the NYT interviewed last week was fired from his job as a waiter.
It is far, far worse than you think, Kitty. There is no arguing around it.
I personally am a VERY big believer in free speech and in the old-fashioned concept of the "market place of ideas".
I am glad to hear that you do not support speakers being shouted down.
...there will always be idiots / assholes / impressionable young people of all political colours wandering around, being noisy and saying offensive things. I don't take those guys seriously. (Though I would step in if it was actually in my life e.g. if I was at a university campus.
You are correct that they have always been among us- or have been among us for quite a long time. I once read a comment that stated that the difference between the 1990s and today regarding the campus shouters is that in the 1990s, there would be a vocal opposition to the shouters. Today, not so much. How many students respond to the shouters, "We came to hear this person speak?" Not enough.
I know (from personal experience) that there is a vocal minority of left-wingers, in particular, students, and they are not proponents of freedom of speech. I find that very problematic. I think they are wrong.
Unfortunately, it would appear that while those doing the shout-downs are in a minority, they have a lot of support among the "silent majority."
A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech.
Let’s say a public university hosts a “very controversial speaker,” one “known for making offensive and hurtful statements.” Would it be acceptable for a student group to disrupt the speech “by loudly and repeatedly shouting so that the audience cannot hear the speaker”?
Agree
Democrats 61%
Republicans 39%
As such, we DO have a problem with toleration of free speech, and the problem lies more on the left than it does on the right.
This is my simple point. On this blog, there are so many horrible, sweeping, nasty statements about the Left and I think that is part of the problem today.
The shutting down of free speech on campus is coming from the left.Until those on the left resolutely condemn this shutting down of free speech, they will be seen as at least passively supporting this shutting down of free speech.
The shutting down of free speech is also found in Silicon Valley. Brendan Eich ring a bell? James Damore? Silicon Valley is leftist.
Poor Anne pointing out once again how easily she's baffled by some nuanced English prose (though of course how could anyone expect a Turkish person to master a foreign language). If Anne's powers of comprehension were a little stronger, she might be able to discern how this fellow won the Nobel.
I was making a statement about my daughter's behavior and views about politics, not denigrating her as a human being It was a very sad day for me to watch her meltdown after the election and see her call people she knows very well bigots and haters because they disagree politically.
She is one of the kindest, nicest, smartest people I have ever met. She had, to my knowledge, never said a mean word to anyone her whole life. She was even a model teenager and we have never had the sort of mother-daughter disagreements that are so common with teens.
Unhinged is the only word I can think of to describe the reaction to the election.
Maybe it's because she is, as commented above, using as a coping mechanism to make herself feel better about where she is now. But I think it's because she actually believes the load of tripe pushed by the media. If CNN and the NYTs were the only news sources everyone would possibly think the same way.
I just hope she stays safe so thanks for the best wishes, KittyM.
I don't think people should be allowed to talk about IQ.
Well, that's part of the GSS survey, support for "free speech" vs demographics.
Most support: hi-IQ, Jews, whites, men.
Least support: lo-IQ, Muslims, foreign-born, Hispanics.
This all is bigger than our personal feelings, or the words we use. Our words are not reality. At best we can try to use words to communicate reality.
One of the worst vices regarding speech is the obsession with how things are put. It s typical to dismiss meaning by focusing outrage on the words used to express the meaning.
In the case of speech in the US, the reality is as above, regardless of the words used.
Heck, in Brendan Eichs case he said nothing at all.
I suppose Kitty M has heard of the Oregon baker, which the state of Oregon pursued, bankrupted, and seized their home for the mere act of declining to cater an illegal event (a same sex "wedding" which at the time was illegal in Oregon)? How about the guy in Minnesota I think it was, who answered a hypothetical question "wrong" and the city banned him from doing business inside city limits? Strict punishment on speech grounds.
Heaven help you if you are a conservative at any big tech company-- it's like being a capitalist in the Soviet Union as you never, ever even hint you aren't a disciple of Mao. Google, Apple, Facebook and the gang all openly threatened several states to the thunderous cheers of the left, who cared not one whit that the largest companies in the world were explicitly demanding political compliance with their wishes. So much for "Evil corporations influencing politics!"
Never mind the BLM riots, openly winked at by leftist mayors. And how about the lesbian mayor of Houston demanding that preachers submit their sermons to her for "vetting?" And the "john doe" investigations conducted by leftist prosecutors in Wisconsin? Pure straight intimidation.
