got it. You watch terrible porn...

So on a scale of zero to ten, with zero being no justification and ten being absolute justification, I'm going to give a 6/10 on his sacking as a government advisor (marginally agree), a 2/10 for his hypothetical sacking if he hadn't been on the government payroll (disagree), a 9/10 on his sacking as a writer for the tobacco thing (strongly agree), and a 10/10 for a potential ban on him ever engaging with a clitoris again (no-brainer).

10/10 for a potential ban on him ever engaging with a clitoris again (no-brainer). — Baden

That won't be necessary because he can't find it.

And yet a fox in the woods is no bother to him. Priorities...

got it. You watch terrible porn... — Benkei

My porn appetite isn't very limited. ;-)

But no one's telling him that. They're telling the government not to listen to his idiotic views. and in my case I'm also telling the universities and media not to listen to his views and to stop paying him for them. Let him express his views as widely and forthrightly as me. — unenlightened

What does it mean to tell a private institution like a university to stop paying for whatever floats their academic boats? (And what is the manner of such a directive?).

In the digital age, a single act, person, or institution, can gain near global visibility, and the collective response to them can become utterly disproportionate as a result.

Let's say Scruton is at home in whichever conservative leaning university department values his ideas enough to hire him. Once his particularly outrageous passages give rise to disproportionate negative online feedback, their only recourse might be to jettison him without delay to weather the PR shit-storm. Even though they support his ideas, enough people with enough outrage can basically force them to fire him for strictly pragmatic reasons. And then the institution can go on teaching his ideas, so really nothing changes but the guard.

The boycott tactic presupposes that the very existence of something is harmful or a threat. It has its time and place, but when we treat the existence of ideas and viewpoints as themselves harmful and a threat, and therefore seek to prevent others from hearing or expressing them via applied social pressure, then we're drawing a rather aggressive line in the sand (the kinds of ideas we don't currently tolerate are generally threats and calls to violence, but if we expand our intolerance to include legitimately held political beliefs (such as Scruton's) then we will do more harm than good). People have a right to hold and to express view-points that we disagree with, and others have the right to pay to hear them; there's almost no point in trying to win a political debate against our interlocutors by having their careers come to an end or by getting their events/platforms shut down. Using our own free speech to ostensibly restrict the speech of others, including the right to listen, (instead of confronting their ideas, and winning through political suasion) is not conducive to a healthy democracy.

If he has the right to tell women how to have sex, I think I have the right to call him a sexist. — unenlightened

I never said you never had no right to call him sexist, but I am suggesting that you're making an inaccurate and hyperbolic emotional appeal by doing so. He tries to tell everyone how/how not to have sex, not just women. If you want to call him sexist merely because he has opinions that involve women (opposed to opinions that he applies only to women due to prejudice), you're free to do so, but you're contributing to the devaluation of the term, and the continued inflation of outrage.

If it turns our Scruton isn't actually overtly sexist, then like the boy who cried wolf, next time around fewer people will take the charge seriously when it is applied to someone new.

If you want to call him sexist merely because he has opinions that involve women (opposed to opinions that he applies only to women due to prejudice), you're free to do so, — VagabondSpectre

I'm immensely grateful for your liberality. But as has been pointed out his opinions do only apply to women because they cannot be performed by men as a matter of biology. Thing is, I am more moderate in my condemnation of him than he is of me and my wife, so whatever criticism you level at me you are applying to him more strongly than I am. Unless of course you are not being even handed in your criticism.

I'm sure that I could find a passage of him talking about how men should or should not use their penises. So, if presented, will you also say that he is sexist against men?

Is it possible to be equally sexist against both or all genders?

What is the operant motive behind his allegedly sexist writing?

Is it prejudice against women or more broadly sexual repression/conservatism in general?

when we treat the existence of ideas and viewpoints as themselves harmful and a threat, and therefore seek to prevent others from hearing or expressing them via applied social pressure, then we're drawing a rather aggressive line in the sand — VagabondSpectre

But it sure works, because the institutions fear those PR shit-storms so much!

Indeed, the effect objectification is not determined by a comparative measure of whether both men and women are objectfied, but by its impact on an individual.

