Thoughts on cancel culture

1. Tyler Cowen writes,

So the policing of speech may be vastly more common than it was, say, 15 years ago. But the discourse itself is vastly greater in scope. Political correctness has in fact run amok, but so then has everything else.

In fact, the increase in bias at the NYT and WAPO may be more than offset by increased attention paid to podcasters like Bret Weinstein or Ben Shapiro. The intent to introduce “anti-racism” curriculum into schools may be more than offset by the way that the virus is creating a situation that lowers the status of school teachers among parents.

2. John McWhorter writes,

people left-of-center [are] wondering why, suddenly, to be anything but radical is to be treated as a retrograde heretic. Thus the issue is not the age-old one of left against right, but what one letter writer calls the “circular firing squad” of the left: It is now no longer “Why aren’t you on the left?” but “How dare you not be as left as we are.”

Here is where I think Pluckrose and Lindsay have the explanation, in Cynical Theories. The liberal philosophy that these older left-of-center academics share is incommensurate with what I would call the “folk” postmodernism of the younger leftists.

3. I think that there is at least a 30 percent chance that cancel culture has already peaked. The mobs, whether on Twitter, on campus, or in the streets, are engaged in bullying and making dominance moves, which create fear but also resentment. Academic administrators and progressive mayors are Neville Chamberlains, and I sense that an increasing number of people want to see a more Churchillian approach.

The urgency of racial disparities

Kenneth L. Marcus writes,

The new antiracism is not, as its etymology suggests, opposition to racial discrimination. Ibram X. Kendi demonstrates this in his 2019 bestseller, “How to Be an Antiracist.” He defines “racism” as a combination of policies and ideas that “produces and normalizes racial inequities.” This racism has nothing to do with individual discrimination. Rather, it is support for institutions that yield disparities. Lest there be confusion, Mr. Kendi emphasizes that “focusing on ‘racial discrimination’ takes our eyes off” the policy goals he and other self-proclaimed antiracists support.

How urgent is it that we alter institutions in order to remove racial disparities?

Institutions are rules and practices, such as laws against using drugs or the practice of requiring SAT tests for college admissions. Racial disparities are outcomes that are on average worse for African-Americans, such as under-representation among the very wealthy or over-representation in the prison population.

Consider two extreme views:

a) We should get rid of any institution that might cause such disparities until the disparities disappear.

b) Unless an institution explicitly uses race or skin color as a criterion for discriminating against African-Americans, that institution should be preserved, assuming that it serves a good purpose.

My guess is that a lot of people nowadays would position themselves somewhere between (a) and (b). I would hold up my hand for (b), with no in-between.

For example, consider the use of credit scoring to screen loan applicants. I believe that credit scoring is non-discriminatory with disparate impact. That is, a black borrower and a white borrower who each have a credit score of 650 will have the same probability of defaulting on the loan. But if you set 650 as a cutoff for approving loans, then the proportion of loan approvals that are for blacks will be less than their share in the population.

Someone committed to (a) would want to remedy the disparate impact. Either explicitly or implicitly, they would lower the cutoff for black applicants until they receive a proportionate share of loans. As someone committed to (b), I would advocate using the same cutoff for blacks as for whites.

Some further thoughts:

1. This would get me accused by the religion that persecutes heretics of being a white supremacist. But by most people’s standards, I am not.

2. There are plenty of institutions that might not qualify as “assuming that it serves a good purpose.” For example, drug laws may not serve a good purpose, but not because of any disparate racial impact. I am inclined to get rid of the college admissions process and replace it with open admissions rationed by a lottery system. Again, that is not because of any disparate racial impact. [UPDATE: See the essay on college admissions by Jeffrey Selingo. It appears to me that the main purpose of college admissions office is to perpetuate itself.]

Marcus concludes,

To defeat racism, we must turn away from the new antiracism.

Socialism as a yay word

Timothy Taylor writes,

If someone chooses to take all their hopes for a better and more just society and bundle it up in the name of “socialism,” [then] any criticism of “socialism” will be viewed as an attack on their dreams and desires. Conversely, pretty much no one ever has said that “capitalism is the name of my desire.” The arguments for capitalism are typically made in terms of machine-like functionality, emphasizing what works and doesn’t work under capitalism. And of course, the arguments for capitalism emphasize how it has actually raised the standard of living for average people over recent decades and centuries, not how it summarizes one’s dreams for the future.