1. The GOP is less than useless. Their intended purpose is to lose nobly and to siphon off most of the resistance into approved and controlled channels. It really needs to be burned to the ground and its fields sown with salt. We will have to create new institutions.
2. What do we do with our non-governmental institutional leaders who made consistently poor, safe decisions for over a year and who doubled-down when they were confronted. How do we continue to have full respect for them when they capitulated to the state at every turn, naively accepted the official story, and even engaged in gas-lighting of people who tried to present alternative views? I'm eager to forgive and chalk it up to...something...but I don't see any who are even close to admitting they were tragically wrong.
"The point is not to win the debate against person who made claim X. The point is to make sure everyone else who also believes X sees what is happening to person and keeps their mouth shut."
The ability to generate a consensus ("scientific" or otherwise) is greatly simplified the insecurities of younger professionals who see themselves in a state of tight competition for a limited set of positions at elite institutions.
Often a high-end figure targeted for censure/censorship is able to survive the assault in some adaptive way (finding a new platform, new job, etc), but in a way that so obviously depends on having a well-established reputation that it is simply unavailable to someone in an earlier stage of career development or with a less prestigious affiliation. "The Harvard guy was almost-canceled" doesn't translate to "and therefore cancel culture isn't a threat". It translates to "anyone who isn't a Harvard guy has no standing to question the consensus".
Yet another great post, David. A couple things...
1. The GOP is less than useless. Their intended purpose is to lose nobly and to siphon off most of the resistance into approved and controlled channels. It really needs to be burned to the ground and its fields sown with salt. We will have to create new institutions.
2. What do we do with our non-governmental institutional leaders who made consistently poor, safe decisions for over a year and who doubled-down when they were confronted. How do we continue to have full respect for them when they capitulated to the state at every turn, naively accepted the official story, and even engaged in gas-lighting of people who tried to present alternative views? I'm eager to forgive and chalk it up to...something...but I don't see any who are even close to admitting they were tragically wrong.
"The point is not to win the debate against person who made claim X. The point is to make sure everyone else who also believes X sees what is happening to person and keeps their mouth shut."
The ability to generate a consensus ("scientific" or otherwise) is greatly simplified the insecurities of younger professionals who see themselves in a state of tight competition for a limited set of positions at elite institutions.
Often a high-end figure targeted for censure/censorship is able to survive the assault in some adaptive way (finding a new platform, new job, etc), but in a way that so obviously depends on having a well-established reputation that it is simply unavailable to someone in an earlier stage of career development or with a less prestigious affiliation. "The Harvard guy was almost-canceled" doesn't translate to "and therefore cancel culture isn't a threat". It translates to "anyone who isn't a Harvard guy has no standing to question the consensus".