Kitty, you yourself may not be anti freedom. Good for you. What have you done to stop your leftist comrades who are fully intent on recreating Stalin's glorious paradise of the people? Instead of being upset that we call the left anti-freedom, why don't you try to stamp out the fascists that are the face of the left today?
--Vance
“OK another perfect example. Here Achilles says of "progressives": "They are violent enemies of freedom."
What am I, then, if I consider myself left-leaning / liberal but not "a violent enemy of freedom"?
Can't you see how poisonous this rhetoric is?”
Achilles is “special”, he mustn’t be taken seriously.
Inga
Can't you see how poisonous this rhetoric is?”
Pot meets kettle in Bumfuck, Kansas.
Not only can Inga point out irony, she can also be unintentionally ironic.
Anne? Talk about powers of comprehension.
On the matter of US political/cultural discourse, there is nothing but poisoned wells as far as the eye can see.
Put the two sides in the same room, if that were possible, and it would end in clubs and knives.
Among other things, in left-liberal circles it not possible to even be known to have had a discussion with a conservative. The pack will turn on you even for that.
”Inga”
“Can't you see how poisonous this rhetoric is?”
“Pot meets kettle in Bumfuck, Kansas.
Not only can Inga point out irony, she can also be unintentionally ironic.”
12/4/17, 1:54 PM
I was quoting Kitty, hence the quotation marks, or didn’t you notice due to your haste to respond? If it had been me speaking, I wouldn’t have been nearly as polite as Kitty. I would’ve said he is an extremist nutcase.
Kitty M,
You are a proud Leftist. Good for you! Brave of you to take responsibility for killing all those hundreds of millions of people in the 20th Century. Wear your Che t-shirt proudly.
I was quoting Kitty, hence the quotation marks, or didn’t you notice due to your haste to respond?
My mistake.
As usual Buwaya speaks truth. And what I hear him saying is that the Internet must be made into a public utility that serves all speakers without censorship for anyone.
China and Apple now work together to shut down free internet speech. And that crime should be made illegal to do in this Nation.
Inga trying to claim that she isn't part of the violent left? The same Inga who point blank refused to condemn BernieBro Hodgkinson's murder attempts on Republican Congressmen? Who refused to say that killing Republicans was wrong?
I distinctly remember that only one-only 1! -- of the usual leftist posters here at Althouse was willing to say that Republicans and Republican congresspeople shouldn't be gunned down in cold blood. ARM, Inga, Ritmo (especially Ritmo) were all quite happy about it, as I recall. I think that sole leftist with any honor was sunsong. The rest are violent indeed.
--Vance
traditionalguy,
Unfortunately such a public utility type rule will not really solve the problem. It will help a bit, but anyone who can be identified will still risk personal sanction.
That risk of personal career-professional sanctions is the true clising of the American mind.
“ARM, Inga, Ritmo (especially Ritmo) were all quite happy about it, as I recall. ”
I think when you resort to bald face lies, you don’t have a cogent argument. Did you condemn the Nazi who mowed down a peacful protestor in Charlottesville? I don’t think you did, here’s your chance.
Inga: you very well know you refused to go on record as saying killing Republicans was wrong. You claimed that the time wasn't right for you to say that. I also don't recall you criticizing the Berkeley professor trying to kill someone with a bike lock.
As for the Charlottesville thing: if the guy deliberately and with malice aforethought tried to kill someone with his car, I condemn it.
But the videos of the event paint a picture of a man fleeing a howling mob of leftists intent on his death, wielding weapons and chasing him down a street that had been barricaded by leftists. His car was severely damaged by baseball bat wielding leftists intent on harming and beating him to death, it appears.
So I'm quite dubious of the "intentional killing" versus "Man fleeing a violent mob" theory. And considering the total radio silence on him since his arrest (by a Democrat mayor and Democrat prosecution team, no less), when people like you would be making hay of anything remotely resembling evil Nazi intent.... it all says to me that the story isn't as open and shut as you leftists like to claim it is.
Especially when the reports blaming the Democrat run city for the entire thing are coming out. So I'm not condemning anyone without evidence. I know that you want him hung before the trial though.
