Social Question

Demosthenes's avatar

Do you think the response of "X doesn't exist" in response to a "culture war" issue is inadequate?

Asked by Demosthenes (13551points) January 20th, 2022

It seems that when confronted with culture war issues like cancel culture, critical race theory, “wokeness”, a common response from the left is to simply dismiss the entire concept: there’s no cancel culture, critical race theory isn’t being taught, “wokeness” is a racist term, etc. It seems to be a common response to many of the questions I ask here, e.g. X is not worth talking about because X is not a thing. And it’s like, sure, academic-level “critical race theory” is not literally being taught in K-12 schools, but pointing that out doesn’t end the discussion nor does it mean there’s nothing there. There are certain ideas about race and identity and intersectionality that have entered K-12 curriculum and some of it may be worth questioning or criticizing. Just because the right’s “moral panic” is being deliberately fanned by bad faith politicians and pundits doesn’t mean there’s nothing to discuss. Likewise for cancel culture: sure, right-wing politicians losing access to Twitter is not a first amendment crisis, but I think it’s worth discussing the extent to which tech companies have too much control over speech and as someone in the academic world, I am concerned about academic censorship, as esoteric an issue as it may be to the general public.

I just think the left needs better responses than “that’s not a thing”. Even if some of the terminology is silly or a lot of the concern is overblown and in bad faith doesn’t mean there’s nothing to it at all. There often is something there that we’re perhaps ignoring. Important questions get overlooked in the surface-level shouting.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

52 Answers

RocketGuy's avatar

Cancel Culture: it used to be called boycotting. Both sides do it, so why does one side cry about it all the time? They are always canceling someone else anyway. Private business (e.g. Twitter) can exclude whomever they want (except for Federally protected classes) – that’s Free Market. They set the criteria and users have to follow. That’s part of the agreement when you sign up (whether you read it or not). This is especially true if you are not paying for the service.

Demosthenes's avatar

@RocketGuy But does that close the discussion? Just because tech companies can exclude whomever they want legally doesn’t mean we should just accept their level of power and influence in society. We cheer when MTG gets banned, but what about activists who are banned? I have a leftist activist friend who’s been banned from Facebook more than once for her posts. That doesn’t make the news, but should we just brush it off?

The problem is these discussions get closed at the outset and we don’t take any of the ideas further. Are we all comfortable with the fact that so much of what we do is filtered through tech companies and that these tech companies, as private business, can essentially “do whatever they want”?

I agree that discussion of cancel culture can be frustrating because both sides engage in “canceling” yet only one side is blamed for it, but that doesn’t mean that there’s nothing to criticize when your side does it.

rebbel's avatar

I actually think that a lot of those things (the woke things) are a thing.
I don’t know if you have to be left, or Liberal, or ultra left, right, or a-political, but the moment someone is supporting or defending the fact that there is such thing as gender fluidity, or gender “issues” period, there’s bound to be sounds coming from many people that that’s a non-issue, non-existent, snowflakey.
Now I ask you where such sounds reside?
From which side of the political spectrum (mostly)?

KNOWITALL's avatar

Those issues are always worth exploring further, but the problem is we are so polarized (generally speaking), we can’t seem to have as many intelligent conversations without someone lashing out or being dismissive.
When party politics get to this point, it can certainly be deleterious to our republic.

Kropotkin's avatar

I don’t think any response matters anyway or would ever be adequate.

The right-wing worldview is sustained by finding things to be angry and fearful about. The recent stuff about CRT and cancel culture is the just the newest and latest round of bugbears.

In the past it was something else. In time the current ones will be displaced by new bugbears.

Demosthenes's avatar

I do get the desire to dismiss some of this stuff when it seems so polarized and “panicky” but too often I think there’s an important issue at stake.

This question was actually not inspired by cancel culture or CRT, but an issue that I admittedly don’t know much about since I’m not a parent, i.e. school closures and learning loss. The right is using learning loss to argue that teachers’ unions need to be done away with and more broadly, the public school system is fucked and needs to be done away with in favor of charters and other options. And the response from the left (in many cases) has been to say that learning loss is not a thing, school closures are fine, distance learning is fine, but that’s simply not true. Learning loss is real, school closures are harming kids, and distance learning is a poor substitute for in-person learning. There has to be a way to adequately solve the issue of education during a pandemic apart from simply dismissing it all as “not a thing” and an underhanded right-wing attack on unions and public education (even if it is partly that, there still may be a real problem that needs addressing).

