I do not think that “these” newly established moral/cultural norms are any of the bad things you make them out to be, as long as they are not translated into legal restrictions on free speech.

Now some people propose the use of speech codes, hate crimes laws, and other questionable regulations to restrict non-PC speech. You may have principled objections against those regulations, and chances are I would sympathize with those objections.

But that does not mean that all recent changes in moral norms are bad things.

Take homophobia. It is waning. This is good, because homophobia is a very real problem. The suicide among gay youth is way higher than among straight youth, and there’s little doubt that homophobia is to blame.

Any move of popular opinion away from homophobia that does not come with speech-restricting laws in an attempt to help it along is an immensely positive thing. It is a shortcoming of a certain kind of short-sighted libertarianism (a kind that neither I nor, I suspect, Will, subscribe to) to focus so strongly on the permissible role of the state as to refuse to recognize that the values and institutions that make up civil society, even if they should all be equally allowed by law, can still be good and bad.

I support the legal right of Westboro Baptist Church (godhatesfags.com) to spout its hateful bile out into the world, and at the same time I think it is a deplorable institutions and that its members deserve all the social opprobrium that the rest of us can muster. There’s nothing weird about my position, nothing tyrannical, nothing post-modern, nothing racist, nothing sexist, nothing “left,” nothing “right.” It is based not on cultural bias but on an honest attempt to transcend cultural bias. It is squarely in the middle of the classical liberal tradition.

I do not think that “these” newly established moral/cultural norms are any of the bad things you make them out to be, as long as they are not translated into legal restrictions on free speech.

Now some people propose the use of speech codes, hate crimes laws, and other questionable regulations to restrict non-PC speech. You may have principled objections against those regulations, and chances are I would sympathize with those objections.

But that does not mean that all recent changes in moral norms are bad things.

Take homophobia. It is waning. This is good, because homophobia is a very real problem. The suicide among gay youth is way higher than among straight youth, and there’s little doubt that homophobia is to blame.

Any move of popular opinion away from homophobia that does not come with speech-restricting laws in an attempt to help it along is an immensely positive thing. It is a shortcoming of a certain kind of short-sighted libertarianism (a kind that neither I nor, I suspect, Will, subscribe to) to focus so strongly on the permissible role of the state as to refuse to recognize that the values and institutions that make up civil society, even if they should all be equally allowed by law, can still be good and bad.

I support the legal right of Westboro Baptist Church (godhatesfags.com) to spout its hateful bile out into the world, and at the same time I think it is a deplorable institutions and that its members deserve all the social opprobrium that the rest of us can muster. There’s nothing weird about my position, nothing tyrannical, nothing post-modern, nothing racist, nothing sexist, nothing “left,” nothing “right.” It is based not on cultural bias but on an honest attempt to transcend cultural bias. It is squarely in the middle of the classical liberal tradition.

I do not think that “these” newly established moral/cultural norms are any of the bad things you make them out to be, as long as they are not translated into legal restrictions on free speech.

Now some people propose the use of speech codes, hate crimes laws, and other questionable regulations to restrict non-PC speech. You may have principled objections against those regulations, and chances are I would sympathize with those objections.

But that does not mean that all recent changes in moral norms are bad things.

Take homophobia. It is waning. This is good, because homophobia is a very real problem. The suicide among gay youth is way higher than among straight youth, and there’s little doubt that homophobia is to blame.

Any move of popular opinion away from homophobia that does not come with speech-restricting laws in an attempt to help it along is an immensely positive thing. It is a shortcoming of a certain kind of short-sighted libertarianism (a kind that neither I nor, I suspect, Will, subscribe to) to focus so strongly on the permissible role of the state as to refuse to recognize that the values and institutions that make up civil society, even if they should all be equally allowed by law, can still be good and bad.

I support the legal right of Westboro Baptist Church (godhatesfags.com) to spout its hateful bile out into the world, and at the same time I think it is a deplorable institutions and that its members deserve all the social opprobrium that the rest of us can muster. There’s nothing weird about my position, nothing tyrannical, nothing post-modern, nothing racist, nothing sexist, nothing “left,” nothing “right.” It is based not on cultural bias but on an honest attempt to transcend cultural bias. It is squarely in the middle of the classical liberal tradition.

The problem is that these “newly established moral/cultural norms” are, in fact, inherently racist, sexist, and culturally biased. The difference is that the practitioners of post-modernism have changed the name of the enemy. Now, “males, whites, and the rich have their hands on the whip of power and they use it cruelly at the expense of women, racial minorities, and the poor” (Stephen Hicks).

According to them government laws and regulations (affirmative action, speech codes, “hate” crimes, etc., etc.) must be put in place to “control” white males and their racist patriarchy. If one is a “classical liberal” this new ideological/cultural tyranny must be opposed, continually and publicly. If the so-called “right” opposes post-modernism – good. But I, for one, have not heard any spokesperson for the “right” advocate governmental laws or regulations to prohibit, or in any way muzzle, the advocates of post-modernism.

Please provide references that prove your point, or leave the topic to others with greater knowledge.

The problem is that these “newly established moral/cultural norms” are, in fact, inherently racist, sexist, and culturally biased. The difference is that the practitioners of post-modernism have changed the name of the enemy. Now, “males, whites, and the rich have their hands on the whip of power and they use it cruelly at the expense of women, racial minorities, and the poor” (Stephen Hicks).

According to them government laws and regulations (affirmative action, speech codes, “hate” crimes, etc., etc.) must be put in place to “control” white males and their racist patriarchy. If one is a “classical liberal” this new ideological/cultural tyranny must be opposed, continually and publicly. If the so-called “right” opposes post-modernism – good. But I, for one, have not heard any spokesperson for the “right” advocate governmental laws or regulations to prohibit, or in any way muzzle, the advocates of post-modernism.

Please provide references that prove your point, or leave the topic to others with greater knowledge.

The problem is that these “newly established moral/cultural norms” are, in fact, inherently racist, sexist, and culturally biased. The difference is that the practitioners of post-modernism have changed the name of the enemy. Now, “males, whites, and the rich have their hands on the whip of power and they use it cruelly at the expense of women, racial minorities, and the poor” (Stephen Hicks).

According to them government laws and regulations (affirmative action, speech codes, “hate” crimes, etc., etc.) must be put in place to “control” white males and their racist patriarchy. If one is a “classical liberal” this new ideological/cultural tyranny must be opposed, continually and publicly. If the so-called “right” opposes post-modernism – good. But I, for one, have not heard any spokesperson for the “right” advocate governmental laws or regulations to prohibit, or in any way muzzle, the advocates of post-modernism.

Please provide references that prove your point, or leave the topic to others with greater knowledge.

The overwhelming majority of such “episodes” either occur in contexts where the distinction between public and private is ill-defined in the modern era, or occur as the result of profound institutional fear of litigation.

Utterly remove the capacity of litigants to seek large settlements for having their feelings hurt, and then we’ll see how much voluntary social enforcement of social norms there is.

The overwhelming majority of such “episodes” either occur in contexts where the distinction between public and private is ill-defined in the modern era, or occur as the result of profound institutional fear of litigation.

Utterly remove the capacity of litigants to seek large settlements for having their feelings hurt, and then we’ll see how much voluntary social enforcement of social norms there is.