--Vance
We must resist authoritarian impulses? Well, now he just lost the "liberals." They should tell him authoritarian impulses are fine, as long as they are exercised for the Right Reasons.
No surprize. Newspaper writing.
Awards for:
..most phrases crammed into one sentence;
..higest count of "while," "since," and "because" in linking phrases.
..greatest use of contractions in an article, as a percent of total word count.
In other News of Linguistic Degeneracy, the slurred speech characteristic of television mumblers crops up also in Hollywood movies. We watched "Die Another Day" (on Amazon Prime) last night while at our exercise machines.
Where Pierce Brosnan might, for example say "We will have to ...," Halle Berry would say "W'lafta ..."
“So I'm not condemning anyone without evidence. I know that you want him hung before the trial though.”
Oh the hypocrisy!
@Unknown "Kitty, you yourself may not be anti freedom. Good for you. What have you done to stop your leftist comrades who are fully intent on recreating Stalin's glorious paradise of the people? Instead of being upset that we call the left anti-freedom, why don't you try to stamp out the fascists that are the face of the left today?"
So much hostility to unpack...
"What have you done to stop your leftist comrades who are fully intent on recreating Stalin's glorious paradise of the people?"
Are you suggesting that in America today there is a serious threat of a takeover by Stalinists? Do you really think that liberals such as myself want to support Stalinism, which was a horrific crime against humanity that took the lives of millions of people and destroyed the lives of millions more?
I'm here for an honest debate. So I am going to assume you are serious and arguing in good faith. Will you then allow me to reassure you that the vast, vast majority of people who consider themselves "left-leaning" are NOT looking forward to rebuilding Stalinism in America. That's just absolutely crazy to think so. Or put it another way: no one I know, no one I talk to, none of the liberal blogs I follow, none of the twitter feeds - Not a single one is advocating even anything that might be even in that direction.
Are there complete lunatics out there who have these views? I honestly have no idea. I suppose so, but only because the USA is a massive country with all kinds of weirdos of every stripe *somewhere*.
But please believe me! You are living in a complete nightmare fantasy if you think that someone like me wants to introduce Stalinism. On the contrary. All my liberal friends are concerned that Trump might take away some hard-won and fundamental freedoms and rights.
Now - please understand - I know that you probably think that's silly of them. You are convinced that Trump is an excellent President who far from damaging the country, will improve it.
But I'm just saying - liberals such as myself are worried about the loss of liberties and rights. Just like you are, when you invoke fear of Stalinism! I mean, I'm not worried that Trump will introduce death camps or anything! But can't we find some common ground here: you say, "I'm concerned that lefties will take away some freedoms!" . well I can assure you that liberals are worried about just the same things!
As to your suggestion - "why don't you try to stamp out the fascists that are the face of the left today?" - I work with a number of organisations and am proud to say that I do what I can when I come across attitudes I find problematic. That is because I do feel a sense of "ownership" if you will and I absolutely will argue with people on the left if I disagree with them.
@Unknown "Inga trying to claim that she isn't part of the violent left? The same Inga who point blank refused to condemn BernieBro Hodgkinson's murder attempts on Republican Congressmen? Who refused to say that killing Republicans was wrong?"
I think you are confusing me with another commenter. I'm not Inga.
What can I say to the group that will persuade you that I am a regular, ordinary, law-abiding, somewhat religious person who happens to have liberal views?
What would it take from me to show you that it is perfectly possible to have "lefty" views and still value freedom, liberty, peace?
What words should I choose to be able to make the point that most people on the left are ordinary folk who want the best for their families, their communities, their country and just would judge "the best" from a different viewpoint?
"Stalinism" is something of a red herring.
This is just playing with words.
Call it rather cultural hegemony. That which was described, not by Stalin, but by Gramsci.
And thats what already exists, to an obvious and oppressive degree in the US.
We are not talking here about perceptions but facts.
You are telling the concentration camp inmates that the guards on the towers have worries too.
Inga: I have plenty of evidence of your attitudes; conveniently expressed every day here. And furthermore, the vast majority of commentators agree with my interpretation of you. So I'm not just off the base.
Kitty: Let me explain. I'm sure you are horrified at Stalin... but what about banning "hate speech?" And I'm sure you are against corporations having religious liberty (note that many churches are legally structured as corporations.... goodbye to them!) You are naturally opposed to the 2nd amendment and the right of self defense. Can someone own a business and choose to do business with someone else, or more importantly refuse to do business with someone else?
