The PC/Orwellian Left And Open Inquiry Cannot Peacefully Coexist

link

   A cornerstone of political correctness is that politically incorrect positions must not be advanced, argued for, nor even accepted. Roughly, this is the idea that some thoughts constitute thoughtcrime. This view--especially when conjoined with the manipulation of language as s means to manipulating thought--is Orwellianism. Progressivism is a form of Orwellianism.

   Liberalism sees Orwellianism as, in a sense, just another position--that is, just another position that people are free to take up and debate and even advocate if they so choose. It's not merely another position in a certain sense, however: liberalism and Orwellianism cannot coexist--not fully, at any rate. By which I mean: only one of them can have the last word with respect to the rules that govern an institution--e.g. a university. If liberalism sets the rules, then Orwellians are free to discuss and advocate their views. If Orwellianism sets the rules, liberals are not free to discuss and advocate their views. This is the central asymmetry.

   Orwellians want control of our institutions--the government, universities, the media, etc. If they could take full control of government they could, e.g., repeal the First Amendment. From their perspective, that would be ideal. But they don't have enough support nor enough physical power to do that--yet. So they've gone after softer targets--especially universities. In the paleo-PC era, they got universities to pass anti-speech codes. Sadly, from their perspective, these were unconstitutional and rejected by the courts. So they've fallen back on a kind of soft totalitarian control--they harangue and harass and badger and bully those who disagree with their positions. They lie and dox and character-assassinate. And they are acquiring a great deal of official non-governmental power--they can now easily get people fired and ruin their lives merely by rallying their shrieking mobs of e-banshees. And "diversity and inclusion" considerations--already largely antiliberal--provide them with a kind of handhold. There's almost always a way to argue that anything you don't like works against "diversity and inclusion." (Which is why such ideas are sometimes said to be inconsistent with liberalism, limited government, and the requirement that laws be publicized.) And that's particularly easy if someone argues against basically any tenet of the left. Consider particularly dangerous ground: BLM...

   This is a familiar story. It's the central MO of the contemporary left. And now they've come for William Jacobsen of Legal Insurrection fame. You can read all about it on the other end of the link...but you barely need to. The story is familiar. 

   Incidentally--in case defending the great projects of America, the Enlightenment and Western civilization doesn't motivate you to fight these people--they'll come for you, you know. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But--unless you submit to their epistemic demands and talk yourself into believing their incoherent dogma--they will come for you eventually.