Matt Yglesias writes today that certain progressive tropes produce feelings of helplessness and depression, rather than the sense of power and optimism needed for political movements to succeed. One of these is the routine assertion of "harm" or "feeling unsafe" when someone does something you find offensive or even just disagreeable:
Objecting to bigoted or inappropriate language shouldn’t require invoking the concept of subjective harm. Women are entitled to not be subject to petty harassment whether or not the harassment “harms” them; you can both be resilient enough to get on in life and also make claims about how you deserve to be treated.
....It’s wrong to suggest that someone needs to adopt the undignified posture of having been injured in order to stand up for herself. And it’s wrong to teach people that the right way to respond to someone else’s real or imagined misbehavior is to dwell on it and maximize their own pain. Yet even though I think it’s pretty broadly acknowledged that this is a bad way to live one’s life, our educational institutions have increasingly created an environment where students are objectively incentivized to cultivate their own fragility as a power move.
I don't disagree with this, but I want to add something very concrete to it. There are certain words that are deliberately designed to force action from HR, and the entire spectrum of harm words are among them. In particular, if you say you feel unsafe, that's basically a code word demanding that HR take action or risk legal trouble.
Not everyone understands this, but the people wielding this language do. That's why it should be used only when someone genuinely feels unsafe: they're being sexually harassed, for example, or their family has been threatened. But in cases of simple personal offense or disagreement, it's a malicious escalation deliberately meant to get someone in serious trouble—or even fired. Anyone who does this without serious cause should be treated as the asshole they are.
Similarly, when people make big decisions, as in buying a car or voting, they genuinely try to stay as coldly rational about it as possible, while allowing for an emotional value. Some give that emotional value higher points than others. The famous point about car commercials is that they are made not so much to persuade you to buy a car but to keep you persuaded afterwards. Republicans spend almost all their effort on that post-facto persuasion, while Democrats usually don't even know it's there. Democrats need to be the car commercial. The conservatives who would never vote for a Democrat but who voted for Biden because Trump is so revolting deeply need to see this post-facto persuasion, they need to see a lot of it and they need to see it all the time because conservatives will always be adding a lot more points for themselves in the emotional value column.
Regarding this:
"In particular, if you say you feel unsafe, that's basically a code word demanding that HR take action or risk legal trouble ... But in cases of simple personal offense or disagreement, it's a malicious escalation deliberately meant to get someone in serious trouble—or even fired. Anyone who does this without serious cause should be treated as the asshole they are."
I refer to "Yes, DEI can erode academic freedom" in the Chronicle of Higher Education: "DEI Inc. purveys a safety-and-security model of learning that is highly attuned to harm and that conflates respect for minority students with unwavering affirmation and validation. Lived experience, the intent-impact gap, microaggressions, trigger warnings, inclusive excellence. You know the language of DEI Inc. when you hear it. It’s a combination of management-consultant buzzwords, social justice slogans, and “therapy speak.” The standard package of DEI Inc. administrative “initiatives” should be familiar too, from antiracism trainings to bias-response teams and mandatory diversity statements for hiring and promotion."
In other words, the administrators (though certainly not each and every one of the professors) at our institutions of higher education are now dedicated to honoring and cultivating the kind of behavior that Kevin is calling out. Borrowing Kevin's terminology, and reframing the situation according to my own understanding of it, our colleges and universities are training future citizens to be people we should treat as "the asshole(s) they are."
the administrators (though certainly not each and every one of the professors) at our institutions of higher education are now dedicated
Why do I get the feeling that you object to the phrase, "All cops are bastards" and argue that nobody rational would paint with that broad a brush?
I'm kind of disgusted by this post, but trying to give the benefit of the doubt on there being a fundamental misunderstanding of what "unsafe" means - not to mention being far too credulous with what Yglesias says.