As for Stalinists: Let us consider places where leftists dominate the most: our universities. This is where there is no opposition to the left. What are these places like, with the fullest implementation of today's Democrat party ideals?
We find a Stalinist society: Where people are scared to be a "dissenter", where your position and grants depend on toeing the politically correct line; where tenure doesn't protect "hate speech" which is defined as "speech the left hates." Where men are railroaded by the SJW's; put on trial without being allowed counsel or even to defend themselves against their accusers! Where mob activity is tolerated and encouraged, and people can punish you for your halloween costume.
No, we are not in a Stalin society.... yet. But your allies and political betters have every intention of imposing one on us. Obama's good friend Bill Ayers boasted about having to kill over 25 million Americans to implement his perfect society. Obama's administration was chock full of Maoists who admired the Cultural Revolution and Che Guevara. The ACLU once argued for the right of Nazi's to march in Skokie. Now they argue that they should be rounded up and shipped off... destination unknown. And just who are the Nazi's? Well.... that's such a convenient word, and pretty much anyone who disagrees with today's left is a Nazi. Do Nazi's have rights? Today's leftists say 'no." And gosh, there sure are a bunch of Nazi's around who no longer have rights.....
--Vance
There's also been a noticeable decline in editorial standards over at The New Yorker. Were they alive today, Adolph Ochs and Harold Ross would be rolling over in their graves.
US politics and culture are terminally polarized.
There is no reconciliation possible, anymore.
Both sides live in different worlds, divided by class, race, culture, profession. Entire categories of knowledge even.
There is not enough common knowledge to get a point across, or rather, to be clear, the left is no longer sufficiently educated to understand the right at all, though the right understands the left rather well, as a result of the leftist hegemony. The liberal left is remarkably ignorant and unable to look at anything in a different frame.
And this cannot be resolved by individuals. People are social animals and form packs. The packs are formed.
The outcome is going to be a huge tragedy, but what form this will take is impossible to say.
Again and again I recommend a good history of the Spanish Civil War. It was rooted in such a pervasive cultural split; the Spanish hated each other, in the end, simply because they hated each other, as the consequence of decades of propaganda.
“I have plenty of evidence of your attitudes; conveniently expressed every day here. And furthermore, the vast majority of commentators agree with my interpretation of you. So I'm not just off the base.”
Sorry buddy, you’re almost as much of an extremist as Achilles. Whatever you say is on the fringes of normalcy and I take that into consideration every time you come onto a thread and don your Grand Inquisitor hood. You’re so earnest in your diatribes that it’s actually comical. You may have no sense of humor, but you are hilarious nevertheless.
Kitty: Please tell us what 'lefty" views you have that are in fact compatible with liberty, freedom, and peace? I mean, "murder anyone who disagrees with me" was the Pol Pot and Mao value, and after a while it did lead to peace... of a sort. That's a lefty value.
Freedom to disagree with you? Your party has loudly made it clear they want to outlaw that. Hillary Clinton ran on a platform of jailing everyone who disagreed with her. Oh, you didn't know that? She did: Remember that great bugaboo "Citizens United" case? That Hillary vowed to overturn as her top priority? Well, Citizen's United was a case about whether the government could put people in jail who criticized Hillary Clinton. The Supreme Court said no. And Hillary said "I'll do my best to reverse that case!" If you supported Hillary, you supported the extinction of freedom of speech. How is that "Supporting freedom?"
Maybe you do support freedom, peace, and liberty. If so, how are you a leftist? They are purging everyone who supports liberty and freedom anymore... it's all "Comply or else!" No one can disagree with the left on anything! And freedom means being able to disagree. If you support the right of someone to disagree with you, you are not welcome in today's Democrat party. And you will be purged. That's the cold truth.
--Vance
Gadfly: "Non-English writers must always be forgiven when complicated English sentence constructions defeat their best writing efforts."
Because writing simple declarative sentences in any language shows lack of erudition.
What would it take from me to show you that it is perfectly possible to have "lefty" views and still value freedom, liberty, peace?
You would have to oppose people on the left when their actions violate the principles you claim to support. Not with a theoretic "I wish they didn't do that" or with the deflection "it's just a few kids" but with actual criticism and pushback to those people supporting the view. So you claim to support free speech and would do something if only you were on a campus. But did you argue for James Damore in the same way you criticize Trump?
