Any decent literary critic would know that art should not be didactic.

 Any decent literary critic would know that art should not be didactic. “This frenzy for censure, moralizing, and a seemingly endless expansion of the definition of harm.”

Otis Houston: “Literature used to be … a place to question taboos, and seek naked insights into humanity. …

Critics, writers and publishers are today enforcing a new vision that treats books less as a vehicle for artistic expression … a series of moral pronouncements. … sin of writing about marginalized characters without belonging to the same identity group. …

[They say] Jeanine Cummins, a white American woman with some Puerto Rican background, had no business writing about a culture and identity group to which she didn’t belong. … sensitivity to people writing about heritages that are not their own because, at its worst, this practice perpetuates the evils of colonization, stealing the stories of oppressed people for the profit of the dominant.”(5) …

The Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Viet Thanh Nguyen, who is chair of English at the University of Southern California, has pressed fellow authors to repurpose their writing into progressive advocacy.(6) The only respectable goal of contemporary literature, he suggested in a New York Times essay last December, is to bring change through “the kind of critical and political work that unsettles whiteness(1) and reveals the legacies of colonialism.” Poetry and fiction that fail to advance politics (specifically, his politics) descend from a legacy of whiteness, conquest and genocide, he said …

Publishers seek to protect themselves by employing “sensitivity readers,” who scour unpublished fiction for offensive themes, characterizations or language. … moral, rather than artistic, gatekeeping(3) …

Two thousand years before the advent of mass print publishing, Socrates was sentenced to drink poison for having polluted the minds of the YA community of Athens. From the mid-16th century until 1966, the Catholic Church maintained its Index Librorum Prohibitorum, a list of prohibited books. Over the past century, the establishment used anti-obscenity laws to ban Ulysses and Lady Chatterley’s Lover. …

New, though, is the trend of policing books for social goodness from within the left-leaning literary community …

This new literary moralism isn’t only scrutinizing contemporary writing for evidence of sin; it’s looking to the past as well. #DisruptTexts, a group dedicated to helping teachers “challenge the traditional canon,” talks of “problematic depictions” in Shakespeare(4), and complains of The Great Gatsby being defined by the white male gaze(2). …

It diminishes the prospects of the reader too, restricting the scope of books to narrow conceptions of power and privilege. …

Art forces us to see with complexity. In return, we must accept that no easy solution awaits. Profound writing is never just an answer. …

This frenzy for censure, moralizing, and a seemingly endless expansion of the definition of harm …”

/***   ***/

[Reduces aesthetic writing to mere expository prose, “talking politics.”]

/***   ***/

(1) Liberalism holds that it is just as wrong to say there is something wrong with being white as saying there is something wrong with being black. It violates the principle of equality.

(2) Liberalism holds that it is just as wrong to say there is something wrong with being male as saying there is something wrong with being female. It violates the principle of equality.

(3) The purpose of art is to be good art. (Is that so hard?)

(4) Chairman emeritus of the Cal Lit Department Frederick C. Crews spoke of moral critics “perpetually scandalized by the past.”

(5) Isn’t our mainstream religion’s heavy reliance on the Tanakh, the Book of the Israelites, disrespectfully called the Old Testament by gentiles, “cultural appropriation” by this logic?

(6) Liberalism, in our very own Declaration of Independence, holds that one of The Rights of Man is “the pursuit of happiness.” In this context, it means that writers get to write about whatever they want to write about.

[www . persuasion . community/p/beware-of-books]

Homage to a good cop

From Alaska connections (I’m an eighth grade graduate of a one-room school in the Alaskan bush; and graduate of a high school in one of those small Alaska “cities” not reachable by car):

“Nick” on Sergeant Walters: “He was there when I was there in the late 70s and early 80s.  Great guy.  Probably why I still have a drivers license.  No DUI's  Just where do you want to go and you can pick up your keys at the cop shop at 9 tomorrow morning.  Great Guy!!!”

Fundamental problems with the thinking of Karl Marx

“Ability to speak about fictions is the most unique feature of Sapiens language.” - Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari.

