Curbs on free speech are growing tighter. It is time to speak out
economist.com
economist.com
There is a big effort in the West to homogenize the world. Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad. Democracy is the best form of government. We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from.
But this is stagnating, and not everyone wants to live under the same set of global moral rules, especially since we seem to believe that morality is relative.
Freedom of speech is a big indicator of this. If people don't have freedom of speech, they likely are being restricted in other ways as well.
In real life, maybe a good analogue would be the existence of the 50 United (but independently-governed) States and the struggle against the tendrils of the federal government. Or a similar thing going on in the European Union. I don't politics much so maybe I'm way off.
This definition applies to everybody, moreso those who don't realise it applies to them
The irony is that in America this is considered "liberal." It is not -- liberalism is the opposite of much of what it's come to mean in America.
When I was growing up in the US it was conservatives that were trying to control speech and expression. They wanted burning flags to be illegal. They wanted limits on "offensive" speech, including erotic imagery on tv and in art, violent music and video games. They wanted to control what ideas could be expressed in school.
Now it has flipped. The "you can't say that" banner has been taken over by the Left in the US. I don't know what we should call Democrats now, but they're not liberal. (Maybe Democratic Socialists is a more fitting term.)
(Tangential: I'm really bummed out with how the Dutch govt has chosen to entirely ignore the outcome of the last Dutch referendum held on the 13th of April, 2016, which was about the EU's association treaty with Ukraine. Significantly voted against by citizens, Dutch govt and all other eu member states, all chose to entirely ignore the outcome - while to this day they choose words extremely careful to make it seem differently. Democracy, over here, has died to protect the status quo.)
>And my hypothesis, stated plainly, is that if you’re part of the Blue Tribe, then your outgroup isn’t al-Qaeda, or Muslims, or blacks, or gays, or transpeople, or Jews, or atheists – it’s the Red Tribe.
Both liberals and conservatives have deeply held beliefs that they do not want challenged. Eroticism is every bit as anathema to conservatism as anti-undocumented immigrant rhetoric is to liberals.
Pretty much everyone is in the "you can't say/do that" camp.
Imagine someone speaking out against a popular left-leaning causes like something that Obama would support. Now, imagine someone railing against a popular right-leaning cause, like something Ted Cruz would support. Do you think they'll get the same amount or type of counter-artuments, vitriol, or push-back?
For example, not having affordable healthcare affects people directly and might very well be a death sentence to some.
Often, popular left-leaning causes are like that - causes where people are left vulnerable if they lose: Equal rights for LGBT people, gender, race, and immigration issues, etc.
So of course, people are going to react very strongly to someone who is against that, because they are deeply and directly impacted.
But the reality is... there are elements in both of these thought groups that are extremely dangerous. Try telling a group of liberals, well, pretty much anything contrary to currently accepted liberal orthodoxy... and you'll see liberal "tolerance" in all its glory. Maybe you could approach them and argue that, perhaps, the bankers and CEO's deserve the billions they take out of the economy as remuneration?
Or try telling a group of conservatives something contrary to conservative dogma... let me know how it goes. Maybe you could attempt to explain, in front of a rally of rabid conservatives, that maybe the BLM people have a point about the militarization of the nation's police departments? Or, if you're feeling REALLY brave, lay out for them why their extremely conservative area would be well served by an abortion clinic.
You want to see "push back", argue for anything that partisan dogma does not allow.
I don't remember any liberals gunning down little old ladies at bible studies for being black either. That doesn't make liberals any more "tolerant" of opposing views or different people than conservatives are. Just as your example doesn't make conservatives any more "tolerant" than liberals are.
The reality is...
there are elements in both camps that are REALLY dangerous if you're challenging their preconceptions.
Have you ever considered that, perhaps, you don't see partisan thinking as having anything to do with the supremacist because you're invested in that school of thought? We tend to rationalize that which we are invested in... and I think you may be doing a little rationalizing.
Think of it this way... when a young man goes out and targets police officers to murder them, as Herschel Jones did in Ohio... is that an indictment of liberal rhetoric about police? Or is it a "...single guy off his nut...", nothing at all to do with anti-police rhetoric?
i think the notion of partisan offense and defense is quite well served
I am aware of law being made around not refusing service to various groups of people when you open and operate a business, but hey, business is something we as a society regulate, and saying "you have to serve everyone" has been working pretty well for a long time already.