Let me try to put it another way: a lot of people here are particularly incensed by the idea that their views are attacked as "racist".
Or, you seem to agree this is wrong. I've never seen you criticize anyone for doing this. Why not if you think sweeping generalizations and poisonous rhetoric is wrong?
By the way: Note how Inga says I'm a "Grand Inquisitor". For merely asking her if she supports cold blooded murder of Republicans. Apparently she cannot answer that question without being tortured?
Needless to say, she shouldn't be surprised that people think she supports violence against Republicans. After all, she cannot bring herself to say it's wrong. Therefore, if she won't say it's wrong, she must think it's right. And she hasn't refuted it.
Logic, Inga. Your fault everyone assumes you love the idea of murdering republicans. You won't deny it, after all. Despite repeated opportunities to do so.
--Vance
What? No fuss about the missing Oxford commas?
Susan, with your daughter in Turkey expressing her hatred for Trump might be what's keeping her alive.
What? No fuss about the missing Oxford commas?
What are you talking about? We turned over the table and blood has been spilled.
All my liberal friends are concerned that Trump might take away some hard-won and fundamental freedoms and rights.
Which fundamental freedoms and rights?
“Your fault everyone assumes you love the idea of murdering republicans. You won't deny it, after all. Despite repeated opportunities to do so.”
“Witch! Do you deny picking herbs in the forest in which to cast spells?! Do I need to dunk you under water another time you get your confession?!”
Yes Vance, your Torquemada persona fits you well. I know you love that hood. Every time you address me I think of this Monty Python skit.
She’s a witch!
“Susan, with your daughter in Turkey expressing her hatred for Trump might be what's keeping her alive.”
Hardly, as Trump has spoken glowingly about Erdogan. They are friends, don’t you know? Trump likes autocrats.
“Meeting on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump hailed Erdogan’s leadership in Turkey and said Erdogan “has become a friend of mine.”
“I think now we’re as close as we’ve ever been,” he said.”
Reuters
Inga is a hoot. Her politics are moderate left, and not to an extreme at all. Her accused crimes seem to be standing her ground and giving as good as she gets. And she wins more arguments than she loses. Based on that she might be a cousin of DaTrump.
Inga, it really shouldn't be a hard thing: Do you support killing Republicans? That's an easy question, isn't it? It should be a no-brainer.
I mean, if I went onto a college campus and started asking people "Do you support murdering Republicans in cold blood" I presume most of them (not at Berkeley's social departments) would answer "No, of course not. What a ridiculous question!"
Anyone who said "That's a witch hunt! How dare you ask me that question! Totally unreasonable!" for six months.... well, lots of conclusions can be drawn.
If it were me being asked whether I supported the cold blooded murder of people who hold the opposite political beliefs as I do... I'd be glad to say I oppose it. Eagar in fact.
But you Inga? Apparently, you aren't so eager to let your opposition to murdering your political opponents be known. Makes it rather unclear that you actually oppose it. Maybe you support it. After all, the left historically murders people on epic scales when they think those people don't agree with them.
You can keep calling me "Inquisitor" and referring to some sort of witch hunt if you like, but honestly: if the question is whether you support murdering your political opponents is a "Witch hunt" and you refuse to answer it; don't be surprised if people accuse you of supporting it. Because that's not a witch hunt. It's a simple question you cannot honestly answer without incriminating yourself
--Vance
“But you Inga? Apparently, you aren't so eager to let your opposition to murdering your political opponents be known. Makes it rather unclear that you actually oppose it. Maybe you support it. After all, the left historically murders people on epic scales when they think those people don't agree with them.”
Oh please don’t dunk me again! I confess! I cast a spell on Biddy Smith’s cow and now she’s dry and I turned Reverend Pritchard’s well brackish so even the frogs couldn’t survive!
Aw thanks Tradguy. But I ain’t no kin to Trump!
When did you stop beating your wife Vance?
“You can keep calling me "Inquisitor" and referring to some sort of witch hunt if you like, but honestly: if the question is whether you support murdering your political opponents is a "Witch hunt" and you refuse to answer it; don't be surprised if people accuse you of supporting it. Because that's not a witch hunt. It's a simple question you cannot honestly answer without incriminating yourself.”