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

I wonder if part of the issue with the left’s seeming dismissal of the right’s points is that the right is almost impossible to engage in civil discourse.

I find I simply don’t enter discussions of matters you’ve mentioned, because the rightwing individuals have a history of resorting to illogical arguments. It’s not universal, but it’s widespread enough to make me wary.

I will add that you are right. Learning loss is a real thing. I know many educators, and they all say they’ve noticed it since we’ve returned to in-person classes. The pupils have lost something in their time away.

RocketGuy's avatar

I heard that little kids need in-person interaction to learn better. Haven’t seen careful studies ,though. My kids were high school/college aged during the max shut down. They were fine being totally online.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

Sometimes “X” really does not exist. Sometimes saying “X” does not exist is utter bullshit. It depends on what “X” is and what the relation to objective reality is. When faced with an inconvenient or painful truth denying the existence is little more than a cheap parlor trick but people are still pretty good at it. Same goes for conjuring something out of thin air to support a position. People are very good at that.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Desmosthenes To be fair many Republicans are anti-Union and this is just another thing to add to the list. They are a con here, at least the two I’m familiar with.

Blackberry's avatar

You’re asking more about debate than the actual issue.
Let’s see an example….you said:
“from the left”

My friend….who specifically is this referring to? I mean individually….because you should have asked them instead of assuming they were speaking for….however many millions of people you assume are left.

Just because you’re having discussions with random people on the internet doesn’t mean they represent “the left”.

This whole premise is now flawed and basically has to be thrown out the window because it’s false from the start.

What you should be asking is “Why do some people sometimes stifle or avoid questions or premises in debates?”

These topics are living, breathing entities. There’s no right or left and there never was. There’s the issue and how it affects individuals and groups.

Women actually throwing babies in dumpsters isn’t or wasn’t a “left/right” issue. Does this make sense? It was simply an issue that had to be dealt with because we’re not cavemen anymore. And the same goes for everything else.

Blackberry's avatar

And it’s kind of disingenuous to try to care about learning loss now…as if our schools weren’t bad before….why did no one care when we found out kids were being denied school lunches because they had some cafeteria debt? Why did schools turn down donors trying to pay off the debts of poor people?

Why are bullied people getting in trouble for defending themselves?

Why are teachers being treated like fast food workers?

I could probably make some 20 paragraph post about how schools have been…..but because some kids stayed home now we have to rush to help right lol? Hilarious. You’re too late.

product's avatar

This question is almost unintelligible, which is unfortunate, because I saw this….

@Demosthenes: “This question was actually not inspired by cancel culture or CRT, but an issue that I admittedly don’t know much about since I’m not a parent, i.e. school closures and learning loss.”

There is a real discussion to be had re:school, and you buried the lede and muddied it too much for me to really respond.

Demosthenes's avatar

@Blackberry Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing. You’ve proven my point that the left often prefers to obfuscate rather than address real issues. Some people got it. You didn’t. That’s fine. This question wasn’t for you. I’m sure you could’ve written 20 paragraphs of obfuscation and deflection but it would’ve been enlightening for no one, so all things considered, I’d rather not hear it.

I mean, seriously? The issue is that I didn’t use the word “some”? Fucking A…

@product Try. Or will you require the usual tedious poking and prodding? You don’t have to be a stereotype every time, you know.

product's avatar

@Demosthenes: “Try”

Try asking a question instead of telling us how enamored you are by your alt-right influences. Spoiler alert: I know those guys that you find compelling, and they’re leading to some very confused ideas on your part. It might be why you were unable to ask a question. Note: We likely agree on the school question, but you won’t ask that, will you?

Demosthenes's avatar

Lol. “Alt-right”. I wouldn’t call Jay Caspian Kang alt-right, but his opinions on the learning loss issue and the left’s tendency to dismiss issues entirely because of the right’s bad faith outrage were the impetus for this question.

I asked the question: can you quit pretending an issue doesn’t exist just because the right are being disingenuous about it?

Learning loss due to pandemic school closures is a real issue, you agree?

product's avatar

@Demosthenes: “I asked the question: can you quit pretending an issue doesn’t exist just because the right are being disingenuous about it?”

Ok, here goes…

@Demosthenes: “Do you think the response of “X doesn’t exist” in response to a “culture war” issue is inadequate?”

Yes – if it doesn’t exist.

(Better?)