But please, if you know of any leftist actually trying to ban speech with laws--and not just make it unfashionable or socially unacceptable--then please let me know.
Just because it's not the government pulling the trigger doesn't mean there's no gun.
Again, what I see from leftists is the desire to make a wide swath of speech (like casually sexist or racist stuff) unfashionable or unacceptable to use--and I see them using the only tool they have, which is their own speech. Not guns, not laws, but speech.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-ren...
Or maybe:
Both refer to removed posts, but one has someone encouraging riots if a Trump rally comes to town, and one wants violent left wing extremism.
I intentionally left my own views out of the last comment as I try to stay away from these kinds of discussions since they're rarely productive and my views are pretty all over the place and change frequently(other than free speech, it's pretty much the only thing I'm an absolutist on), but I've seen your last point stated more and more frequently lately and it rubs me the wrong way. One group is saying "You can't say X/you shouldn't be able to say X", while the other group is saying "Stop telling me what I can and can't say". The first group is trying to suppress opposing views directly, while the second is trying to suppress the attempted suppression of speech, not the opposing views themselves. They are not equivalent.
calling someone a racist for saying something isnt censoring them.
calling someone a bigot for their opinion isnt censoring them
if there is no official representative of the government deciding what is and is not acceptable, there is no censorship.
if you want to make an argument that tumblr users are immature and that using supression debate tactics is something you are uncomfortable with, then make that argument. you will likely find much greater support.
if you want to make an argument that censorship is happening, you need to provide evidence of a governmental authority classifying certain types of speech as unacceptable or illegal, since that is what the word you are using means.
here you have provided an argument that boils down to "well censorship should mean something different than what it means."
censor: to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
censor verb [T] us /ˈsen·sər/ › to remove parts of something, such as a book, movie, or letter, that you do not want someone to see or hear:
She opposes efforts to censor the Internet.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/censor
No, government involvement is absolutely not necessary for censorship. If your argument is that you're comfortable with this type of censorship, make that argument, but don't try to redefine the English language to suit your narrative.
> calling someone a racist for saying something isnt censoring them.
> calling someone a bigot for their opinion isnt censoring them
On this we can agree, since that's kinda the point of free speech. The idea isn't to make being a racist or being a bigot acceptable. The idea is to allow people to express any opinion, thought, view they may have without fear of adverse retribution so views that are based on falsehoods or ignorance can be argued against in the open. If a racist knows they'll lose their livelihood for expressing racist views in public, they'll only express them to people who they know will agree with those views. So you end up with a bunch of racists strengthening and confirming each others racist opinions. You suppressed their speech, but in doing so strengthen their views. On the other hand, if the worst you get for expressing a racist view is being told "You idiot. No, that's not actually true, and here's why" you actually stand a chance of getting them, or someone else that may be listening to the conversation to reexamine those views.
You don't cover a festering wound and hope it goes away, you open it up and remove or treat the infection. Pretending it's not there because you don't like it won't fix a thing.
The whole concept behind freedom of speech is so shitty views can come out into the open and get rightly destroyed.
Censorship needs a power structure to exist. A person choosing independently that they don't care for something isn't censorship, no matter how many people do it independently in a short period of time. What I find problematic is not "censorship," but close-minded attitudes where no matter what you're free to say others aren't listening. Them choosing not to listen is not the same as my restriction from presenting the idea, though.
I agree that you need a power structure to censor, but power structures come in many shapes, and governments don't have a monopoly on them (as much as they'd surely like to). Even here on HN, there are a few big names that could probably ruin a person's career with a single tweet.
I don't take issue with people deciding they don't agree with or don't like something. To me the issue starts when it changes from "you're wrong and your views are despicable" to "you are wrong and your views are despicable so you shouldn't be allowed to express them".
>"Blue is clearly a superior color to green"
>"No, if you read up on it, you'll find that green is better because...."
Totally ok with that, no censorship.
>"Blue is clearly a superior color to green"
>"You're wrong and an idiot, I'm going to refrain from interacting with you in the future"
Still ok with that, no censorship, annoying without justification (and imo shitty to discount a person due to a single view, especially in unrelated topics, but that's just me) but that's about it.
>"Blue is clearly a superior color to green"
>"I'm going to tell your employer and as many people as I can that you're a hateful blueist and make sure you're fully ostracized from the Wavelength community."