Animals, Harari argues, can only talk about things you can point to. “No animal,” goes an old saying, “can say, ‘My parents were poor but honest.’” Animals are natural materialists.

1. Marx’s Dialectical Materialism is founded on his Labor Theory of Value. Only the physical things made by the hands of workers have value, and only the laboring proletariat should get the money in our society. (As a businessman remarked, this ignores management, distribution and marketing.) The bourgeoisie and their fictional capitalist corporations are robbing workers of the value produced by their hands.

On the one hand Marx is reactionary, his objection to “capital” (Das Kapital) a reversion to medieval prohibitions on “usury.” On the other, Marx is engaging in the fundamentalist oversimplification of valorizing the “materialism” of limiting thought to those things you can point to.

A digression: In 2012 I bought an iPad 3. It couldn’t perform the videophone function of FaceTime. Before long, a free software update from Apple enhanced the usefulness of my purchase. According to Marx, the hundreds I paid for my iPad should have gone to the workers at Foxconn who made it. In reality, which has an antiMarxist bias, without the thousands of hours of design, the iPad would just have been a paperweight. Ditto for the additional thousands of hours for iOS, the software (FaceTime, etc.) which enables Personal Electronic Devices to actually do things. Add software development and design to “management, distribution, and marketing.”

2. So, based on the fallacy of The Labor Theory of Value, what is the place of everybody else — the bourgeoisie, the middle class — in the Workers’ Paradise Marx envisioned?

There isn’t any. Marxism is eliminationist. Marx’s abstract theory, in real life, implies Ethnic Cleansing. In any case where someone not a laborer has the good things of life, it’s unjustified “privilege.”(1)

Moreover, political democracy is about all the people. Civil rights is about all the people.

Marxism’s unrelenting bias against everyone except the One Favored Class — its class warfare aspect — means that Marxism is essentially discriminatory in its very nature.

It is no accident that no Marxist regime has ever been democratic; or that Marxist regimes, with respect to civil rights, have consistently been autocratic. The late Soviet Union; North Korea; Maoist China, the DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik).

Marx’s thought was in its very nature arbitrary and bigoted. In the founding of societies its emergent property was autocracy.

/***   ***/

(1) In my experience, no one will listen to criticism of “Check your privilege,” even though “privilege” arguments are concealed Marxism.

Epistle to the Christians

 First, a little background. When I was four my father began college on a pre-sem track. Seven years later he was ordained a Protestant minister and began his life career as a pastor. My comments on Christianity are from the status of a PK (Preacher’s Kid).

I’m a secular student and follower of Yeshua. Because he lived in the Hellenistic Near East of the first century, the world knows Yeshua by the koine Greek form of his name, Jesus. The Hellenistic town Sepphoris was less than an hour’s walk from Jesus’ boyhood home, Nazareth. Jesus grew up and lived out his life in the concept-rich environment of the Roman Empire. (I’ve already used a number of Graeco-Roman terms - comment, status, concept, Christianity.) His crucifixion was formally authorized by a colonial Roman overseer.

Jesus belonged to a third-world African culture and spoke a third-world language related to Arabic, but the entirety of the scriptural writings about him were in one of the languages of his European overlords, the koine Greek of the first century. For example, the word Christ was no more a word in Jesus’ language than Caudillo is in ours.

Jesus’ culture was no more likely to wonder if a person who had a mother and father, and siblings, was divine than ours is. His monotheistic religion, Judaism, had a built-in antipathy to adding another god, however that might be done. The Europeans did impute divinity - it was claimed that Emperor Caesar Augustus was divine, for example.

So Jesus’ alternative name, Christ, and the “Christian” doctrine of his divinity, came from the European overlords of Palestine who wrote his story and wrought Christian theology, creating an organized religion as Judaism, Islam, etc., have their organized religions.

/******/

My epistle to the Christians objects to organized Christianity, on the grounds that it is intellectually unsupportable; is reactionary in a world of democracy and civil rights; and is unChristian in major beliefs, particularly rejecting Yeshua’s teaching that God is kind, generous, loving, and good in favor of a jealous God, a God of wrath who is angry, punitive, and vindictive.

