Free Speech
Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 8:27 pm
This isn't facepalm but a stab at facepalm by Rowan Atkinson:
While I actually agree with most things he says in this speech, I do have to disagree with "intolerance of intolerance" just being another form of intolerance. That's simply the paradox of tolerance. By infinitely tolerating intolerant ideas, tolerance will eventually be destroyed by the intolerant.
I'm treading on the fine line between addressing the argument and addressing the man here, but I find this statement of yours very hard to take seriously when on Twitter you accepted the idea that giving offensive voices a platform is a form of "enablement", whatever the hell that means nowadays. When depriving controversial opinions platforms is, in effect, censorship.Darq wrote:To be clear though, I'm not suggesting we censor offensive speech. There is a difference between speech that is merely offensive and speech that is actually harmful. I'm strongly against the censoring of speech that is simply offensive.
I believe strongly in the protection of free speech. I believe it to be about the most important thing in the world, short only of the right to life itself. From it, all other rights are won. I do not suggest limits on it lightly.I'm treading on the fine line between addressing the argument and addressing the man here, but I find this statement of yours very hard to take seriously when on Twitter you accepted the idea that giving offensive voices a platform is a form of "enablement", whatever the hell that means nowadays. When depriving controversial opinions platforms is, in effect, censorship.
Unless, of course, the ideas in question were those you consider "harmful" rather than "offensive"
You ask this question with the implication of "we can't draw a line between the two", and therefore we should not take action. I reject that. Speech is not always harmless. Speech can sometimes be a performative utterance.Who gets to decide what crosses the line between the two? I think I've posed this question to you before. What can be brushed off with a smirk and roll of the eyes by one person will cause the other to take to the streets, wielding pink vagina hats, blocking traffic and demanding action. What one labels "edgy" another will downright label "Nazism" (which, to digress just slightly, is a term that I can no longer take seriously because the far left now use it to denounce even centrist ideas)
Who's right? Pun intended.
And should the public decide that some people don't deserve the right to free speech, or the right to life, on the basis of propaganda?I'd say give both a platform and let the public decide, but don't call the public "misogynistic", "sexist", "homophobic" or whatever when they disagree with an ideal on rational grounds, and then try and censor or de-platform (practically the same thing, if you think about it) their speakers or advocates.
We had a similar discussion on Telegram but there was a question you never answered, which I think is still relevant. You have an interesting point with the idea of propaganda working and it certainly can. But the thing about propaganda and all beliefs really, is that you feel they are true and not false beliefs. So the question I wanted to know, was how would you tell whether it is your opponent's or your belief that is the result of propaganda and not reasoning? Particularly, if you say certain ideas should not be debated. If one holds an incorrectly belief but is willing to challenge it, then there is the opportunity for it to change. If one holds an incorrect belief that includes a protection that "other beliefs are propaganda and should not be allowed" then there seems to be no mechanism for correction.
I think labels like "misogynistic", "sexist", "homophobic" and so on are of limited use. I think they are so broad as to be meaningless and rather muddy any discussion. For example, I've seen transphobic attached to people with as diverse views as "trans people deserve equal rights but we should use biological pronouns" to "transpeople do not deserve rights and should be exterminated." To label such a broad range with a single term seems completely unsuitable and risks alienating people who are in broad agreement but differ on certain details.Galahad wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 10:56 amI'd say give both a platform and let the public decide, but don't call the public "misogynistic", "sexist", "homophobic" or whatever when they disagree with an ideal on rational grounds, and then try and censor or de-platform (practically the same thing, if you think about it) their speakers or advocates.
Usually this limit is a direct incitement to harm. What I think is missing in this quoted section is the consideration that you are holding the speaker responsible for the action of a third party. That is why direct incitement is usually the line. People can be motivated to do things that were never intended by a speaker and it is not possible to predict ahead of time, what effect speech will have. It is not impossible for discussion on the risks of climate change to lead people to committing eco-terrorism but that is not a reason to ban discussion of the topic which highlights the urgency and need for action. There would be a reason to ban speech that says "you must go bomb this oil refinery."Darq wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 12:18 pm You ask this question with the implication of "we can't draw a line between the two", and therefore we should not take action. I reject that. Speech is not always harmless. Speech can sometimes be a performative utterance.
To use a topical example. Say BLF speaks to their constituents, they blame the hardships they suffer on white people. They suggest that white people are stealing from them, taking what's theirs, denying them their rights. They say that all white people without exception are racist, no white people are good, all white people should pay. They say that if they don't act now, white people will ruin everything! They slowly incite fear and hatred of white people, and dehumanise them. And then, predictably, there is an uptick in violence against white people. People get attacked for their race, and lead less pleasurable lives for fear of being attacked. And when policy decisions are being made, it's easier to discriminate, because the dehumanisation makes people less empathetic.
So then I ask. Is this okay? I used a local example and made it a little extreme, but this happens all over the world, most often to people of colour and to LGBT+ people. And the rise in hate crimes and domestic terrorist attacks is the consequence. Where to draw the line is a difficult question indeed, and not one to be taken lightly. But that doesn't mean we can just wring our hands and say that they are tied, when people are getting killed.
So this is honestly a great set of questions. And so far I think my stance limits the harm of not debating certain topics, based on a few things:We had a similar discussion on Telegram but there was a question you never answered, which I think is still relevant. You have an interesting point with the idea of propaganda working and it certainly can. But the thing about propaganda and all beliefs really, is that you feel they are true and not false beliefs. So the question I wanted to know, was how would you tell whether it is your opponent's or your belief that is the result of propaganda and not reasoning? Particularly, if you say certain ideas should not be debated. If one holds an incorrectly belief but is willing to challenge it, then there is the opportunity for it to change. If one holds an incorrect belief that includes a protection that "other beliefs are propaganda and should not be allowed" then there seems to be no mechanism for correction.
So this is where I think an interesting disagreement occurs. To what extent can we hold speakers responsible for the actions of their listeners, is a difficult question to answer.Usually this limit is a direct incitement to harm. What I think is missing in this quoted section is the consideration that you are holding the speaker responsible for the action of a third party. That is why direct incitement is usually the line. People can be motivated to do things that were never intended by a speaker and it is not possible to predict ahead of time, what effect speech will have. It is not impossible for discussion on the risks of climate change to lead people to committing eco-terrorism but that is not a reason to ban discussion of the topic which highlights the urgency and need for action. There would be a reason to ban speech that says "you must go bomb this oil refinery."
Nitpick but, "biological pronouns" aren't a thing... Pronouns are not based in biology, but rather in language. And as misgendering often causes provable distress to trans people, yes deliberately using the wrong pronouns would be transphobic. Even if to a FAR lesser degree than suggesting trans people should be exterminated. Fantastic video on pronouns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bbINLWtMKII've seen transphobic attached to people with as diverse views as "trans people deserve equal rights but we should use biological pronouns" to "transpeople do not deserve rights and should be exterminated." To label such a broad range with a single term seems completely unsuitable and risks alienating people who are in broad agreement but differ on certain details.