Alternatively,
>"I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution."
This is what I'm not ok with. It goes from disagreeing to suppressing. You're no longer choosing what YOU don't want to listen to, but making that choice for everyone.
Edit: Also, knowing that your position goes against the norm isn't knowing that it's incorrect, nor does it necessarily mean that it is incorrect. Seventy years ago, having the view that people can get married regardless of skin color would be knowingly going against the norm, and 10 years ago it was the same regarding gender, yet I'm glad that people were able to express those views.
As a society, we absolutely have a need to educate. In individual instances, most of the time I find it's not worth doing more than pointedly saying, "RUDE," and walking away. (This is when presented with bigotries, not just any idea I disagree with. I'll listen to you be wrong about using emacs instead of vim all day, I won't listen to you be wrong about whether or not a class of people deserves to be treated equally, especially if membership to that class of people is involuntary.)
On HN, there are people who can have a negative effect on you or your career, and you should conduct yourself as such on here. It's a public, non-anonymous forum and should be treated as such. In addition, there's a difference between well-intentioned opinion that comes from an ignorant place and an ill-intentioned one. "Kill all bluists," is different than, "Bluists are more likely to commit violent crime."
I'm not saying the status quo is always right, nor am I trying to imply it, rather I'm stating that you should have defensible rationalizations for their opinions whether or not they fit the status quo, but if they differ you should be able to reason it. If you don't have a thought-out reason for your opinions and you still find them valid, there's no way for a conversation to actually occur.
As for "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution." You lost me, I don't exactly understand the point that you're making with that example, is there a more concrete example you can give?
right, no censorship. for there to be censorship, there has to be a censor. that has to be a governing authority with the capability to say X is not allowed. Tumblr bloggers have no such authority, and cannot be censors, and therefore cannot censor speech.
also conveniently not included in your definitions of censor
>a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter
>b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
>2: one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
care to guess what an official is in this context?
It isn't clear at all that the government should prevent an independent contractor from deciding who they want to work with.
Your comment, as written, is an example of a trivial dismissal of a legitimate concern regarding freedom of association and contract. There are indeed attempts to force small businesses to conform. This one: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... comes to mind.
I mean, come on, if you're such an asshole that you really, really need to discriminate against people for whatever reason, then say "sorry, we're booked up". Otherwise, make the stupid cake, whether the couple is gay, or mixed-race, or whatever. And if you can't do that, don't start your own business.
But I think there is some kind of persepective that has to be maintained. For something that isn't an essential public accomodation, let the money talk. If your baker won't bake you a cake, give your money to one who will.
I think there is room to tolerate different points of view on who a person should be forced to accept as a customer. If you run a web development business and were approached by a customer to build a (legal) porn site, but pornography is against your personal values, should you be obligated to accept the job, when there are countless other web developers who will gladly take the work? Or be forced to choose between earning a living at your craft vs. compromising your values?
its amazing when people who completely lack the perspective of the civil rights era, claim that we all need a little more perspective.
>For something that isn't an essential public accomodation, let the money talk. If your baker won't bake you a cake, give your money to one who will.
right, i mean - if i owned a building i certainly wouldnt want black people using my water fountains. and hey whats the big deal? its not some essential public service they are being denied. theres water fountains and restaurants everywhere!
as long as gays have a separate but equal method of gaining access to cakes, whats the problem?
An independent/small family bakery, or photographer, etc. who may not even have a retail storefront who won't service gay weddings, I would consider "not a real problem" because they really are only limiting their own business by operating that way.
So a "No gays allowed" sign on a walk-in retail storefront would be bad, but a "Gays need not call" ad in the yellow pages[1] would be "not a real problem"?
[1] Or however these non-storefront businesses connect with customers.
If you want to live in a world without discrimination (as I do!), that's your right and you can enforce that within your state or move to a state where it is enforced, but if there's another state that you don't live in, mind your own damn business and let them set whatever laws they want.
To get along with others you need to follow some sort of conduct, but reach each group should be free to set their own code.
Given two cake makers in town, if one is happy to provide cakes to gays, and the other is not, in general the town will provide custom to the shop whose stance they agree with.
By passing a law that forces both shops to behave the same way, the opportunity for social pressure to be applied is reduced.