You argue with a glaring logical fallacy, can you guess which one it is?
traditionalguy said...
Inga is a hoot. Her politics are moderate left, and not to an extreme at all.
Sure, that the religious right wants to literally create The Handmaid's Tale in America isn't extreme at all.
Her accused crimes seem to be standing her ground and giving as good as she gets.
Her extremism shows itself in her cartoonish strawmen and mischaracterizations of those she hates. So society treated women as chattel, and we know this because selling wives was against the law and caused outrage when it was reported in the 1800s version of the Enquirer.
"All my liberal friends are concerned that Trump might take away some hard-won and fundamental freedoms and rights."
And I can understand their concern! If anyone treasures fundamental freedom and rights, it's "liberals"!
Poor loser Rick. I proved you wrong about women historically being chattel from reputable educational/ legal/ historical studies sources, at least 6 of them.
Here’s just one of them Rick. I can repost all of them if you wish.
“Equality, Property and Marriage
Most American treated married women according to the concept of coverture, a concept inherited from English common law. Under the doctrine of coverture, a woman was legally considered the chattel of her husband, his possession. Any property she might hold before her marriage became her husband's on her wedding day, and she had no legal right to appear in court, to sign contracts or to do business. Although these formal provisions of the law were sometimes ignored—the wives of tradesmen, for example, might assist in runing the family business—married women technically had almost no legal identity.”
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/omalley/120f02/america/marriage/
I proved you wrong about women historically being chattel from reputable educational/ legal/ historical studies sources, at least 6 of them.
You proved you rely on sources as biased as you are and that you cannot think independently.
Any property she might hold before her marriage became her husband's on her wedding day,
If you could think instead of appealing to authority you would understand this doesn't prove she was chattel nor do the other identified circumstances. The key element of chattel is sale and on that issue your own evidence proves you wrong. Comparing how women were treated to actual chattel slavery shows just how absurd you are.
George Mason University is as biased as I am? Sorry Rick I won’t use Liberty University as a reputable source. You lost that argument, as you do most arguments. Don’t feel bad.
“The key element of chattel is sale and on that issue your own evidence proves you wrong. Comparing how women were treated to actual chattel slavery shows just how absurd you are.”
chat·tel
ˈCHadl/Submit
noun
(in general use) a personal possession.
LAW
an item of property other than real estate.
Unknown -- It's an idiotic line of questioning. Up your game.
“During most of American history, women’s lives in most states were circumscribed by common law brought to North America by English colonists. These marriage and property laws, or "coverture," stipulated that a married woman did not have a separate legal existence from her husband. A married woman or feme covert was a dependent, like an underage child or a slave, and could not own property in her own name or control her own earnings, except under very specific circumstances. When a husband died, his wife could not be the guardian to their under-age children. Widows did have the right of "dower," a right to property they brought into the marriage as well as to life usage of one-third of their husbands’ estate. Though a married woman was not able to sue or sign contracts on her own, her husband often did have to obtain her consent before he sold any property his wife had inherited.”
https://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/wes/collections/women_law/
To be precise, its the complex question fallacy.
Inga said...
chat·tel
an item of property other than real estate.
Right. And people can sell their property, which is exactly what we saw with slavery.
A married woman or feme covert was a dependent, like an underage child or a slave
Being a dependent is nothing like being a slave. Why don't you wander over to the Root and see how this nonsense goes there.
Being treated unequally is not the same as slavery, and not having equal rights is not the same as being property. Your need to justify your extremism is preventing you from understanding simple reality.
“It was under such an exception in the New York law that Mr. Liberta, a 26-year-old Buffalo man, became the first husband in the history of the state to be convicted of raping his wife. The marital exemption had its roots in the English common law. It stemmed in part from notions that women belonged to their husbands, a status that also prevented women from signing contracts or filing lawsuits.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/23/weekinreview/new-york-joins-17-states-that-deny-wives-are-property-rape-marriage-no-longer.html
“Chattel marriage refers to a form of marriage in which the husband owned his wife, and any children of their union, in a legal relationship similar to that of slavery. The term refers to the root word `cattle`, from which comes `chattel`, which refers to personal property, as opposed to real property, such as land.”
http://www.encyclo.co.uk/meaning-of-Chattel%20marriage
“Being a dependent is nothing like being a slave.”
