• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYT OpEd: Will the Left Survive the Millennials?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here

Honestly I could quote nearly the whole thing as I agree with most of what the writer says, but I've selected a few choice tidbits.

Briefly, my address maintained that fiction writers should be allowed to write fiction — thus should not let concerns about “cultural appropriation” constrain our creation of characters from different backgrounds than our own. I defended fiction as a vital vehicle for empathy. If we have permission to write only about our own personal experience, there is no fiction, but only memoir. Honestly, my thesis seemed so self-evident that I’d worried the speech would be bland.

Nope — not in the topsy-turvy universe of identity politics. The festival immediately disavowed the address, though the organizers had approved the thrust of the talk in advance. A “Right of Reply” session was hastily organized. When, days later, The Guardian ran the speech, social media went ballistic. Mainstream articles followed suit. I plan on printing out The New Republic’s “Lionel Shriver Shouldn’t Write About Minorities” and taping it above my desk as a chiding reminder.



When I was growing up in the ’60s and early ’70s, conservatives were the enforcers of conformity. It was the right that was suspicious, sniffing out Communists and scrutinizing public figures for signs of sedition.

Now the role of oppressor has passed to the left. In Australia, where I spoke, Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to do or say anything likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate,” providing alarming latitude in the restriction of free speech. It is Australia’s conservatives arguing for the amendment of this law.

Has the radical left abandoned notions of free speech as much as the radical right? If so, how do we convince a generation of children that hearing things that make you uncomfortable isn't the end of the world?
 

Xe4

Banned
People have bit he'd about the younger generation ruining politics forever. Millenials will grow up and either their ideas will be accepted into mainstream society, or it will die out.

Also, he's free to write whatever he wants, whether it is homogenous or not. It is up to the publishers to decide what does and does not get printed. I'm confused on the point the writer is trying to make in his speech.
 

aeolist

Banned
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ente...3a5620-7e9f-11e6-8d13-d7c704ef9fd9_story.html

Shriver's 12th novel is set in a near-future American dystopia where many of the concerns currently expressed by conservatives finally have been realized. After an immigration amnesty, the country is flooded with “Lats” who elect a Mexican-born president who presides over a devastating economic collapse, in part created by runaway entitlements. Shriver observes President Alvarado's “baby-faced softness only emphasized by the palatalized consonants of a Mexican accent,” a stereotypical image of a pudgy, lisping Mexican that links his perfidy to his ethnicity as would an elliptically described hooked nose on a loathsome Jewish character.

The two black characters are similarly ill-treated. One, a social worker, is the novel's only character who speaks sub-standard English. After Alvarado renounces the national debt, she says, “I don't see why the gubment ever pay anything back. Pass a law say, ‘We don't got to.' ” It was once common in newspapers, fiction and nonfiction to report the speech of “ordinary” people in standard English, while voicing minorities in dialect or vernacular, as they might sound to white ears; this still happens from time to time, unfortunately. By recording only the speech of minority characters in sub-standard English, you stigmatize the entire ethnic group as something other than normal. No one speaks perfectly. Respect for your characters suggests that if you record one's solecisms, dropped consonants, drawl or brogue, you will faithfully record everybody else's, too.

The most problematic of Shriver's minority characters is an African American woman who has married into the white family at the heart of the novel. She suffers from early-onset dementia and is a danger to herself and to others. As the economy collapses, the family loses its home and treks across Brooklyn with the woman at the end of a leash. A plot development that features an uncontrollable black person who has to be kept under restraint like a dog seems guaranteed to hurt and provoke outrage. I wrote, “If ‘The Mandibles' is ever made into a film, my suggestion is that this image not be employed for the movie poster.” I was thinking of ads in bus shelters and, honestly, I imagined they'd be wrecked.

shitty writer gets pushback from her book, decries criticism as the collapse of civilization
 
I’m dismayed by the radical left’s ever-growing list of dos and don’ts — by its impulse to control, to instill self-censorship as well as to promote real censorship, and to deploy sensitivity as an excuse to be brutally insensitive to any perceived enemy.
Pretty much my thoughts lately when I see the next social media outrage going on.

Guess it's just the problem of social media. Every small thing gets blown out of proportion and suddenly you have thousands of people pilling on. 140 signs and a like is not enough to actually give actual criticism.
 
I like the phrase "weaponized sensitivity"....


Sad to see that the ad hominem attacks have already started, as opposed to discussing the details of the op ed itself.
 
Has the radical left abandoned notions of free speech as much as the radical right?

No. The left isn't calling for people to be arrested for saying things that are insensitive. They're just making it known that it won't be idly tolerated as the norm anymore. If you say something insensitive without attempting to understand why it's wrong or offering any remorse people on the left are going to publicly regard you as an asshole, because you're an asshole.
 
