Dak
mentat
"Freedom of speech sucks when it's not speech we like."
There's nothing new or interesting here. It's the same partisan shit on all sides for centuries.
If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
"Freedom of speech sucks when it's not speech we like."
There's nothing new or interesting here. It's the same partisan shit on all sides for centuries.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Of course you do. So did Repubs a mere couple of years ago. It's all a matter of expediency and power.
I'll at least grant you've been anti-"rights" as a concept for some time. But it's now becoming politically salient.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
rms
Active Member
thought it was agreed Murray's work on IQ is solid but his application to social and political theory is horseshit?
but yeah, nothing new with that NYT piece...
but yeah, nothing new with that NYT piece...
Dak
mentat
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
I think it's becoming politically salient to seriously consider what opinions are worth allowing into a public forum. An "anything goes" mentality is anti-developmental and regressive. I don't care if it's smug or elitist; the opposite is disorganized and dangerous. It doesn't have anything to do with rights (since no one has a right to a media platform) and everything to do with the consilience of modern society and advancement.
I was reading through the comments on Outside In the other day (which seems to have stalled), and the last one genuinely asks, if certain peoples are less intelligent than Euro-American whites, why shouldn't those peoples be enslaved? These kinds of opinions are increasingly finding their way into the public sphere and are being given media access. I don't think it's unreasonable or irrational to say that institutions should deny access to those who want to promote such ideas. There's simply no way that enslavement can be an ethical or net-positive idea, regardless of the cultural developments that occurred during times of slavery. Those eras are responsible for the discontent of modern times, and it's everyone's responsibility to avoid such discontent moving forward.
The white men who feel their opinions are being stamped out won't suffer socioeconomic disenfranchisement in the centuries to come because of this stamping out (although they may certainly suffer due to other socioeconomic issues). Their situation is qualitatively different from what blacks have endured for centuries. It's completely incorrect to claim their suffering is on the same level; but this is what we're moving toward, and it's because of what social media and discourse deem admissible.
Last edited:
Blurry_Dreams
Active Member
- Apr 2, 2018
- 5,356
- 479
- 83
- 47
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,843
- 670
- 113
From a purely idealistic standpoint, sure. But in reality it may be just as dangerous to start a tyranny on thought instead of allowing people of dissenting opinions to ask questions. I know it's practically a cliche, but this is a slippery slope, and a precipitous one at that.
Sounds kind of like a troll to me, but I see your point. However consider this more ambiguous example in the NYT article:
NYT said:
While this may not be an overly productive idea, it is certainly more eligible for discussion than the idea of enslaving idiot races. People with an inferiority complex may strive with a bit too much ambition to oust the status quo. This idea is worth considering in the increasingly divisive public sphere in my opinion, but it may not be in yours. Determining the boundaries of what is acceptably controversial and what is not is a rather nebulous pursuit, and I prefer to err on the side of free expression.
In one paragraph you say that we should stamp out discontent, but in this one you imply that some people should just shut up and deal with it. The discontentedness of white people in the US has become palpable enough to elect a provocateur as president. Most of these people arent benefactors of a past aristocracy, and they are not required to suffer the same hardships of people in the past to feel slighted.
Social change has never been a chess match between intellectuals. Right now in the US at least, we see a divide between the white working class (represented by themselves the the symbolic election of Trump) and the minority populations (represented by themselves and by "leftists" and college youth). Despite an increased emphasis on education, both sides have an extremely large and influential portion of uneducated representatives, all full of ideas and situational biases. What you propose is intellectually similar to that of which you reject: the enslavement of less intelligent individuals.
Dak
mentat
I've got a new avatar for you:
These "problematic" opinions were always there, and not allowing them a platform in traditional media didn't make them go away, any more than any other pogrom has ever been successful. There are few things more regressive than thought policing.
Saying that an idea or policy etc. can never be ethical or a net positive requires argumentation, not the smug self-satisfaction of one in power. Because power is a fickle thing.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Asking questions is a different thing than promoting racist ideology in the streets. I think more white people should be encouraged to ask black people why they shouldn't say the n-word, or how black people feel about different intelligence measurements.
