Once again I feel the need to intervene on recent controversies in which the repressive and regressive tactics of self-styled progressive activists are placing them on the wrong side of history and in the service of a constricted, suffocating vision of an emancipated future. The (strangely, perhaps) intertwined controversies engulfing Sussex University Philosophy Professor Kathleen Stock and superstar comedian Dave Chappelle emphasise the need for progressive activists to re-learn the political history of censorship and to re-embrace a spirit of comdradely critique, and eschew once for all reactionary-totalitarian cancel culture.

Historically, totalitarian movements have been the ones to demand complete unity of opinion and expression. They know full well that such a goal is impossible to achieve, so they have exiled, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered dissidents. That is the primary reason why freedom of thought and speech is a non-negotiable left-wing demand. The left has had its flirtations with maniacal group-think- The Cultural Revolution in China perhaps being the most extreme example. And while the treatment of Stock has not yet reached those levels, the walls do seem to be closing in on her.

This morning I was forced to read a shockingly backward intervention from her own Union local which calls upon the University to uphold its commitments to create safe spaces for trans people, while failing utterly to defend their own member from organized anonymous threats from the self-identified trans activists demanding her dismissal. This letter is the most shameful abdication of responsibility to protect a member’s academic freedom that I have ever read. It explicitly criticizes the Vice-Chancellor’s defence of Stock’s academic freedom. The letter argues that there should be no contradiction between trans rights and academic freedom– and there should not be. But there very definitely is a contradiction between academic freedom and the way Stock is being treating by the anonymous mob of trans activists threatening her, and the union is doing nothing to protect her.

The letter tepidly adds that they do not think Stock should be fired, but its whole thrust is to re-iterate the false accusations that she is some sort of dangerous transphobe upon which the demands for her dismissal are being based. The letter is the most shameful pandering imaginable to an anonymous mob which refuses to argue and instead begs the established powers to fire a worker– and then presents themselves as an alternative to established power!

Alisdair MacIntyre joked, in his book on Marcuse, that the 1960s student rebellions in the United States were the world’s first parent-financed revolution. Today we have the even more absurd spectacle of self-styled radicals asking the bosses to advance the cause of social freedom. And the Union is on board!

The members should remove this leadership immediately. They have shown themselves unwilling and incapable of fulfilling the basic duty of officers of a union to defend the members If Stock is unsafe then no one is safe. Those who have read her book will understand that she is not transphobic and does not demand that anyone be erased from history. She disagrees with some political demands made by some sectors of the trans movement because she argues– as is obvious– that females have faced unique forms of oppression as females (hello Texas attacks on abortion). Since there are female specific problems there is still a need still a need for organization and mobilization as females. None of these argument have any negative bearing on the rights and interests of trans people.

If some sectors of the trans movement nevertheless believe that Stock’s argument is wrong and harmful, then they should by all means make that case loudly, but through counter-argument, not reactionary demands for the bosses to fire her. Academic freedom is not the right of academics to say anything they want. It is a collective right to conjointly search for the truth through the process of dialogue and constructive disagreement. There can be no prior constraint (much less politically correct pre-determination) on what is true or false, but only a commitment to advance the search through reason and evidence. Where good faith arguments are offered- and Stock’s is obviously a good faith argument- good faith criticisisms must be offered in return.

The dangers The dangers associated with penis sounding are presumably obvious: it simply is not a good idea to stick anything down your urethra. (And some practitioners of sounding don’t stick with sounds but use a wide range of other objects which are even less appropriate and more raindogscine.com viagra 25 mg dangerous.) Among the problems that can result from sounding, aside from simply a sore penis, are tears and. But, the focus is on the sensations (or called cialis cheap online sensate focus). You can place cialis side effects orders for these pills from their online pharmacy stores. Online drug store is the acheter pfizer viagra as you get discounts and offers on the purchase of a medicine.

Stock’s accusers have failed in their duty as students and academics to constructively engage the issues that she raises in favour of childish name calling and threats. If she is wrong, prove her wrong: she is a philosopher, and an English one at that, so she will be well used to people having an hard argumentative go at her. But to align one’s self with the bosses power to dismiss is as backward a move for the left as can be imagined. If you don’t like disagreement join a cult or a fundamentalist religious movement. Otherwise, make a better case than your opponent or concede the point.

The Chappelle controversy is less serious in so far as he is in no danger of losing his livelihood. But the same political problem and the same political solution is at its heart. I am a fan of Chappelle and I laughed long and hard at The Closer. I was certainly made uncomfortable by some of the jokes (especially the jokes that cut to the heart of white racism– I don’t think I am a racist, but I am part of a white world that is, and none expose that tension better than Chappelle). Chappelle’s shtick is to telegraph that something outrageous is coming, pause a moment, just long enough for the audience to think that he is going to back off, and then hit a punch line is even more outrageous than the audience expected.

Not everyone finds it funny. Some find it hurtful. But we cannot ban artistic expression just because some find it hurtful. There would be no art left. Do we ban the Bible because some Jews see in it divine sanction to expel Palestinians? Do we burn the Gospels because some Christians have misinterpreted its message to justify violence against non-Christians? Do we put the Dharmapadda on the Index because some Sinhalese interpret Buddhism in a way that justifies their war against Tamils? Do we knock down the pyramids of Teotihuacan because virgins were thrown off of them in acts of ritual sacrifice. On and on and on we could go.

Humour does not cause violence, just as heavy metal music did not cause America’s teenagers to become suicidal or murderous satanists, as Tipper Gore and other backward church ladies argued in the 1980s.

Enough!

If you do not like Chappelle’s humour, criticize it, as those who disagree with Stock should criticize her. The trans comedian Dahlia Belle did just that in a recent piece in The Guardian. It is a model for how people– academics, artists, people on the street– should deal with disagreement: expose the problems with the other person’s position and demand (and provide) better. Belle understands that the progress of any art depends upon criticism. She takes Chappelle to task for telling weak jokes. Whether one agrees with her or not, the point is, that coherent agreement and disagreement is possible, because she makes an argument, which is more– shamefully- that can be said for the executive committee of the University and Colleges Union at Sussex University.

The struggle against oppression is complex and people will disagree about strategy and tactics. But the struggle against it is for the sake of a free world, a world where differences proliferate and people get along. But getting along does not mean that we all agree, or even like each other. It means that we do not kill each other because we are different. Philosophy and comedy challenge and provoke, but killing begins where they end. Leave the re-education camps to the fascists, please.