The progressive movement (nb. word choice) has forgotten positivity. People should try engaging others with more than "you are a horrible person because..."
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Lauren Zuke being run off of Twitter for not endorsing someone's favorite ship is an example of how "the kids" are misunderstanding social justice

Marginalized people speaking up about discomfort with the appropriation of their cultures, cultural signifiers, etc....you have a much harder problem selling me on that "problem"
 

wenis

Registered for GAF on September 11, 2001.
She wrote a racist ass book and got called out on it. Idiot. Go cry me a river.

Feel free to "appropriate" any sort of culture you want, but at least write about it competently and with an ounce of respect. Or else you end up with this :

Shriver observes President Alvarado's “baby-faced softness only emphasized by the palatalized consonants of a Mexican accent,” a stereotypical image of a pudgy, lisping Mexican that links his perfidy to his ethnicity as would an elliptically described hooked nose on a loathsome Jewish character.

You dumb idiot.
 

enemy2k

Member
Ew, really? This person is an awful writer and her book has some disgusting things in it as posted by others.

And your false equivalence is off the mark.
 

Caelus

Member
If so, how do we convince a generation of children that hearing things that make you uncomfortable isn't the end of the world?

Ironic. It's mostly right-wingers and older conservatives I see refusing to hear or see uncomfortable things. Being on a very far-left and progressive college campus right now, we're not constantly triggered by things we don't like to hear or shut down discussion. This meme is getting annoying.

Also, wow at the descriptions from the book. Maybe she should learn to take criticism.
 

Oppo

Member
Free speech is a precious right. I wonder how many one-liner snarkposts we'll get before someone tries to tackle the actual argument presented in the linked article in the OP.

I do think we'll "survive" this particular period, personally, but I do sort of fear the speed of that particular pendulum when it comes flying back at us, inevitably. And I really despise this notion of shutting down discussion rather than meeting it with more and better speech.

I remember, when growing up, my mom would often have Donohue on in the background (old tv host, sorry I am ancient) and watching in amazement as he would not only have Klan members on, but would shout down his own (very liberal) audience, when they tried to simply drown out the Klan guy to keep them from speaking. i learned from that – it was obvious that everyone in the room despised him, including Phil Donohue, but he was determined to make sure the argument was destroyed by debate, not simple howling.
 

aeolist

Banned
But isn't part of what you were discussing that, when creating a work, you empathize with people who are experiencing different thoughts than your own?

Of course. I'm advocating for empathy. It is part of my occupation. My primary feeling, if you want me to be sympathetic with the other side is that this concept [of cultural appropriation] is not in the interests of the very groups it feigns to defend.

How so?

The whole notion of re-enfencing ourselves into little groups, first off, encourages pigeonholing. It means that we don't read books about people who are different; we just read books about people who are just like us. And we don't experience the empathy that you're recommending to me. And we all the more think of each other in terms of membership of a collective. And I don't think that's in the interest of any minority group. Why would they want that? And why do they want us to keep our hands off their culture and therefore ignore them? The exchange of cultural practices and ideas—even costume—is fruitful! It's in the interest of those groups—for us to be able to exchange our experience.

"i know what's best for minorities!"

The thought is: By majority members being able to write about these other cultures, the space for minority members writing about their own experiences in fiction are being [pushed out]—

Well that's just not the nature of publishing. There's nothing stopping people from telling their own stories. And that's switching the issue around. First of all: It's not a zero-sum game. There's not a law that says, There are only a hundred books a year that are going to be published, and we're going to publish white people first, and—oops!—we ran out of slots, we're not going to publish you because you're from the wrong group. It doesn't work that way. There are all kinds of publishers.

"people of color have just as many opportunities as i do to be heard!"

But do you think that is a result of you being a person in the majority? And that you haven't necessarily felt the sort of lingering effects of colonialism—of what cultural appropriation in the longer view is part of?

I feel certain there are plenty of writers who are from various minorities who would still agree with me. And after all, do we want to say that they can't use white characters? I don't see why this cultural appropriation thing only one way. Can't we say, Oh, you can't use English because that's not your first language—English belongs to us, so you can't have it?

Well, the difference is about power.

Oh, this is definitely about power. But a lot of this is about the performance of injury rather than the injury itself. And that is an assertion of power: We can shut you up.

"this criticism is censoring me!" (she says in the pages of time magazine)

Do you feel at all as if you've been miscast? Even just as a woman in a culture that still undervalues women's voices.