Demosthenes's avatar

Yes, better. E for effort. So now, on to the next question:

Do you think learning loss due to pandemic school closures is a real issue that exists?

product's avatar

^ Absolutely – and it’s far bigger than “learning loss”. This is an issue that has people divided for many reasons. This is an economic/class issue, and like many things, it affects people of different means quite differently.

The closing of schools affected poor/working class people because they had a choice to either leave their children home alone or quit their jobs and lose their income and means of survival. And nobody will deny the huge mental health costs to children due to social isolation. And yes – kids didn’t learn shit when schools were remote. It’s been a nightmare scenario all around.

However, it becomes complicated because the real need and desire to keep kids in schools has been opposed by teachers and teacher’s unions (in large part). So you have a dilemma. Of course we want collective bargaining and we need unions as powerful as teacher’s unions in every industry. But when the interests of teachers and the interests of children and families with children conflict, we have the problem I’ve described.

product's avatar

Note: The only people I know who 100% support remote learning are wealthy families who were able to have a parent work with their kids at home while they were remote “learning”, or hired babysitters/nannies to be home with their children.

Demosthenes's avatar

@product Thank you for your answer. I would agree it is largely a class issue. But that is why I asked this question: of course the right uses this issue to argue “abolish teachers’ unions”, but that doesn’t mean there is no legitimate issue here, so when I see left wing sources become defensive and try to downplay the negative effects of school closures due to the right’s attack on teachers’ unions, I see a problem. These dilemmas are what I was getting at with my question about “cancel culture”. “Cancel culture” is a nebulous term that refers to a number of not-necessarily-closely-related issues. Some of those are non-issues and deserve to be dismissed, I agree. However, some, like the extent to which tech companies have control over speech, are real issues and shouldn’t be lumped in with the others and dismissed. Is that such an absurd position to take?

product's avatar

Again, I’m not entirely sure how this connects to the non-existent (hah) “cancel culture”. I do think it makes sense, however, to ask specific questions and discuss issues without attempting to roll them into something that may not be applicable.

@Demosthenes: “so when I see left wing sources become defensive and try to downplay the negative effects of school closures due to the right’s attack on teachers’ unions, I see a problem.”

If it’s the case that some people muster a less-than-honest defense of teachers unions’ efforts re: remote “learning”, it’s not the fault of those people…or even teachers unions. The right’s attack on labor overall and teachers unions in particular means that people have a reasonable and legitimate desire and need to protect them. The whole concept of argument-in-vacuum is an idea that is meant to serve power. We do need to consider the larger project here, and can’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

This issue is very complex, and does mean that people might have to support the efforts of those who may be advocating for things that will negatively affect their lives if the larger project is more important. Does that make sense?

Demosthenes's avatar

I do think it makes sense, however, to ask specific questions and discuss issues without attempting to roll them into something that may not be applicable.

I also think that if someone else is rolling them into something that isn’t applicable to bolster their argument, we should make the distinction between the issues. Twitter and Facebook having control over speech is not the same thing as Joe Rogan getting criticized for his views on vaccines, even if the right would call all of it “cancel culture”. One is a legitimate issue and one isn’t.

And yes, that makes sense. In a similar way I have supported certain things that may negatively affect my life in the short term if it serves the larger project of the societal normalization of homosexuality, for example.

product's avatar

^ FWIW, I have a problem with people handing over power to private corporations to determine what is acceptable speech and what isn’t.

Zaku's avatar

I think it’s entirely appropriate when it is accurate, and especially when the people bringing the issue are essentially just trolling or parroting trolls, as is often the case with the “issues” you mentioned.

Turn the tables. How do conservatives respond to the issues of rampant Republican corruption and treason and lying and institutional racism?

Oh wait, those are accurate.

How about, how do conservatives respond to the “issues” that… hmm, what do liberals actually say that is not accurate? Oh, that Republicans eat their young, or that they all have tiny penises, or that Mich McConnell is a turtle?

Demosthenes's avatar

@Zaku Good question. I have no doubt they are similarly dismissive. Despite being labeled alt-right I am more on the left so I wanted to talk about issues the left dismisses, but I’m sure the right dismisses issues that may be legitimate in the same way.

