And this is why it's so important to maintain basic civility to everyone, regardless of political views.
I would encourage Americans to reject this type of culture and embrace freedom of speech and diversity of views. Reduce the number of taboo topics rather than increasing them. This modern blasphemy culture is spreading in many western countries. Reject it before it's too late. Conversations are good. It is how society moves forward. No good ever comes from silencing conversations.
Are we suggesting that we ourselves cannot handle hearing and rejecting the speech, or are we suggesting that other adults should not even hear hate speech because they might be influenced?
Either of those is a profound infantilization of the public.
I am capable of hearing hate speech and rejecting it. I trust most other mature adults can do the same. I reject the notion that anyone needs to protect me from hate speech.
If you don't need protection, great! But hate speech emboldens bigots. It has a chilling effect.
I don't see how I call everyone who disagrees a bigot. I'm saying that the very real process of gathering strength of the alt-right works through a lot of channels that have basically one thing in common, which is speaking hateful bullshit.
There are people who would benefit from some counter-process. (And a sample of one (koheripbal) who is fine is not a great counter-argument.) I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with this is a bigot. Far from it. Disagreements are healthy, especially constructive criticism.
If "emboldens" just means that they are speaking in a venue you frequent, then that isn't a problem.
> "It has a chilling effect."
The irony is that you are using a term that is actually a consequence of the actions you propose.
I'm perfectly aware. There's no irony. It's the dilemma of tolerance. Using oppression to minimize oppression. A chilling effect on undesirable ideas to counter their spread to counter the growth of groups whose presence and actions similarly lead to chilling effect.
The not so subtle difference is that one group sometimes commits acts of terror.
Yes, giving this capability officially to the state has serious consequences. Though it's not like states doesn't already have the capacity monopolized (and alas it's not like there are no abuses of state capacity without nowadays).
Obviously it's a lot harder to allow just one and not the other.
And again, it's exactly the nuance that's needed to separate these that are needed when one compares China, Iran, and the USA.
Executives ought to be able to express their views freely, also companies/shareholders ought to be able to freely replace executives they deem unfit (a bad fit for society).
Plus, there's a nuanced (even seemingly small) difference between state-supported oppression and "cancel culture".
Aaaand, finally, there's also a big difference between oppressing voices that call for more civil rights (eg. restrictions on what the state can do) versus voices that call for more state-supported restrictions.
Calling for more restrictions on women's rights in the name of babies is still supporting more rights for the state, whereas calling for more transparency, accountability, equality for citizens falls on the the exact opposite of this spectrum.
---
The conversation about babies' rights is very hard because that it naturally pits two very special groups against each other, babies vs women. Where the former doesn't have the capacity to represent themselves in any meaningful way. So society at large with its myriad voices tries to stand in for them. Any "executive" that just start talking about babies' rights better be prepared to brandish some big guns of philosophy, because so far this issue is so murky that respectable philosophy stops at "well, it's hard", and all we are left with is the endless lowing and parroting of indoctrinated fundamentalist followers of various religions.
"A bad fit for society"
Seriously. This reads like something straight out of the playbook towards a fascist state.
Not everyone who gets targeted as such holds those beliefs, sure, but they absolutely do exist in America. Until fairly recently, those people’s beliefs actually drove real policies in America that had real teeth and caused real suffering for real people. Of course we still see remnants of these policies and we certainly see knock-on effects of them today.
It would certainly help if the left did a better job at isolating those who actually hold the beliefs I listed above versus those who hold beliefs that are merely “in the orbit” of them. It would be great also if the right did a better job of isolating themselves and their own respectable beliefs from those beliefs that are not respectable.
But in any case to act like any belief that someone holds needs to be treated with respect and never framed as a direct affront to human rights, even if it is, shows a lack of knowledge about the range of things that people actually believe.
If you believe freedom of speech is a basic right, then you should also believe in protecting the right of bigots to spread diatribe.
This is about our society’s ability and justification to categorize beliefs into respectable or not. Some ideas are simply not deserving of respect, though of course all ideas are deserving of legal protection.
Nazis are allowed to march down 5th Avenue and the people who call those beliefs despicable are not “just as bad as the other side.”
Yes, and that ability does not include harassment, doxxing, threats, and attempting to induce employers and customers to end their relationships with them. That _is_ just as bad as the other side.
You say yourself that rights are sometimes at conflict with each other. That requires that sometimes rights are restricted to a point that other rights are not infringed. For instance we lock up dangerous people. Why do you think is freedom of speech is some kind of super-right that triumphs over every other right? Is freedom of speech more important even when it’s used to incite genocide?
A lot of that work involved dismissing some ideologies as fundamentally incompatible with America. Speaking of civility, one time we literally had to go to war with ourselves over what one side would characterize as a mere “political disagreement.”