Well, I think that it's not fair to assume that I have never experienced any form of discrimination. Any Western woman who is 59 years old has certainly in her lifetime experienced plenty of discrimination. And obviously I don't like it. But for example, I have not chosen to dedicate my life to defending women. Plenty of people have, and I've benefited from their efforts. And I'm grateful. But one of the things that I'm pleased about is that, other people having broken down barriers for me and before me, I am not obliged to dedicate my whole life to feminism. I am a feminist along the way, but it is not my primary purpose. And that's a relief to me. And it seems to me that when you're a member of any of these minority groups that we're talking about, the ultimate endpoint should be release from these groups so that that identity does not define you, that you are seen as a person and not defined by membership of this so-called community. One of my big problems with identity politics is that I reject their idea of identity. I think that they're embracing a prison. And I want everyone to get out. And certainly relating to my being a woman, my ambition has always been to get out.

"people put themselves into these boxes and are just too weak and/or stupid to get out!"
 
Free speech is restricted everywhere, somewhere more, somewhere less, apart from your little world of your apartment, facebook feed, and anonymous comments sections that don't ban offensive speech, where can you say whatever offensive thing you want to say to anyone without consequence?
 
Ironic. It's mostly right-wingers and older conservatives I see refusing to hear or see uncomfortable things. Being on a very far-left and progressive college campus right now, we're not constantly triggered by things we don't like to hear or shut down discussion. This meme is getting annoying.

Also, wow at the descriptions from the book. Maybe she should learn to take criticism.

I feel like both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of it in different ways. And yea, that book appears to be rather gross, but the op ed is worth discussing.
 

Derwind

Member
Whilst I agree, that there are a number of people that shout down opposing views or uncomfortable opinions, there are also quite a number of people that cry out over censorship anytime they are met with criticism.

This article seems unnecessarily melodramatic in tone.

I'm sure the political landscape will survive another generation.
 
All these people talking about free speech yet will vote for Trump is hilarious since the dude said he wanted to sue people that wrote negatively about him
 

nynt9

Member
Oh hey, another person who wrote a shitty book and got criticized for it misunderstanding what free speech means.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136763/lionel-shriver-shouldnt-write-minorities

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ente...3a5620-7e9f-11e6-8d13-d7c704ef9fd9_story.html



shitty writer gets pushback from her book, decries criticism as the collapse of civilization

I'm not surprised to see people immediately rushing to dismiss the author based on past slights instead of trying to critique the argument being made by the article.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Free speech is a precious right. I wonder how many one-liner snarkposts we'll get before someone tries to tackle the actual argument presented in the linked article in the OP.

I do think we'll "survive" this particular period, personally, but I do sort of fear the speed of that particular pendulum when it comes flying back at us, inevitably. And I really despise this notion of shutting down discussion rather than meeting it with more and better speech.

You mean like meeting someone's publication of a racist novel with "wow this is super duper racist and here's all the reasons why?"

Or is calling things racist, sexist or otherwise offensive "encouraging self censorship"?
 

Squalor

Junior Member
I like the phrase "weaponized sensitivity"....


Sad to see that the ad hominem attacks have already started, as opposed to discussing the details of the op ed itself.
Attack the messenger when you don't like the message.

It's the same thing racists have done to Colin Kaepernick.
 

aeolist

Banned
I feel like both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of it in different ways. And yea, that book appears to be rather gross, but the op ed is worth discussing.

the op-ed is not coming from an honest place and the writer has zero self-awareness. she does not understand the entire basis of this discussion and is extrapolating valid criticism of her bad writing into a non-existent trend that leads to the collapse of free speech.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
I'm not surprised to see people immediately rushing to dismiss the author based on past slights instead of trying to critique the argument being made by the article.

You literally cannot discuss the piece without the context of the author's previous work. It entirely informs their perspective
 
Whilst I agree, that there are a number of people that shout down opposing views or uncomfortable opinions, there are also quite a number of people that cry out over censorship anytime they are met with criticism.

Pretty much.

There is some choice twats on both sides of this "debate".

But neither ever think they are the twatty one.
 

darkace

Banned
Regressive leftism is a thing people. Authoritarianism crosses the political spectrum as much as xenophobia does.

Australia's 18C is awful as currently is. Legislating offence is ridiculous.
 

Fhtagn

Member
I'm not surprised to see people immediately rushing to dismiss the author based on past slights instead of trying to critique the argument being made by the article.

Except the article is based on the author having very recently been embarrassed by criticism of their latest work.

This is a common pattern I've noticed:

1. Someone who thinks of themselves as "not racist" does something that maybe passed as "not racist" in the 90s but in 2016 is tone deaf at best.

2. Said person gets pushback on the racist thing they did.

3. Said person turns around and accuses the left of censorship instead of taking the time to be reflective and apologize.

