Two Doctrines Of The Progressive Left: (a) Un-PC Speech Should Be Stifled, (b) Lots Of Speech Is Un-PC

link

   Characteristic of extremist, illiberal politico-philosophical views, left and right, is that bad speech should be banned or otherwise stifled. That is: a denial of Brandeis's Counter-speech Doctrine: The remedy for bad speech is more speech. And characteristic of at least (but perhaps not only) the progressive left is that lots of speech is bad. 

   Progressive leftists, at least, when confronted with this objection, tend to deny it--or that's my experience anyway. But CRT is now at the center of progressive-left politics. And absolutely central to CRT is the view that "hate-speech" should be banned. Central to the founding of the view, and still central, is the attempt to raise the protections of the 14th Amendment (in particular, the equal protection clause) above the protections of 1st Amendment (in particular, of speech and assembly). So there's really no denying that component of the views. Political correctness is also central to progressivism, and that means: the subordination of facts and rational inquiry to leftist political doctrines and preferences. 

   If they had a narrow conception of bad speech--"hate speech," politically incorrect speech, etc.--that would be bad enough. But they have an extremely broad conception of bad, ergo bannable, speech. It's not an exaggeration--or at least not much of one--to say that basically any objection to progressive doctrine will be labeled racist or "white supremacist" or misogynist or homophobic or "transphobic" or some similar thing. But even those ever-expanding ideas don't exhaust the bad and bannable. Even the arguments of actual, accomplished scientists are deemed bannable even merely for denying pop-progressive climate pseudoscience. If anyone can think of any idea right of the extreme left that has not been basically deemed bannable, you should tell me about it. 

   The upshot of all this is that virtually any expression of any idea rejected by the fairly extreme left is on the chopping block--or on its way there. 

   Of course people on my side of the fence think that even such crazy, destructive, totalitarian ideas should be on the table--rather than the chopping block. We don't really have a chopping-block. The other component of progressive-leftism that helps make the view so dangerous is that it must be implemented immediately without any real discussion. This is, obviously, a violation of Truzzi's maxim: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The denial of that principle is likely grounded in the view that there is really no such thing as proof, because, among other things, there is no such thing as objectivity. Thus everything is reduced to a power-struggle. Thus leftist ideas should be implemented as soon as the left is strong enough to implement them. 

   One problem is that few progressive leftists seem to understand the philosophical underpinnings of their view, and most fail to acknowledge its implications. This is what we all tend to do. But the more radical the view, the more that tendency matters.