My but you’re slow. A woman was legally OWNED by her husband. She was not a mere dependent.
A woman was legally OWNED by her husband. She was not a mere dependent.
Interesting that your own evidence states otherwise. You'd think that would carry some weight with you.
A married woman or feme covert was a dependent, like an underage child or a slave, and could not own property in her own name or control her own earnings, except under very specific circumstances.
Women were not owned, this is an extremist interpretation attempting to convert not equal to slave. Not having a separate legal existence is because spouses were considered a single entity by the law. It's not evidence the wife was a slave.
Rick, there are many who disagree with you as evidenced by my many sources and they are far more credible and educated on the subject than you.
Once again, you lose this debate. Maybe round three will be the charm.
More appeals to authority.
These are the same people who claim to believe women are raped at higher rates on American college campuses than they were during the Congolese Civil War where rape was used as a weapon of war. The fact that activists have spent a great deal of time and effort documenting their own extremism doesn't make their conclusions any more valid. It just means we have more cranks than we would otherwise have.
Women were not owned, this is an extremist interpretation attempting to convert not equal to slave. Not having a separate legal existence is because spouses were considered a single entity by the law. It's not evidence the wife was a slave.
12/4/17, 6:03 PM
Oh and Rick, nice try at moving the goalposts, I claimed married women were the chattel of their husbands, not their slaves.
I claimed married women were the chattel of their husbands, not their slaves.
What do you think a slave is? In fact people refer to American slavery as chattel slavery specifically to emphasize the property element. This emotional tie to slavery is exactly what the activists who developed the accusation intended which makes it even more amusing you think claiming it is invalid supports your assertions.
“ Now, why does this guy get the Nobel Prize?”
Because he is a Turk and probably a Muslim.
Affirmative action at the Nobel Institute.
“Althouse, I was rather surprised by this post, since I was quite sure Pamuk was on your radar. There are three blog posts about him already -- one about him winning the Nobel prize and two earlier ones about his trial. ”
I’d forgotten the name.
Looking back on the old posts, I can see my interest was in the trial, which would have had nothing to do with what I thought of the writing, which I had not read. The Nobel Prize announcement mattered because of the trial and because I blog the literature and peace prizes just about every year.
I’m extremely picky about writing, you may have noticed. I hardly like anything.
“What is the Difference Between chattel and slave?
The word chattel is encountered in two main senses. The earlier of the two is primarily technical and refers to property, specifically property that is distinct from real estate holdings. The second meaning of chattel can excite considerable emotion, as it refers to humans as property, i.e., slaves. Chattel, slave and the less common bondman and thrall are all synonyms for a person held in servitude by another. Chattel and cattle both come to English from the same source: each is descended from the Medieval Latin word capitale, which itself traces to the Latin caput meaning “head.””
Women were legally the PROPERTY of their husbands=chattel. Women were not the SLAVES of their husbands. Men could not legally sell their wives. Chattel and slave are not always the same thing. You are either very slow or really wanting to win this debate in the worst way, lol.
Chattel and slave are not always the same thing.
This is true, but chattel were always slaves. Property is owned, and anything owned is a slave. It's theoretically possible for a type of slavery to exist which would not be chattel, presumably because the institution was governed by strict rules excising the ownership elements. This is what many who argue American slavery was more evil than other historical forms of slavery claim.
Men could not legally sell their wives.
Correct, which proves they weren't chattel. It's very strange how you keep getting everything backward.
Womens status was legally subservient to some degree or another and in various ways in every known civilization, and customarily so in every savage culture. This is universal, there has never been an "amazon" society or one where the status of men and women has ever been identical.
As best anyone can tell this condition goes back to the dawn of humanity. And probably to the social nature of the beast he was before then, if we take the remaining species of apes as guides.
One can only conclude that womens status, to these modern times, was in accordance with human nature. Modern innovations in many areas seem an unhealthy divergence from the natural design, they cut against natures grain.
Well, in some cultures they could sell their wives.
You can find all sorts of things if you take all known cultures across the earth and through all of recorded history.
What you will not find is anything like a modern concept of female equality.
I’m extremely picky about writing, you may have noticed. I hardly like anything.
I can identify. I really do recommend Instanbul and My Name is Red.
Istanbul -- not Instanbul. And not Constantinople either. If you've a date in Constantinople she'll be waiting in Istanbul.
KittyM said...