1. Christians’ intellectual problems begin with the oxymoron “literal interpretation,” failing to understand that their scripture is one of the longest, most complex texts in existence. Such a text can’t have a single literal transparent meaning. Jesus himself reinterpreted the fourth commandment, “Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy,” saying “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

One viable approach to the scriptures is that it is the felicitous outcome of a Semitic tribe, related to the Phoenicians who invented our alphabet, deciding to become the people of the book. They wrote down the best of their thought. Then, for centuries, public intellectuals they called prophets looked at where their predecessors had been - and raised the consciousness of their culture. “Write the vision clearly upon the tablets, so that it may be read readily”, wrote Habakkuk. “The vision will come - Wait for it, it will not be late.”

2. There is no democracy, no leaders chosen by the people and responsible to them, in the Tanakh, the Israelite scriptures Christians call the Old Testament. Much of it presents God in the autocratic terms of the kings, shahs, rajahs and emperors of the time, demanding fear, unquestioning obedience, and fawning worship of sinful human beings. Sometimes sin is presented as a violation of the rights of God.

Christian theology presents humans’ capacity for sin as exceeding humans’ capacity to make amends. That theology portrays us as inheriting the original sin of Adam, and as such, born guilty.(1) Under this outlook, salvation is an unreturnable favor, coming from God, and putting humankind permanently in the one-down position relative to him.

This is unhealthy; and the founder of “Christianity” disagreed with it in the parable of the prodigal son. Raised on the estate of his wealthy father, this son obtains his inheritance in cash, goes to a city, and blows it all on an extravagant lifestyle, becoming a beggar. Then, Jesus said, “He came to himself.” He returns to his father’s estate, hoping that there he will be better than a beggar, and to his surprise, his father welcomes him with open arms and prepares a feast.

Frankly, this upends Christian doctrine. There is no sin, but rather correctable error. The son, representing fallible humankind, does correct the error by his own action, able to recognize his mistake, and change the course of his life. In doctrine, there would be “salvation” — sin, rescue by a Power to whom one would be in debt, and at best forgiveness. Interestingly here the father, representing God, is focused on the joyful future with his returned son, not the past, thus does not need to forgive. No sin; no salvation; no lingering taint implying ongoing subservience.

3. Doctrine is “unChristian”: Rejects the founder of Christianity’s” teaching that God is kind, generous, loving, and good, and other important teachings.

I once asked a Christian teacher why God is often portrayed as dominating, demanding, punishing those who disobey him in fearsome ways. They said, “God is so great that he gets to do whatever he wants to do.” Again, Jesus of Nazareth disagreed, saying, “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, … know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!”

God’s greatness, it is implied, requires him to be better than we are.

It seems to me that organized Christianity has never bothered to explore the implication of their term, God the father who is even better than earthly fathers. In this context, language should change: “Lord” is inappropriate, and “every knee should bow,” and even “worship,” if applied to the creator rather than the creation. On the other hand “Jesus wept,” which according to theology would betoken an incidence of a Weeping God, is well worth pondering. At my grandson’s christening a priest cited a Concerned God passage from Ezekiel, which I paraphrase from memory: You say that I am unfair. But I am not pleased by the death of him that dieth. Wherefore turn ye from the way of death to the way of life, that ye may live life alive.

I understand, from the example of the prodigal son, that Jesus had progressed beyond the doctrine of original sin, but the Greek Paul and the Roman St. Augustine bore false witness to his teaching on this matter.

/******/

Other matters — I found the Jesus Seminar persuasive on a number of matters: Jesus did not predict his death and resurrection; he did not utter the “I am” statements in the Gospel of John; Jesus’ family and disciples knew him to be a perfectly ordinary human being.

In Mysteries of the Middle Ages: The Rise of Feminism, Science, and Art from the Cults of Catholic Europe - The one-time theologian Thomas Cahill writes: “Though the idea that Christ died to repay his Father for human sin is still a favorite theory of many (especially evangelical) Christians, it is a doctrine that no one can make logical sense of, … it necessitates a sort of voraciously pagan Father God steeped in cruelty and, in the case of Jesus’s horrific death, his son’s blood.” p. 199

/******/

(1) In Romans 5:12 the Greek St. Paul wrote, according to the Geneva Study Bible: “Wherefore, as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: From Adam, in whom all have sinned, both guiltiness and death (which is the punishment of the guiltiness) came upon all.”