Do you think listening to a conservative speaker puts a liberal in a position that is "unsafe". You hear that all the time when conservatives are invited to speak on college campuses. Liberals protest and say they "feel unsafe" by the having the speaker on campus. It's an obvious misuse of the word "unsafe" and makes them sound like idiots.
I agree with Atticus on this. I have been a liberal--quite far left liberal--for seventy years; I got it from my parents, so I guess it's hereditary.
Fifty-nine years ago I went to Alabama to register black voters. I felt unsafe. I was right, I WAS unsafe. Being tied to a tree by a lynch mob will make you feel that way.
Sitting in an auditorium and listening to a conservative economist explain why our problems are due to deficit spending makes me feel slightly amused, and mostly sad, but unsafe???
Thanks, Ken. And good work 59 years ago in Alabama. Undoubtedly that truly was an unsafe situation and required bravery on your part. Kudos.
Thank you for your service, in the cause of human rights.
Do you understand that there's a small industry of "conservative" grifters that go to campus with the intent of inciting this shit?
I mean, I agree that kids taking the bait are falling into an obvious, stupid trap. (They're kids, what do you expect?) But pretending that behavior isn't a setup is either credulously ignorant or deliberately ignoring what's going on.
The Slaver sympathizer and apologist for the War of Southern Aggression knows this full well. His studied dishonesty is well known.
Haven't heard that and doubt it's wide spread. I'm sure the number of "infiltrators" is a tiny fraction of the protesters. And, to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with people protesting (as long as the speaker gets to speak). What we're talking about here is people saying they feel "unsafe" because I speaker with whom they disagree is visiting their campus.
"What we're talking about here is people saying they feel "unsafe" because I speaker with whom they disagree is visiting their campus."
Yes, that's exactly what they're doing they say
'I disagree that the Jews are the source of all our problems and I feel unsafe when people who say just that are invited to speak on campus.' Trying to trivialize 'disagreement' is exactly what makes me your moral superior, you POS.
Your second paragraph is what (practically) everyone else here your intellectual superior, you dope.
You can't parse simple sentences can you? In fact, dimwit, what I wrote was a classic example of hate speech. Yeah, I'm not surprised that people would 'disagree with that statement' and would in fact feel threatened if a known hate group was invited to speak on just that theme.
I'm also not surprised that you didn't recognize it as hate speech. Just something that 'people disagree with', eh? Yeah, definitely not the pointiest stick in the box.
I just ignore her.
I’m guessing Merrick Garland felt unsafe at his Senate hearing yesterday. Heck, I felt unsafe just watching the lowlights on the news. That’s why people feel unsafe generally. We know that there are lots of crazy people out there and most are armed.
It was interesting to read MattY, “I have at times in my life struggled seriously with depression. I’ve been on antidepressants, I’ve tried trans-cranial magnetic stimulation, I’ve seen therapists. I also, separately, did therapy for anger management.”
Of course he has. I think just about every blogger / journalist/ pundit has written some version of that paragraph. I’ve never been depressed because, of course, I don’t really care. This skill is a remarkably effective coping strategy for the last many years. Y’all should try it. Liberals are bad at recognizing when they have no effective solutions to problems. Mr. Drum copes by building charts which demonstrate that some problem really isn’t a problem at all! Life is good!
I, on the other hand, see the problem (like gun violence / drug OD) and recognize there is nothing I can do. Life sucks for them…. But not for me. Good luck!
“But for a very wide range of problems, part of helping people get out of their trap is teaching them not to catastrophize. People who are paralyzed by anxiety or depression or who are lashing out with rage aren’t usually totally untethered from reality. They are worried or sad or angry about real things. But instead of changing the things they can change and seeking the grace to accept the things they can’t, they’re dwelling unproductively as problems fester.”
Exactly. Stop caring.
"Stop caring."
Then, you also. can be just like donnie.
If you don’t care, then why the fuck are you wasting time reading Kevin and posting responses?
I stand by what I’ve written about you before: you’re a nihilistic concern-trolling monster whom everyone should just ignore.