@product One more thing: to your point about “negatively affect their lives”. It’s one thing if it’s your own life, but that sounds a little like it’s okay to sacrifice the children here if it means protecting unions. Could there be some alternative middle solution between ongoing school closures and abolishing the unions?

jca2's avatar

Other than remote learning, what are some options for kids and teachers during a pandemic? Even if kids’ learning is affected when they’re home doing remote schooling, it’s a better option than being sick and infecting others, no?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Zaku The right is dismissive on many real issues, such as the environment vs capitalism, common-sense gun laws, and many other issues. Both parties get too defensive and double-down on dismissing how issues affect real Americans. Pandering to the majority of party-line voters.

Demosthenes's avatar

@KNOWITALL Yes, good point. The right dismisses any attempt to address gun violence as “taking away our guns” even if there is a legitimate issue with gun violence that should be dealt with. I wish we could be less dismissive of these issues, but when you see it as a “war” it’s hard to avoid simply becoming defensive and dismissive.

product's avatar

@product: “It’s one thing if it’s your own life, but that sounds a little like it’s okay to sacrifice the children here if it means protecting unions. Could there be some alternative middle solution between ongoing school closures and abolishing the unions?”

What I’m saying is that you can push back against the unions’ actions without questioning the legitimacy of the institution. Engaging in disingenuous attacks on labor is not a requirement. One needn’t accept reactionary frameworks to engage with complex topics.

Demosthenes's avatar

@product Got it.

without questioning the legitimacy of the institution.

I agree. One can push back on something an institution is doing without saying the institution needs to go.

Zaku's avatar

@Demosthenes In the conversations I’ve seen online (here and elsewhere) it also seems to me that people do fairly often directly address the US right-wing social “issues”, but that the right-wing tends to ignore those replies. It tends to be at that point that those issues get dismissed, as it’s already been mentioned why they are inaccurate.

I’ve seen others try to engage right-wing commenters earnestly, and I’ve done it myself, and almost always, it seems to end up being a waste of time and energy, and more often than not, the right-wing poster seems to be delighting in having wasted the time and energy of others, and they usually seem to have put little or no real effort into understanding or engaging any reply that doesn’t fit their script, except to toss more bullshit arguments at it.

I’m not clear why you characterized the responses you listed as “simply dismiss the entire concept”, particularly:

* “critical race theory isn’t being taught”
– This seems to me a material factual argument, when right-wingers are objecting to grade schools, and the grade schools are teaching no such thing.
– Information about what “critical race theory” actually is, the content that is taught about it by some college curricula, etc, is never actually objectively engaged by the right, as far as I’ve seen.

* ``“wokeness” is a racist term, etc.:``
– The history of this term routinely gets explained in online discussions. It does not appear to me that right-wingers are bringing a genuine “issue” when they use this term that way, nor have they read those explanations.

Blackberry's avatar

@Demosthenes
The issue isn’t that you forgot the word “some”. The issue is that you don’t seem to realize how poorly worded the question and the premise are….

What I was able to glean from the original question was “Why does the left say these issues don’t exist in regards to culture wars?”

You essentially had an argument with an individual….not an entity… or an institution….just one or a few people…

Then, you ran off into another room…away from the original argument you were having with someone else, seemingly expecting everyone to have this prior information.

Then, you asked “Why did this person I was talking to in another room say x doesn’t exist?”

So, you think there’s a deeper discussion to be had about loss of learning and Twitter censorship, and you don’t want to be told that it’s not a real issue, correct?

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@Blackberry If it was really just “some” but it’s more like “many.” This little X does not exist” trick is so widely used now that it transcends any single argument or ideology that may employ it.

Demosthenes's avatar

@Blackberry You really have mastered the art of contributing nothing to a discussion, haven’t you? Everyone else seems to get it, why are you still so in the dark?

It evidently takes you a day to post your tedious replies, so I’ll see you tomorrow morning for more of the same, I guess.

Blackberry's avatar

@Blackwater_Park

1. What’s your sample size? This website? Twitter? Both? Some other website? Did you conduct a survey? How many participants?

2. Even if 50,000 people think the earth is flat, it’s still up to you to know when to pick your battles.

@Demosthenes

You have not mastered the art of making a clear and cogent point.
It’s quite normal to establish the premise of a claim clearly while making it. It’s even normal to back track if possible to re establish the point for better communication.

And the end of the day, though….you have not talked to enough people on the planet, or even the country or your state…for you as an individual to use random brush strokes to speak for millions of people you don’t know.