Liberalism, underlying theme of modern civilization, misunderstood and widely under attack at the moment

The previous post described the American Founding as a liberal event. A working hypothesis: Democracy, justice, science, and scholarly endeavor, are liberal. While the left and the right are ideologies, belief systems, the catechisms of vested interest political parties, liberalism is an information system, dedicated to getting things done. Ideology is the deformation of thought and language in the service of power; liberalism is the methodology of the good life: its keyword is efficacy, not power.

The ancient foundations of liberalism are the Roman concept of universal justice, the Greek concept of an independent nature, and Jesus of Nazareth’s teachings of cooperation, altruism, care for the neighbor, and passion for optimum outcomes. The spirit of liberalism slowly grew throughout the Middle Ages; its emergent first step the Renaissance; and got a second wind with the scientific revolution, producing the Enlightenment and its world-changing manifestos, the Declaration and Constitution.

Corollaries: The irony that one of the political parties emerging from the enlightenment liberalism of the Founding uses “liberal” as a derogatory epithet. The irony that the media describe the antiliberal left as extreme liberalism. The irony that the academic humanities do not reflect the liberalism of scholarly endeavor, but embrace anti intellectual ideological dogma, such as the unconstitutional content-based censorship of “no-platforming.”

The proposed Great Synthesis, Democracy, justice, science, and scholarly endeavor, are liberal, leads us to consider whether what applies to one, such as scholarly endeavor, may apply to others. Examine Immanuel Kant’s observation that the one indispensable intellectual property is “a good will,” since all the other intellectual attributes may be subverted to unintellectual ends. Where there is not a good will: A small-d democrat who is not public-spirited; a justice who uses the courts to thwart government by consent of the governed by furthering voting restrictions; a scientist who, instead of honoring feedback from reality, tries to fudge the data; an academic who, instead of fighting to create a space for passionate discussion among informed people who disagree, dictates that only that which is true shall be given a platform in the university.

Liberalism is not partisan, not political; it is the practical, neutral, methodology of the good life, the bedrock of modern civilization. The current mischaracterization and widespread attack could undermine that civilization in ways few of us would want.

The difference between liberalism and left-progressivism, updated

 

Part I:

Since “liberal” and “left” are often treated as synonymous, Historian Fritz Stern’s discussion may be useful:

Fritz Stern was born in Breslau, Germany in 1926, and moved with his family to the United States in 1938 in response to the rising anti-semitism of the Third Reich and became an American historian.

From Fritz Stern Op-Ed New York Times September 4, 1988 (in response to Ronald Reagan's derogatory use of ‘liberal’):

Liberalism—one of “America's noblest traditions,” I insisted, often defined as a state of mind—had “transformed the world . . . 

[I]ts greatest victory has been the American Revolution; its greatest pronouncement, the Declaration of Independence; its greatest bulwark, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.” 

It had “stood for freedom against tyranny. At its best … a force for change and progress, seeking the institutional defense of decency.” ... In America's liberal premises the world had seen “the best promise of the West.” - This from Stern’s Five Germanys I Have Known

Stern is saying that the Founding was a liberal event. Liberalism is the raison d’etre of the United States. It’s in our DNA. Enlightenment liberalism proclaimed the Rights of Man — immunities which no government can abrogate. Liberalism declared that all are created equal, which over time finally rendered slavery unthinkable, something no society prior to liberal modernity had done.

Part II:

How my own life history taught me that “liberal” and “left” are not alike:

I went to high school during the second Eisenhower administration, and to college during the first Kennedy administration. I thought of myself as liberal/left, and at that time the public understanding of these terms was not as divided as it is now.

By the time I reached middle age, I realized that the left was telling me that white was bad, male was bad, European was bad; and I began searching for a political philosophy that did not require me to hate myself.

I learned that liberalism, unlike the outlook of the left, does not care about identity. If, as the Declaration proclaimed, all are created equal, immutable characteristics that we are born with and can’t change don’t matter.