The harm done by understanding one's partner is an object is not undone by them also consider you an object. It's just a doubling of the harm. Now, they just suffer like you.

In terms of preventing harm done to the women or the man, nothing is achieved.

Addressing this harm, this sexism, requires an effect on how an individual is treated/harmed, not a measure of whether the same is happening to someone else.

Indeed, the effect objectification is not determined by a comparative measure of whether both men and women are objectfied, but by its impact on an individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But if he treats men and women equally, is it sexist objectification?

Addressing this harm, this sexism, requires an effect on how an individual is treated/harmed, not a measure of whether the same is happening to someone else. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You're changing the meaning of "sexism" to mean something like "sexually harmful". I just cant assent to that use of language. It's too polemic or misleadingly provocative.

But it sure works, because the institutions fear those PR shit-storms so much! — ssu

They sure do!

And what does it mean when negative PR can so easily overcome the positive?

They all become terrified of offending anyone, they take less risks, and only feel safe while pandering to a common denominator. It's a chilling effect in my view, and is not a good thing for democracy.

hey sure do!

And what does it mean when negative PR can so easily overcome the positive?

They all become terrified of offending anyone, they take less risks, and only feel safe while pandering to a common denominator. It's a chilling effect in my view, and is not a good thing for democracy. — VagabondSpectre

And this is the most crucial thing to understand here.

This has NOTHING to do with Post-modernists and Cultural Marxists and especially with snowflake SJWs in Ivy League universities. The absurd discourse is just a symptom. The real issue is just why these issues become so huge? Why do people get fired for absurd reasons? Why do these issues make it to mainstream media?

The problem is the totally illogical fear that comes close to a mass psychosis that institutions have towards their so fragile outward appearance. And the reason of course is that their PR appearance is usually totally made up as the institutions are inherently weak structures. So one employee/ person related somehow to the institution says something in an email and the PR shit-storm explodes. As somehow the person would portray the whole institution to be sexist/racist/misogynist/anti-semitic/whatever. Why? Because if the institution doesn't react, does nothing or the answer is seen as to be too little, it will somehow be interpreted as that what the odd person has said reflects the values and the norms of the whole institution! There's a whole army of PR consultants and professionals ready to jump to 'contain' the crisis, as if something like a serious nuclear accident has happened.

So the simple response (especially in a corporation) that is 'the best thing' to do, is to fire the person. By doing this the event creates this illusion of an environment among employees that they are walking on eggshells and a simple comment in an email can devastate their whole career and life. But who cares about that.

So yeah, it is a problem for democracy.

And the problem started with institutions like corporation etc. creating PR departments. Political parties are naturally even more prone to this. And if someone thinks that this is only right-wing biased view (because the thread is about Roger Scruton), just think about the typical event where a muslim liberal or leftist politician criticizes Israel and get the wrath of being an anti-semite.

What does it mean to tell a private institution like a university to stop paying for whatever floats their academic boats? (And what is the manner of such a directive?). — VagabondSpectre

Consider the woman who plays with her clitoris during the act of coition. Such a person affronts her lover with the obscene display of her body, and, in perceiving her thus, the lover perceives his own irrelevance. She becomes disgusting to him, and his desire may be extinguished. The woman’s desire is satisfied at the expense of her lover’s, and no real union can be achieved between them — Scrotum

What does it mean to tell a couple that their lovemaking is an obscene affront and not a real union?

Honestly, it just makes no sense for you to be attacking me for my authoritarian emotive dictatorial views about this guy, and defending his views as somehow liberal legitimate and reasonable. It makes no sense even if you agree with him.

and defending his views as somehow liberal legitimate and reasonable — unenlightened

I would like to clarify and say that it is not my intention to attack you or your views about Scruton. What I do mean to criticize is your choice of words ("sexist"), especially in the context that it tends to drive band-wagons (Scruton may yet be shown sexist, but as it is a charge with gravity it should be delivered with solid evidence, lest we salt and scorch the earth prematurely).