@HoodlumDoodlum "The Left wishes to punish blasphemy just as harshly as your standard state-running religious authoritarian--they just disagree over what counts as blasphemy. Sometimes it's only a very slight disagreement!"
I've been thinking a lot about this blog recently. Specifically, about comments such as this one, whereby a broad, sweeping statement is made about "The Left" or "lefties" that I simply don't recognise as containing any truth.
May I ask: how did you arrive at the very harsh view copied above? Did Obama imprison opposition thinkers, like Erdogan? Journalists, like Erdogan? Did any European politician?
I know this is the internet - and anyone can say/write anything and no one can possibly know if someone else is joking, or exaggerating, or just a bit mad. But I am asking as honestly and politely as I can: do you honestly think this is true?
Hi Kitty. In broad terms, I do: I think it is fair to say that "the Left" in 2017 supports legal restrictions on speech and in many places is pushing for more laws making "bad speech/hate speech" a crime.
Your question as it relates to "European politicians" is (perhaps unintentionally) a funny one: in many European nations "hate speech" is already illegal (as is specific types of speech- pro-Nazi, Holocaust denial, etc) and there is no popular movement against that by the predominantly Leftist (w/r/t US political standards) populations of those nations. It would take but a few moments on Google to find any number of recent articles from the UK talking about the sentences handed down for bad speech--the posts one sees on Twitter often compare the 3-6 months given to people found guilty of online hate speech in the UK compared with the suspended sentences/probation given to recent immigrants who commit some property crime or violent crime. It's not some rare thing.
Anyway I'm sure the nice people on the Left and the nice people in the center think they believe in freedom of speech...but they just don't. If you look at the demographics of the nation the people who are most supportive of legal restrictions on hate speech & the people who firmly believe that "hate speech is violence"--are almost all on the political left; the younger generations most strongly support increased criminalization and those people are more likely to self report as being politically or ideologically Left.
Obama didn't lock anyone up for blasphemy (although the example of the "innocence of muslims" video creator is worth thinking about!) and I didn't say that the US laws or politicians are as bad as blasphemy/heresy laws elsewhere. I did say that the Left wishes to punish/it could punish blasphemy just as strongly. Look at calls Progressives have made to prosecute "climate deniers." Look at institutions controlled by the Left, like liberal arts universities, and compare their idea of "free speech" with the rest of ours.
I phrased it in a hyperbolic/sweeping way, yes; but I do believe that the Left thinks blasphemy and/or heresy should be punished in much the same way religious autocrats wish to punish blasphemy and/or anti-regime speech. In the US, so far, we don't LET them...but they'd like to.
It's impolite to mock someone's use of a second language. Mock the Times instead.
Transtromer was a really good poet, and he won the Nobel prize. Sigrid Undset was a really good novelist.
NOBEL PRIZES rarely go to really good writers but they never go to completely incompetent writers.
One year an Oscar nominated movie allegedly had a few moments where a boom mike was visible on screen (it wasn't, really, unless the projectionist tilted the projector or if the screen had extra unplanned space at the top).
I don't like much writing, either (see Althouse comment at 6:42 PM).
Theodore Sturgeon is said to have said that 90 percent of writing is no good (I paraphrase).
I think he was way too kind - I think that 90 percent of writing that is considered good is no good.
Well, except in the sense that the writer may have had a good time writing it, and there were some people who enjoyed it, but in that limited sense writing is just a local extension of friendship, which is good in itself, but is a different thing than art, which is what we are talking about.
Writing is not like the building of rural parish churches in long vanished England of our dreams, dreams where all old rural parish churches are as stunningly poetic as you would imagine they would be if you woke up tomorrow and could visit each of them, in all their artful and natural sublime and pure and timeless beauty, just by walking a few hours from your house.
Well, if you are a writer, either you make sense, and are not boring, and are artistic (all three are necessary, two out of three is insufficient) or you were not born to be the sort of writer who makes sense, and is interesting, and is an artist.
Which is fine, there is more to life than being a writer.
Shakespeare himself should have written a few less plays, or should have written as many plays as he did, but almost all of them shorter, and he should have spent more time with friends and family. He wrote thousands of lines that, to be honest, nobody needed to write.
>Once again, you lose this debate. Maybe round three will be the charm.
Keep declaring victory. It's completely convincing. Really.
Post a Comment