Can there be anything more unjust than considering a newborn baby guilty because of its race and gender?

There’s much more to be said about this, but if it is understood that any analysis which conflates “liberal” and “left” is necessarily intellectually incoherent, that’s a good start.

https://adissentersnotes.blogspot.com/2018/10/on-difference-between-liberalism-and.html

If the Founders had “eradicate[d] slavery at the nation’s founding” the new nation would would have been much smaller

Alan Jacobs: 

In Rochester, New York, on July 4, 1852, [Frederick] Douglass gave a speech called “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro,” and it is as fine an example of reckoning wisely with a troubling past as I have ever read. He begins by acknowledging that the Founders “were great men,” though he immediately goes on to say, “The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration.” Yes: Douglass is compelled to view them in a critical light, because their failure to eradicate slavery at the nation’s founding led to his own enslavement, led to his being beaten and abused and denied every human right, forced him to live in bondage and in fear until he could at long last make his escape. Nevertheless, “for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.”

What, for Douglass, made the Founders worthy of honor? Well, “they loved their country better than their own private interests,” which is good; though they were “peace men,” “they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage,” which is very good, and indeed true of Douglass himself; and “with them, nothing was ‘settled’ that was not right,” which is excellent. Perhaps best of all, “with them, justice, liberty and humanity were ‘final’; not slavery and oppression.” Therefore, “you may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation.”

In their day and generation. But what they achieved, though astonishing in its time, can no longer be deemed adequate. Indeed, it never could have been so deemed, because they did not live up to the principles they so powerfully celebrated. They announced a “final”—that is, an absolute, a nonnegotiable—commitment to justice, liberty, and humanity, but even those who did not own slaves themselves negotiated away the rights of Black people. And so Douglass must say these blunt words: “This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn.”

/*****/

I have quoted Lincoln’s observation that the Constitution could not have been ratified if it had an anti-slavery provision, because the states which became the Confederacy would have voted against it.

There was a second choice Lincoln did not mention in the passage cited. Divide the nation into the states which ratified an anti-slavery Constitution, and see the other former colonies proceed independently.

The southern colonies would eventually have ended slavery, and would not have felt that emancipation had been imposed on them against their will.

The United States would not have had a permanent backward, benighted, resentful, reactionary region as it has now; and probably would not have had the worst healthcare and highest prison population of modern industrialized nations.

It would also be smaller. Would the expansion of the Louisiana Purchase have taken place? The expansion to the Pacific, and taking large parts of Mexico such as the Southwest and California?

With a much diminished United States, what would have been the outcome of the two World Wars?

This is why I am a liberal and not a progressive

The following appeared on nbcnews dot com:

“Netflix's 'Trial of the Chicago 7' is very Aaron Sorkin. But at least it's not 'The Newsroom.'

By Ani Bundel, cultural critic

It has been generally accepted in progressive circles that the idealized neoliberalism of the late 1990s has aged poorly. Creator Aaron Sorkin’s excessively sentimental “West Wing” is the poster child for this sea change, aided by his failures since. … “The Newsroom” — which attempted to take the same liberal views and apply them to TV cable news — was worse.”

/*****/

Is this idealism?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.“

If so, I’ll take it over the cynical trashing of Sorkin’s moving dramas. Example: Best Takedowns

Yglesias comments on left critique of functional liberal principles

 Matthew Yglesias: “imo a movement that finds itself defining belief in the importance of clear writing, a sense of urgency, and a desire for perfection as forms of white supremacy is a movement that is asking to lose over and over and over again as its institutions fail to function effectively”

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1331011999074050049

About people coming to America and taking American jobs

Worker spending is a major pillar of economics. Everyone who comes into America and goes to work creates at least as many jobs as they take. With their pay they buy all the things of life, from groceries to cars to houses. This creates or expands industries which employ people. New jobs. This includes our own children (that’s where most of the “job takers” comes from).

Example: America at the founding had three million people. It now has one hundred times  as many, most born here. And one hundred times as many jobs.

So don’t worry about new people taking jobs. They create jobs.

You can count on it.