Nihilists and the solipsistic and the like instinctively gravitate toward thoughtful people, knowing they would be delighted to be proved wrong.
I stand by what I’ve written about you before: you’re a nihilistic concern-trolling monster whom everyone should just ignore.
Why not take your own advice?
PSA: Don't feed the trolls.
Kevin doesn't even attract amusing ones - he's too reasonable. This site's trolls are fucking boring, not even replacement level. Why waste your time on them?
>> I’ve never been depressed because, of course, I don’t really care.<<
I believe you are conflating “depression” with being depressed. They are two different things.
The commenters here are catastrophizing even in their response to my quotation of MattY. They dwell on problems they cannot solve. Mr. Drum waves them away with charts showing they aren’t really problems. The commenters imagine they have solutions and complain when someone points out that they don’t. I find that amusing.
How do you decide when something can't be changed? Changing things through violence is legitimate you know, like resisting the Russian invasion.
Google paid 99 dollars an hour on the internet. Everything I did was basic Οnline w0rk from comfort at hΟme for 5-7 hours per day that I g0t from this office I f0und over the web and they paid me 100 dollars each hour. For more details visit this article... https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com
"....It’s wrong to suggest that someone needs to adopt the undignified posture of having been injured in order to stand up for herself."
What TF is this??? In what weird mindspace is it 'undignified' to have been injured? Is all injury undignified in his weird little mind, or just injury that occurs to women & minorities? For instance, if he has whiplash after being rear-ended, is that undignified? If a piano falls on his head, is that undignified (well yes, that is sort of undignified)? Are people injured in hurricanes or tornadoes undignified?
This is what people are talking about when they talk about 'toxic masculinity'; the idea that evidence of any chink in their armor, any admission that they're not perfect and perfectly in control of all aspects of their life and environment is a sign of weakness, is 'undignified'.
I'm sorry. I can't address the rest of the post, even though I read it, because I can't get past this extremely flawed and stupidly masculine-in-the-worst-way sentence.
"I'm sorry. I can't address the rest of the post, even though I read it, because I can't get past this extremely flawed and stupidly masculine-in-the-worst-way sentence."
I dunno. Kind of sounds like you've worked yourself up over an uncharitable reading of a sentence. That's more about what you brought into the room with you than what you found when you got there.
To everyone else? That sentence read like "You can demand decent treatment without having to act injured when you're not."
+1
+2
A lot of the people he thinks are uninjured are actually injured. I don't disagree that you should be circumspect about performative victimhood but that's because it hampers effective solutions not because it isn't justified.
"Anyone who does this without serious cause should be treated as the asshole they are" = promotion to upper management.
●▬▬▬▬PART TIME JOBS▬▬▬▬▬●Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for operating online from home. i have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. i can say my life is changed-absolutely for the better! check it out what i do, Copy Here══════►► https://works332.blogspot.com/
I agree with Matt Yglesias and Kevin on this. For years now people (mostly liberals) claim to feel "unsafe" and that situations are "dangerous" when there is absolutely no threat to physical safety. We see this all the time when conservative speakers are invited to college campuses. There's always quotes from protesters saying the speaker is "dangerous" and makes them feel "unsafe". It's the most ridiculous thing in the world. It's like they have no understanding of the definition of those words. It's this kind of stuff the spawned the term "snowflake".
Is physical safety the only kind of safety that matters?
Does the First Amendment mean anything at all?
Perry - I note that you are an academic.
Controversial conservative speakers (Charles Murray, Ann Coulter etc) have faced challenges, including items being thrown at them, when appearing on college campuses.
I believe that a university should expose students to different perspectives. Hearing other points of view is a central part of a good education, in my opinion. Lets openly debate differing perspectives, rather than close down conversation.
A student is free to not attend a conservative speaker or disagree with the person's point of view. However, I do not believe, if say you dislike Charles Murray's perspective, that the solution is assault the speaker or preclude other's from hearing someone speak.
