We look at how Democrats can right the ship on immigration, discuss how the algorithms reveal our worst nature, and consider whether Italy has too many restaurants.
I feel like the cancel culture discussion left out somehting important.
Sticking with Shapiro/Stern as an example, Shapiro's argument about now-Justice Jackson was intended as a provocation. And the online outrage that followed is somehting he surely foresaw and wanted. There's a very long history of conservatives saying things to "troll the libs" and Shapiro's comments fit right in.
That's not to say that Stern here, or the left more broadly, isn't guilty of going after people's jobs in this way, or that going after peoples' jobs should be fair game.
But I think many conservatives commentors espcially want to have it both ways. "Trolling the libs" is a game to tham and they enjoy being provicative, but they often don't want to be criticized.
Shapiro's argument was a deliberately disingenous and deserving of criticism. Don't people, including Mark Joseph Stern, have as much right to criticize him for it as he has to say it? Where is the line between exercising one's own first amendment right and targeting soneome else's? One line is that conservtive speakers shouldn't be physically barred from speaking by "protestors," although that example isn't applicable here to purely on line discourse.
Yeah that’s a good point. I think people should be allowed to criticize people. I normally don’t like to jump to “this is cancellation” unless someone literally suggests a course of action like firing them or tags their employer or something.
This might be an unpopular position, but I think saying "this person should be fired" is also fair game, at least in some cases. I think Elon Musk should be fired! Largely (but not exclusively) for his speech! I think lots of people should lose their jobs for the shit they say! Employers are free to not listen to me, but I'll still say it.
I don't agree with it in all instances, mind. Sometimes it's going too far! But if suggesting that someone who says "I love Hitler" should not be employed in an organisation that I otherwise support counts as cancellation... then I guess I (sometimes) support cancellation.
(fwiw, based on what I've read about this particular incident, I don't think this Shapiro person should lose their job)
I’ve practiced law on both sides of the immigration issue - pro bono representation of asylum seekers in private practice and criminal prosecutions of violations of immigration law when I was an AUSA. I heartily agree with Matt’s point that the two sides (particularly non-practitioner politically interested individuals) have trouble even communicating, because their respective expertises and priors are quite different.
Overall, the problem with immigration policy is one more example (maybe the best example) of the median voter’s unwillingness to accept the necessity of trade-offs.
The discussion on asylum seekers omitted the fact that the issuance of work permits for them was delayed in many states in the period from 2023-2024 and now is being actively reduced. The discussion about the environment for immigration policies in the future (2028 or 2032) similarly left out demographic projections that suggest that the size of the working age population relative to the size of the retired population is projected to decline over the next decade-plus. There probably is overlap between the center and libertarians regarding the benefit of reducing obstacles to legal employment given the labor shortage that the country will increasingly face.
As a former subscriber to Very Serious, I hope you keep this going.
I feel like the cancel culture discussion left out somehting important.
Sticking with Shapiro/Stern as an example, Shapiro's argument about now-Justice Jackson was intended as a provocation. And the online outrage that followed is somehting he surely foresaw and wanted. There's a very long history of conservatives saying things to "troll the libs" and Shapiro's comments fit right in.
That's not to say that Stern here, or the left more broadly, isn't guilty of going after people's jobs in this way, or that going after peoples' jobs should be fair game.
But I think many conservatives commentors espcially want to have it both ways. "Trolling the libs" is a game to tham and they enjoy being provicative, but they often don't want to be criticized.
Shapiro's argument was a deliberately disingenous and deserving of criticism. Don't people, including Mark Joseph Stern, have as much right to criticize him for it as he has to say it? Where is the line between exercising one's own first amendment right and targeting soneome else's? One line is that conservtive speakers shouldn't be physically barred from speaking by "protestors," although that example isn't applicable here to purely on line discourse.
Yeah that’s a good point. I think people should be allowed to criticize people. I normally don’t like to jump to “this is cancellation” unless someone literally suggests a course of action like firing them or tags their employer or something.
I think I agree, and there are certainly examples of employer tagging, etc. out there. Did Stern do that in this case? I do t remember.
I don’t remember either. I actually only vaguely even recalled this incident happening.
This might be an unpopular position, but I think saying "this person should be fired" is also fair game, at least in some cases. I think Elon Musk should be fired! Largely (but not exclusively) for his speech! I think lots of people should lose their jobs for the shit they say! Employers are free to not listen to me, but I'll still say it.
I don't agree with it in all instances, mind. Sometimes it's going too far! But if suggesting that someone who says "I love Hitler" should not be employed in an organisation that I otherwise support counts as cancellation... then I guess I (sometimes) support cancellation.
(fwiw, based on what I've read about this particular incident, I don't think this Shapiro person should lose their job)
I’ve practiced law on both sides of the immigration issue - pro bono representation of asylum seekers in private practice and criminal prosecutions of violations of immigration law when I was an AUSA. I heartily agree with Matt’s point that the two sides (particularly non-practitioner politically interested individuals) have trouble even communicating, because their respective expertises and priors are quite different.
Overall, the problem with immigration policy is one more example (maybe the best example) of the median voter’s unwillingness to accept the necessity of trade-offs.
The discussion on asylum seekers omitted the fact that the issuance of work permits for them was delayed in many states in the period from 2023-2024 and now is being actively reduced. The discussion about the environment for immigration policies in the future (2028 or 2032) similarly left out demographic projections that suggest that the size of the working age population relative to the size of the retired population is projected to decline over the next decade-plus. There probably is overlap between the center and libertarians regarding the benefit of reducing obstacles to legal employment given the labor shortage that the country will increasingly face.