I think quite a lot of leftists/progressives would be happy to see hate speech laws passed in the U.S. They don't yell for those laws directly because they know they wouldn't get any traction (yet). Instead they chip away at the edges where they can get more support.
I've seen free speech leftists complain about the anti free speech left too. Support for free speech used to be almost the defining value of liberals/progressives. Not any more.
True, as far as it goes. However, it wasn't just "conservatives" who wanted this. Extreme leftists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon were right there with them.
Statists gonna state. It doesn't really matter that much whether they call themselves "leftist" or "rightist". What really matters is whether, and how much, they want to control other people.
Just looking at those issues it seems like there is one pretty clear moral stance to cover them all - as long as what you do does not have negative externalities go ahead and do it. Homosexuality does not have any negative impact on other people. Neither does marijuana. Pedophilia does. As does most heroin use (not all but a significant amount will lead to crime, burdening the health system etc.). Apply the moral rule above and you should only get restrictions on things that are going to negatively effect society. The problem is when you start to apply your own morals to society (religious beliefs for example). Then you start restricting behaviours which have no actual impact on your life.
What if someone disagreed with you on one of the issues you bring up? I'd like to think that here, on HN, the two of you would have an interesting discussion and, at worst, part ways agreeing to disagree. In other parts of life or the internet that other person (or you) may not be so lucky.
What if someone disagreed with the assertion that Jews or Black people should be societally accepted? Would you really just say "Kudos to you for daring to voice a dissenting opinion!" and relish the opportunity to have an "interesting discussion" about it?
Some opinions are just dumb and/or hateful and do not need to be politely debated online at every opportunity. It doesn't mean they should be censored, but it doesn't mean they should be treated with respect either.
And most people do believe that homosexuality causes a net harm to society (probably falsely, but still.) Or that marijuana is a net harm, etc.
And even if we establish what does and doesn't have externalities, the idea that they should be legal isn't universally agreed on, obviously. I mean heroin addiction causes a lot of harm and is probably a net negative utility to users. Even if it's voluntary, the world would probably be better off without it.
The world is not black and white, and you may even find cases where legalized abuse and harm are beneficial to a society, or where it is discovered that something like responsible pedophilia could exist. We don't know, but if we ban everything we personally dislike or disagree with on a global scale, we never will find out.
My view here would be both should be legal. Any of the negative effects to society of heroin use will already be covered under current law (theft for example). You can derail your own life if you want, as long as it doesn't effect society at large.
>> "Areas where child porn is legal tend to have reduced rates of child abuse."
You're forgetting that children were abused to create that content in the first place. And even if no more was ever created the physiological damage to the persons who know pictures of them are out there is undeniable.
>> "if we ban everything we personally dislike or disagree with on a global scale, we never will find out."
I think that was my point. We should not restrict things based on our personal morals. If it causes harm to society restrict it. If not, even if you disagree with it, allow it.
Not necessarily. We could easily use technology to create virtual child porn, where older actors have their appearance digitally changed (like Avatar). Unfortunately, even that's illegal, for no good reason.
If you don't agree with all of this, you are literally Hitler.
One thing I noticed a few years ago is that if a person has any level of social media presence and they're either outspoken or unlucky then they risk an internet mob being turned against them. Sometimes this "only" results in harassment and death threats. Other times this has real-world consequences such as for Gregory Elliott[1]. We've had mobs attacking individuals since forever, but the internet makes it much easier and almost consequence free to dog-pile the "offending" view and shut the person down, or even hurt their livelihood. Ex: it's much easier to send a threatening DM or doxx a person than to go outside and protest. The lesson here is: either keep quiet, don't have a social media presence, or firewall your more outspoken social activity from your "real self".
The other case I noticed is the radicalization of thought in the "you're either with us or against us" approach. Instead of explaining their position or answering a person's online question (even by dismissively linking them to Wiki or LMGTFY), people choose to attack them as a path of least resistance. As anecdotal evidence, I've seen people belittled and harassed on facebook, reddit and twitter for asking any of the following:
* Why should we legalize Marijuana?
* Why is BLM important?
* Why should I care about ${cause}?
Some folks try to answer and educate, but they're far in the minority from my casual observation. Overall, I'm concerned that as the amount of distractions in our lives increases our capacity for opposing views or meaningful conversations decreases because there's simply way more for us to do that is more fun or important to us.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott : There are many more examples of this. I'll avoid posting them because nothing in life is clear cut and I want to avoid derailing my point.