"Controversial conservative speakers [...] have faced challenges, including items being thrown at them, when appearing on college campuses. "
So in reality it's not the students who are unsafe, but the invited speakers who are truly unsafe.
No. But it has a special moral claim that other kinds of safety don't automatically get.
Yes, as far as it pertains to this discussion. No one has any right to be shielded against ideas or words.
Is physical safety the only kind of safety that matters?
Yes.
To put it more bluntly, it's the only kind of "safety" that really exists in substance.
Being triggered or offended or emotionally disurbed by mere words doesn't render you actually unsafe. Conflating these things with the possibilty of actual physical harm trivializes the important concept known as "safety."
+1
Why are you so triggered, bro?
'Fighting words' doctrine is one of the exceptions to the First Amendment's protection of speech, and even that is predicated on the imminent risk of incitement to lawless action.
As someone who taught as a professor at a state university for 20+ years, I never encountered this sort of training or expectation. On the other hand, I treated my students and colleagues with respect and was a reasonable human being in my interactions with all. This strikes me as an extension of the right wing war on education and academia. I find it appalling that Kevin Drum does not recognize this and that he is agreeing with Yglesias about it. Does Drum not know what is going on in such attacks? Does he not recognize the coded language of the right wing culture warrior?
Yglesias is saying that the universities are turning everyone's children into snowflakes. And they are making themselves victims in the process, because that stance is what their voters resonate to and feel most comfortable occupying in their own lives. And Drum agrees!
"Does he not recognize the coded language of the right wing culture warrior?" I think you are suffering from the malaise that Yglesias points out and that Drum agrees with.
What is the coded language?
I mean that IS what they're doing yes.
Oh, look, an old guy agrees with a middle-aged guy that the youfs have been corrupted and are soft and weak, not strong and self-reliant like THEY were when THEY were young.
This has always been wrong and always will be wrong.
A couple of years ago, during the run up to the Biden v Trump election, a student at my daughter's university displayed a Trump campaign sticker on his dorm room door (it was on a grease board attached to the door).
This student was put before a disciplinary committee for 'making students feel unsafe.' While he was not, ultimately, punished, the fact that the student had to appear before a disciplinary committee, likely has a chilling impact on other students.
Note, I am no fan of Trump: rather, I believe in freedom of speech. As a reminder, Trump was president at the time and most of us would have no issue with a student displaying a Biden or Obama sticker.
Since Trump was undermining Democracy and all but openly allied with groups who regularly comitted political violence against his opponents and THAT STUDENT might be one of those affiliates I think yeah checking to see mattered.
Matt Yglesias has no interest in an honest debate here, but I'm surprised at how credulous Kevin is being.
" In particular, if you say you feel unsafe, that's basically a code word demanding that HR take action or risk legal trouble.
Not everyone understands this, but the people wielding this language do. That's why it should be used only when someone genuinely feels unsafe: they're being sexually harassed, for example, or their family has been threatened. "
So let's consider a situation where there's mild but systematic harassment: a small corporation where the owner/CEO relentlessly harasses a single employee, but no single incident of harassment clearly rises to the level of endangering the employee's safety. Nevertheless, the CEO is harassing the employee, in violation of the law, and the employee should reasonably have redress.
That employee goes to HR to complain. Except everyone in HR was hired by the CEO and can be fired by the CEO, and these incidents, despite being pervasive across the workweek, are individually dismissable. So HR does nothing.
Kevin, can you perceive how in this instance, the employee, desperate for redress and convinced that HR's job is to protect the company and CEO from complaints, not to protect employees from an abusive CEO, would have strong reason to escalate the level of complaints and deploy language like "unsafe" in an attempt to force an investigation?
"It’s wrong to suggest that someone needs to adopt the undignified posture of having been injured in order to stand up for herself. " No, it is wrong that someone needs to adopt the posture of having been injured in order to assert basic rights. The central focus of Yglesias' piece is on policing the ways in which those being harassed are allowed to seek redress for wrongs, just as the prevailing conversation about racism in America seems so often to focus on "right" and "wrong" ways to protest it, and not on the actual racist practices and how they are still so bad that they encourage black people to riot.
Wouldn't a progressive interested in "winning" a debate want to focus this particular conversation on what changes need to take place within corporate cultures to ensure employees believe HR will take proper action to protect them against more powerful people within the corporation when those people behave badly? Do you know how pervasive and severe these problems remain, or are you just assuming that HR is always trustworthy and only malicious actors would deploy the language of "harm" against coworkers or superiors in the company?
"The central focus of Yglesias' piece is on policing the ways in which those being harassed are allowed to seek redress for wrongs, just as the prevailing conversation about racism in America seems so often to focus on "right" and "wrong" ways to protest it, and not on the actual racist practices and how they are still so bad that they encourage black people to riot."
What specific racist policies are you referring to? If the problem is the amorphous system, then the system needs to go. America needs to go. Begin year 0. BLM is a corrupt Marxist organization whose organizers make money on those they use to achieve a Marxist end.
Can you please identify the CFO of BLM?
Whatever you are for, I'm against it.
No, I can't. I checked their website, and no CFO or CEO is listed. However, it does look like they have a board of directors. As of Apr of 2022, they had three members.
https://blacklivesmatter.com/meet-the-black-lives-matter-global-network-foundations-growing-board-of-directors/
Reason Magazine said they were pretty cagey about their leadership in February of 2022.
https://reason.com/2022/02/01/black-lives-matter-funding-millions-patrisse-cullors/
I know that the co-founder of Black Lives Matter was Patrisse Khan-Cullors, and she was the CEO in May 2020 when she stepped down because she was having a good time spending BLM funds on herself.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2684933/patrisse-cullors-net-worth-who-property-blm/
The money quote from the above article: 'The 37-year-old labels herself a "trained Marxist" and "freedom fighter."'
I dunno. A pervasive sense of victimhood and fear has done wonders for Today's Republican Party. But the Republican appeals have been to their voters' basest feelings: hatred of t"he other" and imagined "disrespect". Disturbingly, they have harnessed these fear-caused feelings with calls to violence.
Why can't Democrats turn Liberal Fear into righteous rage and strong political action? They used to know how to do this. It worked. Much better than cowering and whinging! Join together! Work for the policies that would change the dynamic!
And do not let ANYONE saddle you with stupid slogans that turn people off, require long explanations, and mean the opposite of what they clearly say.
+1
"Why can't Democrats turn Liberal Fear into righteous rage and strong political action?"
Because that misses the point. It's like arguing in a soccer match that team blue needs to learn how to bribe the referee because that's what team red is doing. If team blue acts that way then (a) we no longer have a soccer game (or, by extension, a democracy) and (b) we just have two team reds.
What's wrong with turning reasonable fears into righteous rage and strong political action?
I mean, if one party is stoking fears about replacement theory, vaccines against a made-up illness, and gays trying to recruit your kids, and the other party is appealing to your fears about losing control over your health care or having your retirement security taken away, those aren't just two sides of the same coin. Those are two very different things.
"We mustn't tell the truth because the other side lies" isn't good policy.
"'We mustn't tell the truth because the other side lies' isn't good policy."
Agreed, but that wasn't my argument. I was saying that the sort of fear-based politicking that Republicans engage in is not something to be emulated from a liberal side.
'You triggered, bro?'
But if team red keeps winning the games and all our appeals lead to nothing, what is the solution? Just let them win and destroy the country so we can say "Well, we did it right way."?
As Jill Filipovic is quoted in the piece: using 'harm' language gives people short-term power in progressive spaces.
This is not a mindless reflex but actually a crafty strategy for personal power. That makes it especially useful in the context of social media.
Misuse of "harm" language calls for an immediate rejoinder that "offended =\= harmed".
I think the climate catastrophists are doing real harm to loads of people.
https://www.mattball.org/2023/02/greta-thunbergs-misery-is-result-of.html
I wish we had a way to upvote comments, as there are some really great ones!
Yes, the climate catastrophists are the other extreme end of climate change debate from the total denialists. Over the last few days, TikTok has been inundated by videos claiming that if Biden OK's any oil drilling in Alaska (the Willow Project), then all life on Earth will end. That literally every human being on the planet will die in horrible agony because of it. Young people absolutely can and will be mentally damaged by that crazed DOOOOOOOOOOM mindset.
On why there are times Matty annoys the shit out of me.
He sometimes outputs copious amounts of paternalistic mansplaining by making wide assumptions about a topic he knows barely anything about, on account that he has to write words in order to keep paid subscribers.
This is one of those times.
Yes I've trolled him.on and off for decades.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with Matty talking about some technocratic fix. What I do have a problem with, is Matty's solutions for people: Do what I tell you to get better.
He is unqualified to offer solutions to people, but also, he's using a broad stroke all the way.
Yes, people sometimes cry "unsafe" when something is merely annoying, but far more often liberals are forced to pretend that some horrible rightwing farce is legitimate speech or action that must be endured with no protest. People have learned that if they just express their belief that some rightwing nutjob should not be allowed to spew hate and lies on campus they will be ignored unless they can claim actual harm.
I think there are a few things going on.
One. The distinction between the personal and the political. Focusing on the personal can be good for one's mental health. You can feel empowered. Don't let the bastards get you down. You're in control. Dealing with crap & assholes is a constant but don't give them veto power over your happiness and well-being. Focusing on the political, because it's much harder to achieve, can overwhelm you, make you feel powerless. If your happiness depends on the world being free of injustice, it'll be hard not to be depressed.
Broadly speaking, I believe people in the '80s and '90s were more focused on psychology and personal improvement. Today, people are much more focused on the political.
Two. Americans often don't share bonds with others as people do in other countries. It's hard to say we even share the same culture (if there was something to the monoculture that existed in the postwar decades, those days seem to be over). Americans do share a political identity and a commitment to certain ideals, particularly ideas about rights. Conservatives and liberals emphasize rights in different ways, and that conflict of rights has now become a key, defining struggle of our society. The war of my rights vs. your rights will not settle any disputes in the end, even if some battles are won or lost along the way. It only creates winners and losers, and more grievance toward the other side.
The victimhood of liberal thinking may be a real problem for some depressed and disempowered liberals. But the victimhood of conservative thinking is, in my view, likely greater, and perhaps the major thing driving the movement, which is now taking them, and maybe us too, over the cliff.
I do think it's weird that everything has to be framed as a lack of safety, of being the victim of another's aggression (even "micro" aggressions).
Why can't I just be ticked off that I have to deal with an a-hole?
Because a lot of it feels a bit too adjacent to the old "she's too angry to really be a rape victim" garbage people have spewed for centuries. You can only dispute someone's behavior if you are a "victim," and those victims must always feel scared and disempowered.
Sure, some things WILL make you feel unsafe. But some things really ought to make you angry instead (or as well).
The first problem here is that agreeing with Yglesias is never a good idea. Even when he makes some kind of good point, there's some element of misunderstanding or bad faith underlying it.
I see a lot of the usual suspects playing a lot of the usual stupid word games, for example, trying to both-side what are fundamentally different positions, or trivializing them as 'just' disagreements. Notice, as usual, the careful vagueness, the refusal to cite specific speech, etc., saying -- sneering -- in effect, 'you triggered bro?'
That's the sort of thing I come down hard on, and if people in authority let them get away with these sly (bu oh-so-stupid) rhetorical dishonesties, then Hell yes, I'm going to feel threatened.