Rufo Vs. Jussim

And little old me, caught in the middle.

Update 11-23-22

This is what the debate comes down to. Is Rufo being accused of ‘stochastic terrorism’ because his criticism could ‘incite’ a physical attack on the groups he criticizes? In the liberal tradition, criticism is allowed because of the necessity for free speech, while in the Marxist-Critical-Social Constructivist tradition, criticism needs to be policed to ensure that it doesn’t cause ‘harm.’

In other words, if I criticize some group (I’ll go with the Amish, because they’re unlikely read this, and also I’m apparently related to them), and some dingbat goes and attacks the Amish, did my criticism of them ‘harm’ them in a criminal sense such that I should be investigated and punished.

Traditionally, speakers have not been accountable for violence caused by people who listen to them, circa 1949’s Terminiello v. Chicago decision. Progressive activists, of course, have a long history of cancelling, deplatforming, and attempting to silence speech they disagree with, and would like to see this standard changed in order to protect marginalized groups from hate.

---

Part 1

It’s been quite an experience working with Lee as a postdoc and getting invited to play in the big leagues alongside people I studied in grad school like Jonathan Haidt (who I had the pleasure of meeting at HxA in Denver this year [2022]), Christopher Rufo, and others. For someone’s who original career inspiration didn’t go much beyond teaching Philosophy at a community college, there’s been a bit of the ‘Country Mouse in the Big City’ feeling to becoming an academic pirate and engaging people I had previously only read about.

But here I am, and it’s a pirate’s life for me, so here’s my take on the Twitter debate between Dr. Lee Jussim and Director Christopher Rufo:

Here is the original letter in full at the heart of the dispute from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Children’s Hospital Association to Attorney General Merrick Garland regarding the negative public reaction to the medical facilities involved with gender transition of minors.

Below is the first half of that letter, with the sections in dispute between Director Rufo and Dr. Jussim:

Related letters include this letter from the Department of Justice to State Attorneys General on transgender issues and this letter to the DOJ from detransitioners at Reality’s Last Stand.

---

The issue can be followed on Twitter from Dr. Jussim's POV and from Director Rufo's POV.

Following the DOJ investigating concerned parents as potential terrorists (a charge DOJ denies) after Director Rufo reported on issues like Critical Race and Gender Theory, he was concerned that he would be investigated by the DOJ for his research and coverage of transgender youth medical clinics, tweeting,

“This is now the Left's playbook: last year, the National School Board Association, Department of Justice, and F.B.I. worked together to label parents who opposed critical race theory "domestic terrorists." They want to stifle dissent, suppress speech, and criminalize opposition.”

Dr. Jussim said that this fear was unfounded, saying that the letter only requested DOJ investigations of DOJ bomb threat makers, and that ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ providers should -only- be censored by Big Tech.

(Note - Here is my related article on why the attempt to establish a Ministry of Truth / Disinformation Governance Board that can deem certain viewpoints mis- and dis- information is a terrible idea that’s extremely likely to backfire)

Leftwing Pink News and Rightwing 1819 News both read it in the same way as Dr. Jussim.

---

However, I initially read it in the same manner as Director Rufo (uh, sorry Lee!), and I think this is a case of what Joseph Heller/🎵 Kurt Cobain meant by:

In isolation, it appears that the interpretation of the letter by Dr. Jussim, Pink News, and 1819 News is the literal, correct one. Only this didn’t occur in isolation. There’s a lot happening around the globe to combat mis- and dis- information / criminalize dissent / police thought crime and that there’s a certain cop-at-the-door, “You don’t mind if I come in for a second, do you?” vibe to the letter that Director Rufo and I are picking up on here.

So first, globally, there’s a lot of cracking down on free speech.

To begin with the a flagrant example, The Communist Chinese Party has a Social Credit System (SCS) that absolutely criminalizes speech that the CCP doesn’t like.

Here is a great article on how SCS's work and how they're being adopted into Europe.