Scores of liberal signatories question left/progressive tactics

A coming article in Harpers warns Democrats against an illiberal reaction to the anti-democratic pathologies of the Trump regime:

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts.
But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. … The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion.

The signatories to this warning against the illiberal, “ideological” faction within the Democratic Party do not name the faction, but it is a group within the party which owes more to Central Europe and Marx than to the Western European Enlightenment outlook of the Declaration and Constitution: left/progressives.

Liberalism, like democracy, is about cooperation. Its most famous three words are, “We the People.” Liberalism gives the citizen the maximum possible amount of freedom (“pursuit of happiness” is a fundamental right) and asks citizens to be public spirited and give some of it back.

Left/progressivism, like its Marxian forebear, is about enmity. Marx declared that the very existence of the bourgeoisie constituted a fundamental wrong to the workers. When left/progressivism says “white privilege” it implies that white people are in an equally problematic relation to African Americans. In both cases it is not clear how the wrong can be expiated — what the path to redemption might be. “Ye have the poor always with you,” said Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago, but the privilege “argument” would seem to require a society in which no one is ever disadvantaged.

Huffington Post recently wrote, in 6 Things White People Say That Highlight Their Privilege, “If you want to be an ally in the fight against racism, start by acknowledging your white privilege.” The scores of Harpers signatories(1) wrote, “resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion.”

As liberals in the Democratic Party would say, if they dared face the consequences, you can ask free citizens, who are exercising their “pursuit of happiness,” to be concerned about the everyday racism experienced by African Americans. But you cannot order them to do that. And you certainly cannot declare them guilty if they don’t (That is the business of the courts.). In a liberal society, political movements are not allowed to coerce.

It is likely that the Democratic Party’s fecklessness in the face of the present crisis of democracy is because the liberal wing and the left/progressive wing cannot both belong under the same umbrella. The Democratic Party cannot long endure half democratic and half coercive.

/*****/

(1) Among the signatories:

Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Margaret Atwood
Noam Chomsky
Francis Fukuyama 
Todd Gitlin
Wendy Kaminer
Randall Kennedy 
Dahlia Lithwick
Winton Marsalis
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt
Jonathan Rauch
Salman Rushdie
Gloria Steinem 
Fareed Zakaria 

Self-validating arguments

I recently criticized “white privilege” on social media because it damns people for immutable characteristics, and because arguments which can’t be countered by evidence and reason are necessarily fallacious. “No one should be persuaded by it.” The “argument” is a gotcha: “Check your privilege” and assent to an ideology’s charge of racial guilt. Or be accused by that ideology of the guilt of refusing to take responsibility for “privilege.” A similar situation just appeared in Quillette.

Rob Henderson:

Consider the way charges of “racism” have been used to target individuals. People used to appropriately get rebuked or fired for expressing racist views. Today, though, people are getting cancelled for not supporting the claim that America itself is irredeemably racist. Never mind that such a position is in fact a Kafka trap: Danger awaits no matter how you respond. If America is a racist country, and you agree, then you are admitting that more purging and re-educating must be done. However, if you disagree, proponents of cancel culture take this as evidence that you and others like you are more racist than you realize, and thus more purging and re-educating must be done.

Ideology is the deformation of thought and language in the service of power. It is a belief system, whereas legitimate conceptual systems such as liberalism are information systems. Left/progressive ideologies say “America itself is irredeemably racist” and “confess your white privilege.” But they refuse to enter into debate. Instead of examining countervailing argument on its merits, they treat any attempt at refutation (“if you disagree”) as proof of guilt.

There’s a further problem on social media, where indicating agreement with the seductive falsehoods of left/progressivism — “white privilege” or “America is irredeemably racist” — is virtue signaling. Mindless agreement proves one is on the side of the angels. No debate is necessary, and no evidence or reason will be listened to.

This illustrates a fundamental difference between liberalism and left/progressivism. Both agree that a statement such as “black (derogatory characteristic)” would be racist. But liberalism holds that statements such as “white guilt” and “white privilege” are equally wrong. The left thinks that there is good racism (“white privilege”) and bad racism. Liberalism hold that all racism is wrong, because it does not accept moral double standards.