The Constitution failed to protect people from systematic rape, torture, and forced labor for nearly the first 100 years of its governance over America. It failed to allow women to get credit before 1974. None of what we have today is guaranteed. Plenty of nations have slid backwards from liberalism.
We're talking about people not feeling comfortable having a debate over abortion (it's a third rail on either side to try and establish a time when a foetus becomes a recognized being). This is something we should be curious to establish a benchmark for. Both sides fear that if we establish a number of days at which then we can't have abortions after and the other side fears we can have abortions before)
Or are you suggesting that I cannot?
I am an adult. You don't need to protect me from hate-speech.
In it, I remember it depicted a Christian knight and an Islamic paladin with diametically and fundamentally opposed views (this was written in the middle of the Crusades) sitting down and sharing a civilized meal together and having a conversation. This is what a civilized dispute looks like. Later they might have fought each other to the death for their religion, but they were still capable of reason and civility.
Note that both Christian and Islamic sides were accusing each other at the time of cruel atrocities - and yet the Christian ideal of tolerance includes the possibility of civility with everyone, regardless of what the sides think of each other.
And the political left has been gaming that for years now by declaring that every entitlement and vote-buying scheme they've come up with represents a basic human right.
The way you've phrased it means that it's perfectly reasonable to be uncivil (violent) towards others. That's a breakdown of communication and has effectively "othered" the individuals/groups based on their disagreement with your framing of the topic.
It is, given the right situation. It is not as if the civil rights movement of the 60s got the very real improvements it did get by accepting being treated as crap. Rather, it got rather violent at times. What you suggest would make certain no real improvement could ever happen. Which make sense if you belong to the people that has a good situation in the current status quo, but it absolutely sucks for the people that doesn't. Quite often to change the status quo to the better you first need to make it unpalatable enough to the people that is favored by it.
Firm opposition does not imply that civility has to be dropped. In some cases it may even be counter productive since it ends up entrenching attitudes and positions.
We also need to be aware of how our own attitudes contribute to our own perceptions. It is not much of a leap to believe that we will be fired for our political views if we think that others should be fired for their political views, even if those beliefs and thoughts do not reflect reality.
I am not going to claim that civility must be maintained at any cost, there are certainly historical instances when it could not be. On the other hand, being proactive and civil will likely reap more positive change than the alternative.
Case in point: In Sweden any politician, and mainstream society in general, who even hinted at reducing immigration has been called a heartless racist for the last 30 years, completely shutting down debate.
The effect of this was predictable (indeed I've been saying it for about two decades): MORE people become anti-immigrant. (the Sweden Democrats are probably the biggest party now, if there'd be an election today)
When you're told by the press and politicians that even raising a topic makes you racist and you should be cancelled, you're not exactly going to be won over.
It's so sad to see from the sidelines. Why has the left shifted so much to shutting down all debate that isn't 100% in agreement with the party line? It's not that I disagree with them on the issues, it's that it's sad that they're not seeing how it's actively hurting their stated goals.
If Sweden is any predictor, then this is going to get much worse (or, if you're on the right, it'll get much better).
Every time someone who said "biological men should not be allowed to compete in sports with biological women" is called Hitler, that's one more person lost to your whole argument, and someone who says that Trump is an OK compromise, and who'll think "if that's your choice argument then you're too crazy to be listened to on abortion, too".
tl;dr: If you're choosing between "practical" and "effective", choose "effective". But also see history for how I think when you say "practical", you actually mean "low effort".
What it does is preserve the integrity of our open democratic system.
also, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
Liberty is always a balance act, because if you give bad actors freedom in the name of tolerance they will use it to reduce the freedom of weaker actors within society. If you live in a "survival of the fittest"-type society that might be acceptable, but that might not be a free society anymore because it fails to protect the freedoms of some within it. If you overregulate and control on the other hand, you will also reduce the total freedom within society.
This is a balance few nations on earth managed to get right for prolonged periods. In my eyes the US didn't get it right for quite a while. Civility is a part of it, but letting people get away with fascist behaviour in the name of tolerance/free speech will potentially put the US (and therefore the whole world) in a much, much darker place.
Lately it seems to be the most misrepresented part of Popper's "paradox of intolerance", where he defines intolerance as those who resort to violence instead of speech, and the would be censors of this age who bring up the paradox - without seeming to have read it - tell us that the intolerant are those we disagree with. "we" being those the would be censors disagree with.
> free societies stay free if they draw a clear line what is unaccepted behaviour
> if you give bad actors freedom in the name of tolerance they will use it to reduce the freedom of weaker actors within society
I agree. There is a clear line, which is crossed the moment someone resorts to violence instead of speech, and it has been drawn clearly in law. The bad actors would be those looking to reduce freedoms such as speech, based on nothing more than disagreement, which as it happens is something fascists (among others) have done when they've had the chance.
Popper e.g. also says that the goal of elections is to have a transfer of power without having to have civil wars, guillotines and other violent means. This means to prevent violence we have to maintain certain rules.
This doesn't mean however, that we have to wait till bad actors in fact act violently, after e.g. having stated they want to abolish these rules, after threatening violence, after breaking present rules and stretching present conventions etc. This means that he didn't want to suppress intolerant views (IF they can be hold in balance with rational arguments and public discourse) — instead he would plead to limit their effects on society (thus reducing potential future violence).
But it has been over a decade since I read Popper, so maybe you read something I didn't.
It's distinctly possible you've read more Popper than I have but his words seem very clear here too[2]:
> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion
He goes on to contrast that with those who give up on speech and respond with violence (and it's all within about a page).
So we have a clear line and there's no need to wait for violence to actually occur before legal remedy can be sought, which would appear to me to fit with Popper's statement and what you studied.
I completely agree with Popper on elections, and free speech fits the same mould, it's primary function is to reduce violence. Without free speech the options for those who wish to change society are only violent. With it there is no excuse for violence.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger
[2] https://archive.org/details/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPoppe...
Most people are not scholars, at best pundits, but even if they are, most of their thoughts are still not careful and nuanced constructive arguments.
And maybe, just maybe, putting some brakes on the global cyber hate wave machines, where anyone can share/amplify the most damaging shit with one click is not a bad idea.
That said, partisanship bias, fairness, justice are all related problems when it comes to how to apply those brakes.
And yes, the institutions are shit, both old and new. Academia, FB/Tw, MSM, parties/congress, religions. But they are not without advantages, not unsalvageable.
Other than that, I'm not sure what your point is.
Call for immediate violence is treated very much like violence in a lot of jurisdictions.
If you look at social media, they paint with a very broad brush.
...such a broad brush and so will to employ any means necessary to silence opposition, that they begin to resemble the fascists they purport to oppose.
What should be done if this rational argument doesn't work anymore and the public discourse is fragmented is (to my knowledge) not mentioned in his works.
An easy litmus test: are you advocating harm to a person for merely existing in the world, living with the skin color and sexuality they were born with, or making choices that don't harm anyone else? Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion and I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me.
It's a great thing to have political discussions and to try to see all sides of a topic. Your willingness to see the other side's points should stop at the point where the other side is actively trying harm people for the crime of existing in this world. (See also: antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, racism.)
But i feel that on the long term the list of ”too wrong to discuss” opinion tends to grow, until you reach the point where civil and peacefull discussion becomes impossible.
To me it seems this is the road U.S. is walking on.
The logical end to all of this exists in places in this world. You cannot share your opinion on Islam in some parts of this world, you’ll die. You cannot speak out against the government in China, you will be in jail.
It’s called political persecution. We are on the proverbial slippery slope.
The people that you think don't deserve civility in this scenario literally have the exact same viewpoint. This is the disconnect and it goes both ways.
Unless its straight up illegal, civility should always apply.
This a dog whistle. Please define "harm", and "existing".
This phrase is so often used by people who say "silence is violence" (it's literally not).
I don't think you're being honest in your argument, here. You are implying lynchings and holocaust, but is that truly the debates you're applying your litmus test on? I highly doubt that.
Are you not more likely to apply it to:
* trans women competing in sports with biological women
* abortion
* pronouns
* equality of outcome
right?
I'm not even saying I disagree with you on any of those points. But your "litmus test" allows you to point your finger where the harm is, and shut down debate, cancel the person, and "punch a nazi".
And you also consider yourself as having monopoly on defining what pros and cons fall under "harm", and "existing".
E.g. if you define misusing pronouns to be harm, someone else could define compelled speach to be to surrender the right to your own thoughts (2+2=5, from 1984). Again, I am not saying I disagree with you on the point, but both sides here have a very good case for screaming "harm!!!! I have harm here! Just for existing!!!".
Same with a trans woman competing with a biosex woman. "Harm for just existing" applies equally, actually, to both women. Now what? You're just stuck screaming "fascist!" to each other. Why? What are you actually trying to accomplish?
You will lose people with this attitude, not gain them. See Sweden and Trump.
> Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion
I don't think you know what "hate" means.
> I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me.
So you're admitting that your argument is based in threat of violence?
Just in case: speech, however abusive, or denial of association or services is never "harm".
Replying to a deleted comment: I think that white-only service is asshole behavior, just as holocaust denial and other stuff. I fight and would continue to fight it with education, counter-propaganda and civil boycott, but I would fight for those people to have legal right to do it without persecution by government at the same time.