And it’s not just Europe. Here is Poytner's article on misinformation campaigns around the globe:

---

Back in the USA, California Bill AB-2098 puts doctors at risk for losing their license if they dissent from the government’s official position and spread ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ about Covid or vaccines. The bill reads, in part:

2270. (a) It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

Paypal just (they say accidentally) announced that they’d dock $2,500 from any account belonging to anyone whose speech they found promoting “intolerance that is discriminatory” or "hate."

Alex Jones was just ordered to pay (as of Oct. 2022) nearly a billion dollars for saying that the Sandy Hook shooting was a false flag (and profiting from it).

Lawsuits and the Heckler's Veto to cancel and deplatform controversial and Conservative speakers from campus has become common. FIRE has tracked these campaigns, which cut across partisan lines. Authors are regularly stopped from being published or promoted for ideological reasons. Professors are regularly fired or not hired for having Conservative or heterodox views, or telling benign jokes. As Walter in the Big Lebowski put it so well,

---

Hopefully the DOJ doesn’t come after Director Rufo, and Dr. Jussim is right that he’s safe from legal prosecution and censorship by large social media corporations. Technically, Dr. Jussim and the news organizations discussing the matter seem to be in the right about the threat in the DOJ letter being limited to censorship for ‘mis- and dis- information,’ even if what he is saying is true.

Legally, he should be ok because of Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969) and Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), but I don’t think he’s wrong for feeling like a marked man in a world that’s increasingly not ok with dissent of dominant, often progressive, paradigms.

Were I him, and I read that letter in this crazy world in which we live, would I trust the DOJ and social media companies to not prosecute and censor me unjustly?

I personally would not trust either organization to play by the rules at this point.

Yours in Negativity Bias,

Dr. Nathanial Bork

---

Part 2

I'm a moron. The answer was obvious and I completely missed it.

Dr. Nathanial Bork

Reacting to part 1:

1. Lee Jussim is one of the great champions and defenders of the Enlightenment Liberal tradition, specifically as it relates to post-positivist empirical knowledge and the need to prevent its abuse for political reasons.

2. Christopher Rufo is one of the great challengers of Critical Theory, specifically Critical Race and Critical Gender Theory, as manifest in education and public health policies.

3. I’m an Enlightenment-Liberal rooted Philosopher with a Ph.D. in Political Theory, with an emphasis in Critical Theory.

That’s why I’m seeing what Rufo is seeing. In a straightforward reading of the letter, there’s a clear delineation between critics like Rufo (who they call upon social media to censor) and bomb-threat-makers (who they call upon the DOJ to investigate and prosecute). It’s written badly such that it conflates the two, but reading it within the Liberal tradition makes that seem like an error.

But Rufo is keenly aware of Critical Theory, and within Critical Theory there’s this concept by Marcuse of ‘Repressive Tolerance.’ Repressive tolerance says that anything that could cause harm to a minority, in this case trans-people and trans-children, cannot be tolerated because those thoughts necessarily manifest as harm via repression. Rufo’s thoughts and words need to be stopped within this Critical tradition, and he knows this, so he’s been anticipating this move and Boom! - here’s a letter to the DOJ that conflates the two in calling for criminal prosecution.

You see this idea everywhere now in the fields colonized by Critical Theory thinking: ‘Silence is violence,’ ‘Whiteness is a pathology,’ ‘Masculinity is toxic,’ etc. That’s at the heart of why people who don’t accept Critical Theory have to be expelled from academia (and from there corporate America and the government and everywhere else). The rejection of Critical Theory thinking is itself a form of violence that cannot be tolerated. This is Kendi’s ‘everything is racist or anti-racist’ and DiAngelo’s ‘White Fragility’

That’s why Rufo sees himself included in the list of “those responsible,” whom the letter calls to prosecute. That’s why Lee can separate out the physical threat makers from the critics, leaving one to be handled as “violent criminals” by law enforcement and the others to be dealt with within the spectrum of “bad speech,” which is sometimes, and sometimes not, censored in social media. This is happening, “Because, remember, the violence is rooted in intentional misinformation.”

I can’t believe it took me this long to realize what was going on. I literally exist academically at the intersection of the Liberal and Critical traditions, and somehow I totally didn’t catch this until after publication. Yeesh.

-Nate