I have to say, I believe it's possible to predict/assess language's impact. The problem with allowing totally free expression is that it treats language relativistically, which is precisely what critics of the left have been accusing it of for decades now. Language and ideas aren't just totally relative, because they structure our society. I think that rather than just letting people say anything, maybe we can make an effort to qualify the kinds of things that can be said. I don't think it's any more ridiculous than just letting people say whatever the fuck they want.
If I were to characterize my approach here, I'd say I'm trying to approach language scientifically. Observe what's said and its consequences, and compare what's said with what has been said in the past.
I did say that these are different kinds of discontent, though. I think we have to be able to make distinctions.
I really beg to differ. Not being given access to a platform to promote one's personal ideas is not even close to enslavement. I don't see how they're comparable, honestly. I'm not saying people should be arrested, fined, or even publicly maligned for saying certain things. I'm not saying they should be forced into manual labor for saying something. All I'm saying is maybe institutions should have protocols in place by which to restrict certain people's access to a megaphone.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Few/none on the right are saying that private media companies have an obligation to present all sides. It was Reagan's ending of "fairness doctrine" that ended that, after all. There's a difference between that and publicly-funded universities refusing to allow speakers that their own students have invited.
The idea that refusing to allow right-wing extremists (or whatever) a platform will accomplish anything is extremely naive when from the get-go more right-wingers are distrustful of the media than ever before. People can and do create their own platforms already. Europe is far more restrictive on free speech yet every single nationalist/right-wing populist party in nearly every single country is enjoying record victories.
The idea that refusing to allow right-wing extremists (or whatever) a platform will accomplish anything is extremely naive when from the get-go more right-wingers are distrustful of the media than ever before. People can and do create their own platforms already. Europe is far more restrictive on free speech yet every single nationalist/right-wing populist party in nearly every single country is enjoying record victories.
Dak
mentat
Which ones? The ones who do well on them or the ones who do poorly? Not that feelings about them matter anyway.
"Access to a platform." Then next is "Access to making a platform." And on it will go.
Institutions do have protocols to restrict speech. Employees can get fired, FB and Twitter ban users and delete posts, etc. Cracking down on a non-violent movement with force might end public displays, but only for a time, and there are usually bad unintended consequences.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Some of the most public personalities are saying that, actually.
For what it's worth, if there were radical collectivists arguing that private properties should be confiscated and redistributed to the commons, I'd say that those people shouldn't be given a platform either. But there really aren't any public personalities who advocate that.
If publicly-funded universities allow a controversial speaker a platform, then it shouldn't be an issue when those who attend that institution gather en masse to protest. Yet "the right" won't fucking shut up about it.
Actually, trying to impose some kind of sanctions on extremist speech is no more naive than thinking that permitting them to speak is somehow better. You're making judgments according to completely arbitrary standards.
And permitting them the opportunity to continue will somehow bring about their silence.
I'm not saying that policing speech is good or ethical, but maybe it's less unethical than apologizing for the kinds of ignorant attitudes we're seeing day after day.
I'm not really in the mood to argue about this because it's so diametrically opposed to what you and HBB think. But I'm glad someone actually pitched the idea. Unrestricted speech doesn't regulate itself; it gravitate toward the most vitriolic nonsense. I don't think it's unreasonable to admit some social measure to qualify language.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Such as? Ted Cruz sort of said that during that congressional meeting that Zuckerberg was at, though it was more of a stunt to win brownie points with the Republican base over "liberal bias" on Facebook than it was advocacy for right-wing extremists to be represented in all forms of media (Cruz specifically used a questionable piece of law that would apply to Facebook but not media companies). Otherwise, I don't know any.
Someone here, possibly not you but maybe Mort or Black Orifice, can't remember, posted a NYT piece honoring Marx just a month ago. Pretty sure you didn't speak out against that piece.
It is an issue when the protest uses violence to attack speakers and attendees alike. "Shut the fuck up, it's just rehabilitative violence you cunts."
How is permitting them to speak naive? Can you name a couple examples where a given society allowed too much free speech and it led to the rise of extremists? I could name countless examples where attempts to stifle some forms of speech led to far worse. Adams' use of the Alien and Sedition Acts led to significant backlash and probably helped to kill the Federalist party. The South had to first disarm and deplatform blacks before full suppression was possible. Woodrow Wilson's suppression of socialist speech through arrests and deportation was far less effective than FDR permitting most dissent and adopting a few socialist concessions. McCarthy's attempts at exposing and silencing communists did nothing to prevent colleges from turning left.