Demosthenes's avatar

@Blackberry So the issue was that I didn’t use the word “some”. Got it.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@Blackberry I don’t have to do a full blown scientific study to tell you that it’s commonplace now. Just go argue with people over politics and it will come up. Hell, just a cursory glance on this site will tell you that.

product's avatar

@Demosthenes – You’re acting as though the initial question didn’t have major problems – some of which I already pointed out. But let’s take a look at this a bit in detail. I really think you have a tendency to ask these questions, which are half questions and half an acceptance of alt-right/conservative talking points.

@Demosthenes: “It seems that when confronted with culture war issues like cancel culture, critical race theory, “wokeness”, a common response from the left is to simply dismiss the entire concept: there’s no cancel culture, critical race theory isn’t being taught, “wokeness” is a racist term, etc.”

“Cancel culture” and CRT are not things. And the only honest response is to point out that they don’t exist.

@Demosthenes: “And it’s like, sure, academic-level “critical race theory” is not literally being taught in K-12 schools, but pointing that out doesn’t end the discussion nor does it mean there’s nothing there. There are certain ideas about race and identity and intersectionality that have entered K-12 curriculum and some of it may be worth questioning or criticizing.”

Then be specific and discuss those things. Not a single person here – or anywhere else – is unwilling to discuss race and education except conservatives, which is why they are making this an issue. They want the discussion to end. Period. You’re pushing back against those who want to have an honest discussion.

@Demosthenes: “Likewise for cancel culture: sure, right-wing politicians losing access to Twitter is not a first amendment crisis, but I think it’s worth discussing the extent to which tech companies have too much control over speech and as someone in the academic world, I am concerned about academic censorship, as esoteric an issue as it may be to the general public.”

Adopting a conservative framework, which is based on something that most definitely does not exist, is no basis for a reasonable discussion. But if you were to ask a question about free speech, platforms, private ownership, etc you would have some real discussion from everyone. Remember – those who pretend “cancel culture” is a thing are not anti-capitalist leftists who see private tyrannies as antithetical to the concept of free speech. Again, you’d have plenty of willing participation in a robust discussion here if you were to drop the conservative framework, which is not based in reality.

@Demosthenes: “I just think the left needs better responses than “that’s not a thing”. Even if some of the terminology is silly or a lot of the concern is overblown and in bad faith doesn’t mean there’s nothing to it at all. There often is something there that we’re perhaps ignoring. Important questions get overlooked in the surface-level shouting.”

This is difficult to make any sense of, because you leave the reader to attempt to interpret who you are talking about and in which contexts. Since that paragraph doesn’t map onto any reality I have experienced, I’m left with the conclusion that this is just a straw man “left” that you’ve created.

So, yes – the question had some serious issues. It’s understandable that it’s difficult to understand. I propose that if you had asked a specific question about any of your actual concerns that you don’t feel are being addressed, you’d have had a better response. LIke I said re: remote “learning” – we may actually agree. But you seemed to have lost the plot of your own question, and it’s tough to parse.

Demosthenes's avatar

@product But then it seems the problem is with the terminology. You take issue with the admittedly terrible term “cancel culture”, so you throw out the baby with the bathwater. That is what I am taking issue with. That these terms are umbrellas that encompass some things that aren’t real issues (like the Joe Rogan nonsense) and some things that are (like tech companies’ control over speech). I often feel that both the right and the left are missing the real issues by getting caught in the surface-level battles. The right thinks CRT is being taught in schools; it’s not, so the left thinks they’ve checkmated the right in pointing that out. But there’s something more going on here, something that could be discussed.

product's avatar

@Demosthenes: “That these terms are umbrellas that encompass some things that aren’t real issues (like the Joe Rogan nonsense) and some things that are (like tech companies’ control over speech). ”

That’s the thing. You are claiming that “cancel culture” is an umbrella term. And in doing so, you are claiming that it has meaning. It’s not an umbrella term. It’s a way to stop discussion because it’s a term without meaning outside of its political intention. Using the term “cancel culture” is itself an act of throwing up babies and bathwater at once. To refuse to engage in vague discussions with people about things that don’t even exist is silly.

@Demosthenes: “I often feel that both the right and the left are missing the real issues by getting caught in the surface-level battles. The right thinks CRT is being taught in schools; it’s not, so the left thinks they’ve checkmated the right in pointing that out.”