Scruton's views are anything but liberal, and while the specific quotations we've read from him lack reason almost entirely, they're reasonable to him, and they're his legitimate moral/political beliefs (which regrettably aren't themselves uncommon). As the saying goes, I disagree with what he has to say but I defend his right to say it. I realize that gainful employment and a governmental advisory position are not protected speech rights (and I also realize that you do not seek to dictate these away from him), but consider how your own reaction can be amplified and echoed across social media networks to the point that it can completely bury a single individual or institution.

"Distributive justice" is a social system where informal sanctions keep transgressors in line (it's a primitive and instinct based system that is typically found in nomadic groups numbering around 15-30). For instance, if a hunter doesn't share their meat, or is an insufferable boaster, then everyone may shun them or dishonor them (in whichever socially relevant way) until their behavior corrects. But in the globalized digital era something unexpected happens: hundreds of thousands of individuals can all take instinctive action and issue a social sanction against a single person or institution, but their individual instincts don't realize that 100,000 other people might be doing the same thing, so the cumulative ramifications become entirely disproportionate. It's death by a million views. (Posting your views on a philosophy forum doesn't meaningfully contribute to the phenomenon I'm describing. Philosophy forums are not the fast and loose media that twitter, reddit, youtube, and the like have turned out to be, and by definition you're actually explaining and defending your views (I see such discourse/dialogue as critical to democratic progress). The real problem is when uncharitable or inaccurate reactions go viral, because when we react in anger we generally don't stop to fact check (and the ensuing pile-on can amount to crucifixion)).

I'm less trying to actually defend Scruton (I'm just working with what evidence has so far been quoted) and more trying to delineate the dangers of polemics in contemporary (digital) political discourse. We now have a much stronger capacity to socially sanction the other side: on one hand this makes us all want to be less controversial homunculi to avoid the others' stake, and on the other it causes pundits and politicians who embrace, exploit, and thrive in controversy to rise to the top (because they get the most attention, and they're the only characters who can take the heat long-term).

The many-to-many format of social media is quite novel and interesting, but it's not without faults (and to some extent it's already been hijacked by many forces that are depending on our penchant to be motivated by outrage).

trying to delineate the dangers of polemics in contemporary (digital) political discourse. — VagabondSpectre

I would be quite happy to agree with you about that and plead guilty to participation, if only you were as resolute in your criticism of Scrotum's language as you are of mine. His, after all is demonstrably more extreme, and hugely more influential. I say 'sexist', he says 'obscene' and 'disgusting', and you do not seem to think his language needs criticism.

But in large part, my interpretation is based on the sympathetic understanding expressed here.

I don't think the passage is particularly sexist [...] in the end his views do probably imply a more traditional role for women, that is, a restricted one. But this is a legitimate political position--traditional conservatism--rather than simple sexism or misogyny. — jamalrob

I am open to correction, but on the face of it, I would say that a view that wishes to restrict the role of women is a sexist view in any normal understanding.

I would say that a view that wishes to restrict the role of women is a sexist view in any normal understanding. — unenlightened

:up:

I am open to correction, but on the face of it, I would say that a view that wishes to restrict the role of women is a sexist view in any normal understanding. — unenlightened

Maybe, but then it's just another sexist opinion to be countered with argument. Compare: at least a couple of liberal-leftish members here are in favour of existing, or even more extensive, obstacles to getting an abortion. Me, I happen to think those obstacles profoundly restrict the freedom of women. But this is an issue for debate, not for shutting people down.

But this is an issue for debate, not for shutting people down. — jamalrob

Are you suggesting - you seem to be suggesting - that I have made any kind of argument that any such issue should not be debated, or that anyone should be shut down? If you show me, I will retract and apologise. I have intimated that a person who espouses such views with such intemperate language should not be in a position of academic authority over young people, given also various other questionable views and activities already mentioned. But that is not shutting down the debate, merely refusing to recognise the authority of such expressions as if they had the institutional weight of established consensus when they are asserted without argument or support.

at least a couple of liberal-leftish members here are in favour of existing, or even more extensive, obstacles to getting an abortion. — jamalrob

Existing, in my case. Anyhow, it's a false equivalency. In the case of abortion, there's a balance of rights to be considered between the unborn child (of whatever sex) and the pregnant woman. There's another life at stake. There's no such obvious conflict of rights in implying a restricted or traditional role for women as opposed to men. That's purely a matter of allowing men more freedom in a comparable domain. And consider that you could use the equivalency to accuse someone of sexism for disagreeing with infanticide. Anyway, I agree we should keep things in perspective with regards to Scruton's comments (on all issues). It's a pity it tends to become polarising as it seems to me he's a borderline case where you could be on either side without having massively conflicting views.