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,843
- 670
- 113
Well none of these questions is particularly productive, as you suggested social discourse should be. This has nothing to do with the conversation.
Well, in a free society, people should idealistically be able to dictate what they want. The people in power may be able to control this, but the everyday people should not feel as though they cannot express their opinion. How can we mediate opinions without eliminating legitimate questions? To me it sounds like you are trying to play god. Your judgment, or those of the educated, are not divine. What you suppose is not freedom, but enforced ideals.
I understand what you are saying, and strongly disagree. You want to regulate free speech in a way to eliminate dissent and encourage people to live by your ideals. This is only ok if you are somehow divine and separate from human judgment. You aren't. You are biased; so please dont think your opinion is somehow better than everyone elses. Science is a discipline meant to observe and make inferences, not to judge and confirm objectives.
So complaints should be arbitrarily ignored by people who know better? You are no better than your forbears with a different perspective.
The restriction of thought is definitely comparable to enslavement. Ultimately enslavement is forcing people to do as you wish. I mentioned enslavement as an intellectual equivalency, not as a physical restriction. Telling people what is legitimate or not to think is the epitome of Orwellian thoughtcrime. Who are you to be able to judge whether people's personal opinions matter or not?
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
I imagine that Ein would say that he doesn't think he should be the arbiter, merely "important institutions" should, or something along those lines. That's a copout though. As HBB pointed out, no one on the left is for policing the reverence of anyone on the left from Marx to Che, despite either the practical outcomes of their ideas, or those doing the enforcing. The "important institutions", etc., would only be important insofar as they lean left.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I mean, it's been a fairly common talking point among people like Hannity et al.
Haha, well I should have clarified. Marx is a dead 19thc philosopher whose work goes well beyond collectivism. I'm referring to active living radicals calling for the systematic execution of the bourgeoisie.
Single individuals resorting to violent actions isn't an excuse for shutting down protests entirely.
I can appreciate this, and the fact that there has never been a society (to my knowledge) that allowed pure, unadulterated free speech. The reason for this, however (this is inference, mind you), is that pure, unadulterated free expression is a fantasy of the liberal West. Since the American Revolution, freedom of speech has been idealized into this supreme commandment (thou shalt not infringe upon free speech) to be pursued at any cost.
I call bullshit on such a perspective, and would say that ultimately all developed societies advocate freedom of expression while simultaneously regulating what can be said. I don't view this as the tyrannical oppression of governmental overlords, but as the result of impersonal, multi-year (multi-decade even) conversations happening within a society over time--like how it was decided that the n-word isn't appropriate in social discourse.
I'm not trying to play god. I'm not even in a position to make decisions on this (that would ultimately land, presumably, on media and communications institutions).
I'm willing to have a meta-level conversation about it though, and that's something everyone can participate in.
I kinda think your bias toward unadulterated freedom (a fantasy) is preventing you from understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that my opinion should be held in higher regard than others, or that I'm unbiased. Everyone is biased, I'm not denying that.
What you and others have to understand is that I'm saying this could happen on a complex level. It wouldn't need to be hierarchical, but merely organizational. It would be part of a meta-level conversation about productive speech, rather than a hungry hungry hippos version of language gluttony.
Better or worse doesn't matter, and is largely immaterial. The perspective does matter though.
I'm not advocating that people do what I wish, or what any specific individual wishes.
If you carry your argument to its logical conclusion, then every individual is a slave to society. A sense of social obligation and conciliation is not the same thing as slavery. What Van Norden was saying about speech and mediation isn't that individuals should see themselves as the watchmen of a society that needs their wisdom, but as participants in a society that wants to improve.
Once again, I'm not saying that certain language should be illegal, or have penal consequences. Everyone can, theoretically, still say whatever the hell they want. I'm simply calling into question whether all opinions and comments should have equal access to platforms of distribution. I don't think, for instance, David Duke should have the same access to a university lectern as Henry Louis Gates. I believe there's a distinction in kind that can be made here. I don't think that makes me a power-hungry tyrant, but if you disagree then you disagree.
Dak
mentat
There are probably many leftists who think Gates should be deplatformed, or who would once all rightwingers were deplatformed. This is what the research on relative baserate bias shows. This is also the "ratchet" effect.
Similar threads
