After scrolling past hundreds of comments, this is the highest top-level comment that's actually about the post, and not an unrelated monologue triggered by the words used in the post. So thank you.
After 20 minutes on the internet, I have grown so, so tired of reading long, principled, idealistic essays that just so happen to defend racists, sexists, nazis, etc at the end. It's obviously a huge coincidence that he happened to be thinking about privilege, and just happened to come up with this concept of Orthodox Privilege, and by only applying sound logic to this premise, it proves that actually cancel culture is bad mmk. There isn't a chance in the world that he started with the conclusion that he doesn't like cancel culture, and then searched around for some word used by those people that can be twisted into denouncing them. No sir.
And for the record, I felt the same way before getting to the end, not knowing any of this context, because the actual essay is entirely unconvincing. Sampling his other essays to refresh my memory, they're stuffed full of examples to convince you in between each logical leap. Where this essay should have done that, it just vaguely subtweets people disagreeing with stuff he says that you "can't" say. You're expected to fill in the blanks yourself with some noble suppressed truths (ideas... are bulletproof!), when the whole time he's really talking about people getting cancelled (yelling at black people on the internet).
Assuming that he started out not liking cancel culture and then searched around for how to denounce them, what's wrong with it?
I'm generally opposed to cancel culture but generally can't be bothered to clearly articulate my objections, i.e. search around for the best words to denounce them.
I think it's generally positive that some people, such as pg, are willing to articulate their objections to cancel culture.
Well, I don't like being lied to. In July of 2020, has there actually been a lot of talk about privilege? Is that really where this thought process started? It seems way more likely that he started by complaining about cancel culture, so the beginning of this essay seems dishonest to me.
While I'm replying, I might as well link the comic I was referencing for anyone who hasn't seen it. This is what I think of whenever someone starts getting really abstract about free speech or not being allowed to say things instead of clearly articulating what they actually mean:
You seem to be going from "There has been a lot of talk about privilege lately" to "this thought process started by thinking about the concept of privilege [not actual quote]". The link isn't obvious to me.
>In July of 2020, has there actually been a lot of talk about privilege?
The internet is big, it's safe to assume there's talk about privilege non-stop in some corners of it. Of course, there's nothing wrong with not having seen it. Anecdotally, I've seen this 2 days ago here on HN without looking for it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23821125
The problem is that pg is not honest about what his problem with cancel culture actually is. Clearly, his problem is that he is privileged and sexist, aware of it and afraid of being cancelled, or rather, of receiving criticism about his statements and beliefs (as he has in the past).
But what he is arguing is something entirely different. He's not searching for words to argue for his position (he has none), he's searching for words that misrepresent and denigrate his opponents. You can see this easily not just by how he abuses the word "privilege", but by how he asserts that any position that is not his is part of an "orthodoxy". This would only make sense if there was a set of positions that a large majority of people could agree on, which would then form that orthodoxy, but as pg himself well knows, that set of positions doesn't exist -- after all, the POTUS himself is anything but "woke"! The only other way the term "orthodoxy" makes sense here, then, is understanding "orthodoxy" to not mean an agreed-upon, but a proscribed set of beliefs, such as in the Orthodox church. Such a set of beliefs, then, would require someone in power who outlines and instates it. That idea -- that there is a cabal of people who decide about which opinions are acceptable or "orthodox" or not -- is a dangerous conspiracy theory. More than that, it is an important element of contemporary alt-right discourses, which also often focus on this idea that there are some vague people in vague power which make it so that you "can't say some things anymore", be those powerholders "Cultural Marxists", (((Jewish))) or otherwise.
So yes, I agree that it is positive when people articulate their objections to an opinion. However, those articulations should actually express an opinion that is being held, rather than form a smoke-and-mirrors defense against having to say out loud what you know will get you pushback. A dogwhistle is not an argument.
Yeah, I felt like a dupe when I read the ending. I'd rather read some alt-right drivel that makes no pretense about who they're attacking; at least it's honest on some level.
Orthodoxy is the domain of conservative and reactionary forces, it's not a true synonym of ideology or conformity.
Graham blithely repurposes the term as a pejorative against so-called "cancel culture" participants, which is clever until you think about it for more than five seconds.
After 20 minutes on the internet, I have grown so, so tired of reading long, principled, idealistic essays that just so happen to defend racists, sexists, nazis, etc at the end. It's obviously a huge coincidence that he happened to be thinking about privilege, and just happened to come up with this concept of Orthodox Privilege, and by only applying sound logic to this premise, it proves that actually cancel culture is bad mmk. There isn't a chance in the world that he started with the conclusion that he doesn't like cancel culture, and then searched around for some word used by those people that can be twisted into denouncing them. No sir.
And for the record, I felt the same way before getting to the end, not knowing any of this context, because the actual essay is entirely unconvincing. Sampling his other essays to refresh my memory, they're stuffed full of examples to convince you in between each logical leap. Where this essay should have done that, it just vaguely subtweets people disagreeing with stuff he says that you "can't" say. You're expected to fill in the blanks yourself with some noble suppressed truths (ideas... are bulletproof!), when the whole time he's really talking about people getting cancelled (yelling at black people on the internet).