Fair enough, although I think it's in the same ball park, and illiberal in the same way. Likewise your intemperate and uninformed rush to condemn a philosopher as extreme, illegitimate, idiotic, sexist, racist, and so on.

Existing, in my case. Anyhow, it's a false equivalency. In the case of abortion, there's a balance of rights to be considered between the unborn child (of whatever sex) and the pregnant woman. There's another life at stake. — Baden

But then, you would say that. I'm not going to get into abortion, but my point is that in both your case and in Scruton's, there are other things you think need to be balanced against the individual rights of the woman. And I think you both believe that your positions seek a better result for society.

The idea that the Scruton quotation about masturbation--here repeatedly and bizarrely interpreted out of context--is sexist, but controlling women's reproductive freedom is not, is bonkers.

EDIT: But I said I wasn't going to get into that. Sorry.

Believing a position seeks a better result for society has no bearing on whether someone is sexist or not or whether their position is morally supportable or not. If I'm sexist for supporting existing abortion laws then I'm sexist regardless of my motives. Same for Scruton. But I haven't called him sexist. I would characterise his comment as prudish and silly. There are bigger fish to fry in my view.

The idea that the Scruton quotation about masturbation--here repeatedly and bizarrely interpreted out of context--is sexist, but controlling women's reproductive freedom is not, is bonkers. — jamalrob

But your reply to un above was:

Maybe, but then it's just another sexist opinion to be countered with argument. — jamalrob

So, I would agree it's another opinion (sexist or not) to be countered with argument, but not that it's 'bonkers' to think it's sexist especially considering your own interpretation of it. Again, actual differences are probably being exaggerated here by the use of derogatory terms.

Edit: On the comparison to reproductive freedom, which I missed in my reply above. Depends what you mean. I've tried to give a reductio but you said you didn't want to debate it again, so...

Edit of edit: Cross-posted edit.

Fair enough. My point was not particularly against you, but rather the general point that seeking to restrict women's freedom is not necessarily, obviously and uncontroversially sexist, or is not enough to justify consigning a view to somewhere beyond reasonable debate (the place you aim to put someone when you call them sexist, fascist, malevolent, etc.)

So maybe the bonkers remark was intemperate too.

There is some justification in the comparison, I suppose. So, I don't want to argue the toss especially as, as I've said, there's a danger of those who mostly agree ending up thinking they're on completely opposite sides of an artificially created divide. So, I agree with the general sentiment of at least being very qualified if an -ism term has to be used. But by the same token being somewhat qualified in criticism of its use. We end up in a kind of negative discursive feedback loop otherwise.

consigning a view to somewhere beyond reasonable debate (the place you aim to put someone when you call them sexist, fascist, malevolent, etc.) — jamalrob

Again, I see you condemning my language as trying to put something beyond reasonable debate as if calling something an obscene disgusting practice is the language that keeps things within reasonable debate. Most of my complaint about Scrotum is exactly your complaint about me, that his language itself prevents a reasoned discussion and certainly doesn't amount to one. And he's the philosophy professor, who ought to know better.

Again, I see you condemning my language as trying to put something beyond reasonable debate as if calling something an obscene disgusting practice is the language that keeps things within reasonable debate. — unenlightened

This doesn't work. You're condemning a man for his views or his words, but if Scruton is condemning anything at all, it's not a person for their views or words, but a general sexual practice. Only the former condemnation has anything to do with putting things beyond reasonable debate.

Anyway, I reckon obscenity and disgust are crucial in any comprehensive discussion of sexuality, so I don't see any problem with that language.

Anyway, I reckon obscenity and disgust are crucial in any comprehensive discussion of sexuality, so I don't see any problem with that language. — jamalrob

I have to agree with that. I'm all about permissibility and at the same time am disgusted with the idea of caviar, which incidentally put me off of actual caviar. Saves me money I suppose.