Thread by @magi_jay

I wrote a piece for @johnastoehr about how many non-conservative analysts are adopting a derisive view of modern social justice, resulting in depictions of the social left that are both inaccurate & ominous. Many of these critiques contain similar errors. stoehr.substack.com/p/that-the-gop…

These critiques begin by acknowledging that real social problems—such as racism—exist. However, after this concession, almost every critique devolves into a hodgepodge of vague stipulations disguised as a concern for the state of liberal debate. "There are problems, BUT. . . . ."

Commentators frequently frame responses to bigotry—such as protests, boycotts, or “cancelling”—as somehow a threat to free speech when, in fact, most of these responses are typically tantamount to *more* speech and consist of social consequences, not legal censorship.

Commentators argue that the social left shuts down debate, but rarely describe 1. The nature of the “debates” the social left is responding to, or 2. whether they believe all “debates” are worthy of intellectual credibility &, if not, where they believe the line should be drawn

Do these commentators, for example, believe that the worthiness of the n-word should be given a credible platform? What about the argument that men should be able to rape their wives? Or the view that 6 million Jews were not murdered in the Holocaust?

I’m fairly certain that the left-leaning and/or centrist commentators who endorse a derisive view of social justice would *not* endorse these extreme examples as worthy of scholarly debate or large platforms.

So where, exactly, do they draw the line?

Is it not worthwhile to debate the n-word, but somehow constructive to debate spurious claims about Black people's IQ? Should we not give a platform to forced sterilization while we simultaneously give credence to the argument that trans women aren't women? Where's the line?

Relatedly, commentators frequently critique the social left for going too far. Yes, some issues exist, they concede, but the responses are disproportionate. And, yet, these lovers-of-free-speech consistently fail to delineate how far is exactly far enough.

How, exactly, should trans people respond to challenges to their identity? How loud or how quiet should Black college students be in the face of bad scholarship that argues they belong to a group that is intellectually inferior?

This is not to say I have not, myself, encountered cases where I thought the consequences for some transgression were disproportionate. Or that some tactic was counter-productive.

I think we, on the social left, do need to have conversations about degrees of consequences. We need to, among ourselves, talk about how to navigate justice, anger, empathy, and persuasion. How to both honor victimization and fight oppression while coaxing others to do the same.

However, we should also resist mischaracterizations of the social left. I have real fear this trend in commentary will introduce negative feelings about social justice w/in potential allies

We are not an illiberal force bent on conformity.

We are dedicated to anti-bigotry.

Critics of the social left should be explicit about 1. What topics they believe should be met w/ intellectual engagement vs what topics should be dismissed as too offensive or stupid to merit further discussion & 2. When & how they believe a given response has gone “too far”

I hope you'll consider reading more in the piece!

stoehr.substack.com/p/that-the-gop…

And here is a related article the delves deeper in one recent example of mischaracterizing social justice: stoehr.substack.com/p/black-americ…