This is just another example of that.
 

aeolist

Banned
people please read the washington post piece i linked. she is not being honest at all about any of this and you should not take any of her arguments at face value.

A self-described “renowned iconoclast,” Shriver said she had been victimized in this way by The Washington Post review of her recent novel, “The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047.” That June 20 review, she said, “groundlessly accused her book of being ‘racist' because it doesn't toe a strict Democratic Party line.”

The review, which I wrote, criticized the novel for several failings, including its didacticism and its mirthlessness (but, hey, some good things were said about it, too). I mentioned a couple of offensive racial characterizations — without contesting Shriver's freedom to write about black and Latino characters. My complaints had nothing to do with cultural appropriation.
 

Matty77

Member
I don't think this is the issue its being made to look like.

For instance though OITNB gets criticism for having such a white staff I don't see anyone or any groups calling for the show to be cancelled or the writers to stop. In fact most of the people criticizing the lack of minority staff enjoy the show and mostly bring it up because there have been times especially in the back half of season 3 where some of the reactions coming from these women are not authentic , hence the call for more minority writers.

The example of the author complaining here however is someone who wrote a shitty offensive book getting mad that gosh forbid people don't want to be written as offensive stereotypes, especially by those who have used such stereotypes to keep them down.

It's nothing.
 
Also, being a librarian, I'm saddened that literary criticism here means reading an op ed about a book and then picking a side.

Go join your local library's book circle, read the damn book and then lambast it (or sing its praises)!
 
You mean like meeting someone's publication of a racist novel with "wow this is super duper racist and here's all the reasons why?"

Or is calling things racist, sexist or otherwise offensive "encouraging self censorship"?

Far right logic around here and other places: it's not okay to call a racist racist...but it's ok to call black people the n word because duh, free speech.
 

Caelus

Member
Pretty much.

There is some choice twats on both sides of this "debate".

But neither ever think they are the twatty one.

Nah I think progressives can get twatty, but
(a) these fringe elements are not represented so visibly in the public sphere, unlike Donald Trump and his campaign pandering to the fringe right
(b) people treat non-trivial progressivism as trivial, e.g. the use of SJW as a slight against anyone criticizing oppression in society
 

darkace

Banned
Isn't this some "why can't I be an ignorant ass in public without repercussions?"

The problem is government repercussions, not from people. 18C in Australia legislates offence. Offending somebody can cross the boundary into criminality.

That's ridiculous, regardless of your thoughts on the author, and it's part of a larger push from the left about legislating morality.

Also can we discuss the article, not the author. Such a thought-terminating cliche.
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
When someone posted that Taibbi 'False Balance' article someone posted in the thread something his coworker from Russia wrote 20 years ago about convincing a girl to have an abortion

Seeing a lot more of this 'attack the source' type shit lately
 

entremet

Member
When someone posted that Taibbi 'False Balance' article someone posted in the thread something his coworker from Russia wrote 20 years ago about convincing a girl to have an abortion

Seeing a lot more of this 'attack the source' type shit lately

Yep. It's also lazy since it not a direct refutation of the points brought in the original piece. It's very common tactic of late.
 

aeolist

Banned
When someone posted that Taibbi 'False Balance' article someone posted in the thread something his coworker from Russia wrote 20 years ago about convincing a girl to have an abortion

Seeing a lot more of this 'attack the source' type shit lately

why is the background and surrounding context of this story not germane? she wrote this entirely because of the criticism her book received, is examining that material irrelevant somehow?
 

Oppo

Member
You mean like meeting someone's publication of a racist novel with "wow this is super duper racist and here's all the reasons why?"

Or is calling things racist, sexist or otherwise offensive "encouraging self censorship"?

No, I don't think so. That's not my quote. I don't know anything about this author. I'm just speaking to the Op-Ed.
 

Amalthea

Banned
If you want to tell the world something you gotta accept that not everyone will just agree with you.

This is only natural.

More than anything I feel that our generatiin doesn't have a problem of critizing everything too much but that some of us expect to never get any negative opinions on their stances and works.
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
why is the background and surrounding context of this story not germane? she wrote this entirely because of the criticism her book received, is examining that material irrelevant somehow?
Anyone who has actually read her book can post whatever they want about it.

The problem is, no one has. They only have read reviews criticizing it
 

Mr. X

Member
The problem is government repercussions, not from people. 18C in Australia legislates offence. Offending somebody can cross the boundary into criminality.

That's ridiculous, regardless of your thoughts on the author, and it's part of a larger push from the left about legislating morality.
Is it being enforced in an overzealous manner or is it worried it could be?

Also, I'm not from Oz so I can't speak as if I know the social climate but isn't there still issues regarding treatment of aboriginals?

Edit: Yes, if David Duke or Milo wrote this, it would be important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom