I enjoyed this essay - I think your idea of “heart drain” is evocative. The image of the church group drying up to a salty residue was striking. I think you should develop that.
I have been watching the “cancel” debate in the aftermath of the assassination attempt and I am confused. Surely it can’t be wrong to chastise someone for publicly calling for murder, or lamenting the failure of a murder attempt, or wishing rape or other mayhem, on someone. Can it?
And yet so many are jumping to the conclusion that to do so is equivalent to the left wing viciousness we have been watching for ten years, as they heaped scorn on isolated individuals for violating one or another stinking orthodox shibboleth.
But isn’t calling for violent behavior within the proper scope of shame? Just because the left has redefined violence to include words and ideas doesn’t mean the rest of us have to act like words that speak murder and mayhem against specific individual people are ok. We have to start reclaiming some lines from the bitter resentful watchmen - flippant public calls for red murder seems like a good place to start.
You say it surely can't be wrong to chastise someone for calling for murder. I understand "chastise" to mean you tell someone they did something wrong. I suppose you could call my essay above chastising. But I don't think getting someone fired is chastisement. I'm willing to argue this point, but I don't even think cancellation counts as edifying punishment. I think cancellation is harassment. The Home Depot Lady *should* feel shame for what she said, I agree, but I doubt she will now. I wouldn't in her position. I'd feel harassed. I'd be angry. I contend that it's counter-productive to make your enemies angry.
"If I say the wrong thing to you, will you try to get me fired? Harass my colleagues? Get my books pulled?"
I worry that I was not expressing my position clearly, because I don't think words alone can ever merit that response. Now if you yourself had tried to get someone else fired, harassed, or books pulled is when I think a response in kind could be warranted.
Oh! Well then I misinterpreted you, and I’m sorry for that. So your prescription is “cancel the cancelers?” I need to think about that, but it doesn’t seem like a bad idea at first glance.
The consequences of the heart drain is the death of that group. This has happened with science fiction, with gaming and cartoons. The same thing happens with churches and clubs. With political parties.
Because without heart there is no love, merwlr legalistic condemnation.
I should point out that I actually think heart drain was a symptom rather than the cause of the collapse of the publishing industry. I think the ultimate cause was that the industry became an oligopoly, and oligopolies can make bad decisions for longer before the market disciplines them. But that’s another post.
I’ve been wondering about clubs and churches. The fall of the entertainment and publishing industries happened while I was watching, but I don’t have good information about clubs and churches. Do you think their demise came before 2015, and do you think it was caused by heart drain?
The decline started well before 2005. There has always been legalism, particularly among progressives. Ii have seen this decline throughout my life, living in NZ. We lost aocail cohesion after the neoconservatives took over on the 1980s. Many had left the church by then, and now our neocon elite are importing a new people and demanding we worshippagans Gods. And most people aren walking away.
It sounds like people started leaving churches before the 1980s? That's my impression too, although I wasn't alive at the time. I'm wondering whether something happened in churches in the 1970s like what happened in universities in the 2010s.
Thank you! I'm not sure how I'll develop the salty residue image, but tell me if you have suggestions.
I enjoyed this essay - I think your idea of “heart drain” is evocative. The image of the church group drying up to a salty residue was striking. I think you should develop that.
I have been watching the “cancel” debate in the aftermath of the assassination attempt and I am confused. Surely it can’t be wrong to chastise someone for publicly calling for murder, or lamenting the failure of a murder attempt, or wishing rape or other mayhem, on someone. Can it?
And yet so many are jumping to the conclusion that to do so is equivalent to the left wing viciousness we have been watching for ten years, as they heaped scorn on isolated individuals for violating one or another stinking orthodox shibboleth.
But isn’t calling for violent behavior within the proper scope of shame? Just because the left has redefined violence to include words and ideas doesn’t mean the rest of us have to act like words that speak murder and mayhem against specific individual people are ok. We have to start reclaiming some lines from the bitter resentful watchmen - flippant public calls for red murder seems like a good place to start.
What am I missing?
Thank you for disagreeing with me so courteously by the way. I was a apprehensive when I posted this essay.
You say it surely can't be wrong to chastise someone for calling for murder. I understand "chastise" to mean you tell someone they did something wrong. I suppose you could call my essay above chastising. But I don't think getting someone fired is chastisement. I'm willing to argue this point, but I don't even think cancellation counts as edifying punishment. I think cancellation is harassment. The Home Depot Lady *should* feel shame for what she said, I agree, but I doubt she will now. I wouldn't in her position. I'd feel harassed. I'd be angry. I contend that it's counter-productive to make your enemies angry.
"If I say the wrong thing to you, will you try to get me fired? Harass my colleagues? Get my books pulled?"
I worry that I was not expressing my position clearly, because I don't think words alone can ever merit that response. Now if you yourself had tried to get someone else fired, harassed, or books pulled is when I think a response in kind could be warranted.
Oh! Well then I misinterpreted you, and I’m sorry for that. So your prescription is “cancel the cancelers?” I need to think about that, but it doesn’t seem like a bad idea at first glance.
Yep. When we can't speak, we remain quiet and seethe. We plot our escape. We leave.
The consequences of the heart drain is the death of that group. This has happened with science fiction, with gaming and cartoons. The same thing happens with churches and clubs. With political parties.
Because without heart there is no love, merwlr legalistic condemnation.
I should point out that I actually think heart drain was a symptom rather than the cause of the collapse of the publishing industry. I think the ultimate cause was that the industry became an oligopoly, and oligopolies can make bad decisions for longer before the market disciplines them. But that’s another post.
I’ve been wondering about clubs and churches. The fall of the entertainment and publishing industries happened while I was watching, but I don’t have good information about clubs and churches. Do you think their demise came before 2015, and do you think it was caused by heart drain?
The decline started well before 2005. There has always been legalism, particularly among progressives. Ii have seen this decline throughout my life, living in NZ. We lost aocail cohesion after the neoconservatives took over on the 1980s. Many had left the church by then, and now our neocon elite are importing a new people and demanding we worshippagans Gods. And most people aren walking away.
It sounds like people started leaving churches before the 1980s? That's my impression too, although I wasn't alive at the time. I'm wondering whether something happened in churches in the 1970s like what happened in universities in the 2010s.
Started in the 60s, in Britain at least:
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203879436/death-christian-britain-callum-brown