People suddenly realize that they can't explain their reasoning, they get embarrassed/frustrated, and to save face they start playing dirty. This happens with software design decisions too!
The conspiracy theorist in me suspects some level of govt involvement in these SJW hit squads. They have much to recommend them to a totalitarian administration trying to work around the constraints imposed by, say, a "bill of rights". You can neutralize and/or make examples of people who commit acts of wrongthink without being seen getting your hands dirty.
At some point (cough Facebook, Google) that changed.
Social media is not a toy. Google is not a toy. In a way we are lucky to have been spared the worst possible scenario in which these technologies and all their data on us is turned against us, but it could happen at any second.
People need better education about this. This is something that everyone should learn in school.
One of the most important properties of the internet is that the internet is media access. The concept of "fame" used to be something you bought into. Now, fame happens to you. You may be writing for the group of peers that you informally "hang out" with, but they can spontaneously transform into "an audience" that has (sometimes inconsistent) expectations.
We're used top fame being something you can walk away from. If you bought into it, you can always go back to your "normal life". The rockstar can give up the record deals and do something else with their life. The problem with the new situation is that their "normal life" is the source of fame. To walk away from fame now requires people to walk away from their normal life.
I don't know what the solution is - perhaps some new sort of 'etiquette' is needed - but a very good analysis of the problem is the video essay "This Is Phil Fish"[1]. May HN readers will recognize that name as the author of "Fez", but as the essay mentions at the beginning, "This is about everybody in the world who isn't Phil Fish". I encourage everyone to watch [1], so we at lest have a clear understanding of the problem.
However, as others have mentioned, there is a huge risk gradient to overcome for students wishing to drop out to stand behind their principles. They need to be somewhat reassured that they are not gambling their careers away.
One way that those out in the workforce could help would be to make a hefty and very public effort to hire as many of these dropout students as possible, credentials be damned. That's how it used to work back in the day anyway, why can't it be done again? With all of the excipient courses that one is forced to take that have little or nothing to do with one's profession, they won't be missing out on much.
Not all colleges/universities have gone bad, and that's a good thing, because intellectual discourse is supposed to be the point of university, not (just) vocational training.
That's because it's not called "censorship" any more. Instead, people will label a person whose speech they dislike as a racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, anti-semite, misogynist, etc. Sure, people with such views exist and we should debate how we, as a society, want to respond to such views.
What is the problem is the unwritten expectation that, once identified as such by almost anyone, you are excluded, attacked, and told to "shut up". For a regular person it's often enough to be labeled in this way once for their social or work prospects to either be ruined or hurt. Worse, the label will still stick, even if later this person is exonerated.
It came out as more flippant than I intended, but I'm being quite serious, and my real question is genuine: what can be done--other than suppressing communication about the judgement--to render the consequences other than life ruining?
Which university is this, if I may ask?
yes, in university there are children who are so appalled at the injustice of the world that they react .. as children
but you can't dismiss the academy for their actions
Which campus are you talking about?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/ohio-sta...
Even for people that are relatively non-conformist this places a much higher burden on controversial speech. In other words it costs more to say something controversial. Therefore, less people say it. Therefore the pool of people capable of hearing it and repeating it shrinks.
The internet I think, therefore, does by its nature (at present) ensure greater homogeneity of thought, despite the fact that it has vastly increased the overall space and speed of discourse.
I don't see any obvious solution, except more individuals accepting the burden of saying things they know will cause them difficulty. At the same time those individuals must also lend an ear to the ideas they least like to hear.
Which, let's face it, sounds like a dreary pain in the ass.
Until everyone in the world agrees on one brand of morality, we must preserve the ability to discuss and debate it. No group can place themselves into the "we're clearly right" box, because historically, that hasn't turned out well, despite the best of intentions. Losing friends over a difference of political opinion is less of a concern than ending up in a society that got morality "wrong" because of an anomalous groupthink feedback loop.
Maybe this is debatable or plain wrong, but, to me, it looks like traditional sources of ethical/moral authority (mostly religious) in America have lost most of their power, their influence, their credibility.
But, as you say, we still want a powerful moral authority or ethical guidance system. And it appears that we have increasingly turned to the US Supreme Court for answers and validation.
Unless it disagrees with us, in which case we write about how corrupt and stupid it is.
http://m.startribune.com/don-t-give-condoleezza-rice-a-platf...
Which is a stance you can agree or disagree with, but seems irrelevant to whether they would be offended by what she said, or whether they needed further exposure to her ideas, and so including it in this article seems a bit of a stretch.
edited to add:
Thinking on this further it undermines the whole thesis, which appears to be "students shouldn't try to censor, as it gives aid to authoritarian regimes who want to censor".
Yet the example they give is students protesting a powerful, high-level member of government for involvement in what they believe to be illegal activities that resulted in millions of deaths. So surely by attacking that, they give aid to authoritarian regimes by their own argument?
The rest of us can really take a look at such ideas and the people voicing them and see just how bad they are. Once we see them, we'll reject them.
OTOH, if government or other actors suppress such speech, fewer people get a chance to see it, evaluate and reject it.
Of course, that whole theory presupposes that the vast majority of people in society will evaluate such speech well. It places a lot of trust in the people and in the conversation and in the process.
Stops people with these types of views being seen as the underdog that's being oppressed for going against authority.
If we allow our intellectual leaders to censor, what's to stop our political leaders to not follow suit?
It seems absurd to compare the repressive power of the Communist Party of China to a liberal student union.
Even if you wanted to brush off campuses censoring, you can just look at the upper echelon of the political spectrum and see it's already a problem. President Obama has jailed several journalists in his tenure, more than any other President in U.S. history. We mock Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others for doing the same. Campus censorship is a symptom of a much larger problem.
Wait. What?
Which journalists has Obama jailed?
How many journalists did other presidents jail?
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/...
The high profile cases were James Risen & James Rosen.
I read those two links, but, I don't seem to see where Obama jailed any journalists.
The stories there appear to be about government employees who gave out information they were not supposed to give out. As far as I can tell, and, please correct me if I'm missing the point, the journalists were not prosecuted in these cases.
Do I have that wrong? What am I missing here?
Again, thank you for the reply.
That's the inherent irony, which is actually the opposite case of what you are saying. People are offended and are using their free speech in an attempt to end free speech. Those opposing are arguing back (like you're supposed to), not advocating for censorship. Totally different approaches.
Emmett hasn't been censored (his original tweets remain), but his tweets have clearly had consequences
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-ren...
We live in a country where the third form is the only one we experience.
If the government actually bans men from talking about feminism, that would be censorship.
An individual yelling at you to shut up because they think you are an idiot is not censoring you. They're exercising their own right to free speech. You have the freedom to react however you want in response to them -- yell louder yourself if you want to.
Yelling at them that they're censoring you, however, is factually incorrect.
And if you equate their actions to censorship and the assassination of journalists, then be prepared to have other people point out that you don't know what you're talking about.
And feel free to downvote me as much as you like...
Take climate change for example: that it exists is not a subject of debate. It does, and we've caused it. There is absolute scientific consensus on this fact, just as there is on the equality of people.
Are we still supposed to argue with people who ignore objective truths as if we're just having a simple disagreement?
It's not that discourse is worse because offensive ideas are unacceptable – I'm sincerely glad that homophobia, racism and other ideas like that are considered improper. But I do worry that the nuance is drowned out by the prevalence of personal attacks, such that it becomes difficult to have any constructive discussion. Terms like 'racist' or 'homophobe' become thought-ending clichés, and the core of that problem is that it's really difficult to settle on a universal definition of what those things are.
I'm probably worrying about nothing and it's not that big a deal in practice. It still makes me uneasy that the concept of banning speech is so readily accepted by so many people, when I'm convinced that the best way to tackle extreme or prejudiced views is to allow them to be openly aired, and openly challenged so they can be exposed as wrong.
I think it goes even further than politicians though. I only have my personal experiences, but to me it seems like regular European liberals have started self-censoring and to keep some opinions behind closed doors. I've always been fairly vocal about my opinions online, and about two years ago I wrote an innocent but critical comment on the rising nationalism in Europe which ended up in a non-liberal news paper. This resulted in Death threats and an order of Pizzas to my home.
Pizzas are nice, but it's also a strong message if you want to tell someone you know where they live. The newspaper was kind enough to remove any references to me, but I've certainly been sure to value anonymity in the political realm since.
assassination is one approach, but there are others