First, I can only imagine what you mean by the “left”. That aside, I haven’t even heard a liberal claim “checkmate” by refusing to adopt a right-wing framework. This is where it’s clear that you are engaging in a bit of this absurdity yourself. You’re proposing that we “teach the controversy”. And when someone says that there is no controversy, then you are pushing back that scientists are not engaging in discussions of creationism and therefore we have a problem. The “controversy” is not a scientific one – it’s political. Same with these other political propaganda terms, such as “cancel culture” or CRT or whatever.

@Demosthenes: “But there’s something more going on here, something that could be discussed.”

Remember – these terms are political tools that are designed to reduce conversation, not encourage it. You’re taking aim at the wrong target here. Don’t fall victim to “both sidesism” here.

Demosthenes's avatar

@product But that’s not how I see these terms being used. It isn’t just a right-wing bludgeon. More than once I’ve encountered someone who says something like “there’s no cancel culture, maybe it’s not so great that Twitter has so much power but at least they’re banning MTG and Trump!” It’s that “maybe it’s not so great that Twitter has so much power” that I want to get at, but I think that some are so focused on proving the other side wrong and not engaging with their BS (understandably so) that they sort of brush aside the real issue or grudgingly admit it’s there but think that to engage with it would be to play the right’s game so it gets lumped in with the BS.

I don’t disagree that some controversies are non-existent. I think we can point out that this specific controversy (teaching CRT in schools) is BS but that there might be something to discuss about race/identity/intersectionality in school curriculum.

product's avatar

@Demosthenes – We’re talking past each other here. You’re repeating the same mistake and thinking that it’s somehow different. Let me try to be more clear.

@Demosthenes: “More than once I’ve encountered someone who says something like “there’s no cancel culture, maybe it’s not so great that Twitter has so much power but at least they’re banning MTG and Trump!” ”

What if you had asked….

“Do you feel that it’s ok that Twitter has so much power?”

See? You didn’t need to invoke an imaginary “cancel culture”. You asked a direct question. You could even expand your thoughts in the details with something like this…

“I’m seeing that people are happy that Trump has been banned by Twitter. Do you think there is any harm in banning people from Twitter? While it’s easy to accept someone as repugnant as Trump being banned from the platform, is there a larger principle at play here? Do we risk something greater by effectively allowing private tyrannies to control speech? Yes, we all know that free speech is related to laws, and that Twitter is a private corporation. But when public speech happens on private channels, can we accept that any meaningful discussion of ‘free speech’ needs to include privately-owned platforms?”

Wouldn’t this have been a more direct way of talking about things that are important to you?

@Demosthenes: “I think we can point out that this specific controversy (teaching CRT in schools) is BS but that there might be something to discuss about race/identity/intersectionality in school curriculum.”

Try the same formula that I’ve outlined above and you should be able to identify what it is you feel is worth discussing. Then you can ask about that.

Demosthenes's avatar

Yes, I agree, those are better ways of approaching the issue than saying “might cancel culture be partly valid?” and I have asked questions in that vein. But I also believe in taking a practical approach with the “masses”, and practically speaking, the language of “cancel culture” has become mainstream to an extent. I think some degree of engaging with it has to be done to change the narrative and divert focus to the real issues (and away from the BS) ones.

product's avatar

^ That’s actually a different discussion. Not that we’re necessarily having it here, but I have had a handful of discussions with Joe Rogan alt-right people who seem pretty worked up about “cancel culture”. My approach has always been to ask them what they mean by “cancel culture”, because I “haven’t seen any evidence that the phenomenon exists”. They invariably start listing specific things (all over the place), and we can then have discussions. But I never need to accept that it exists.

Demosthenes's avatar

Fair enough. Obviously some people won’t be worth it, but that sounds like an approach that could get through to some. My whole thing with this question was about getting to the real issues and not letting them be dismissed along with the non-issues. I’m all open to a better approach than giving the non-issue some credence it isn’t due.

Blackberry's avatar

@Demosthenes

Please tell us what the real issue is. I would love to hear it.

Lightlyseared's avatar

Are you suggesting that the ultra right wing may be open to logical discourse?

Zaku's avatar

This response to r̶a̶c̶i̶s̶t̶ oh I mean “conservative” “concerns” about critical race theory seems appropriate to me.

Strauss's avatar

@product FWIW, I have a problem with people handing over power to private corporations to determine what is acceptable speech and what isn’t.

This seems to parallel (or possibly reflect) what’s been going on with Republicans for years with legislation written by The American Legislative Exchange Council, aka ALEC.

Demosthenes's avatar

This article says better some of what I was trying to communicate with this question.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther