5 ms·

In 32 states it is legal to fire a person for being transgender. In practice people get fired illegally for attempting to unionize the workforce. Or for complai

by gizmo 11y ago

In 32 states it is legal to fire a person for being transgender. In practice people get fired illegally for attempting to unionize the workforce. Or for complaining about violations of labor laws. Or for being gay. Or for having the wrong political views. People get fired for expressing themselves all the time. And since business leans conservative right people on the left face the brunt of this discrimination. Free expression has never been without consequence in the United States or anywhere else. Any serious talk about free speech should focus on the core issue: people in power abuse their power to punish the powerless when they express themselves in the wrong way. Students have practically no power or influence in society. So even if these "SJWs" are entirely unjustified in their actions the impact on society is utterly negligible. This is why the panicky reaction in the linked article about student activists repressing free speech is so comical. If anything, the student activists increase free speech by giving a platform to those people who would otherwise go unheard.

golemotron 11y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right. If there's anything to be learned in school, that's it.
- gizmo 11y ago
  The moment you give people a little bit of power they'll find a way to abuse it. People can be really petty and spiteful. What happened at this university is no different from a secretary deliberating forgetting to book a hotel room for the person they like least in the group. No different from the clerk at the DMV sending you to the back of the line because you made a paperwork mistake. Where is the moral panic about this type of petty nonsense? Nowhere! Because we recognize it's petty nonsense, and not worthy of hand-wringing commentary or a national conversation. But when it comes to students and free speech and safe spaces every news channel and every major magazine is talking about it like it signifies the end of Freedom itself. It's totally absurd.
  - golemotron 11y ago
    The secretary knows he's doing something wrong.
    - gizmo 11y ago
      You'd be amazed at how creative people are at rationalizing their actions.
      - golemotron 11y ago
        I've known. It's certainly on display these days.
  - Overtonwindow 11y ago
    Oh wow this is very good. I wrote out this long paragraph but you said it much better and more succintly.
  - hsod 11y ago
    > Where is the moral panic about this type of petty nonsense? I think the difference is that petty nonsense on college campuses is publicized and quasi-institutional. If, somehow, a DMV employee was publicly and proudly making people they don't like go to the back of the line, and they had powerful people aligned with them, there would be some outrage. While a few overzealous activists are not going to end Freedom itself, I (and apparently many others) still want to confront petty nonsense when it begins to institutionalize (by being supported by faculty/admin or influential media members).
    - fluxquanta 11y ago
      >If, somehow, a DMV employee was publicly and proudly making people they don't like go to the back of the line, and they had powerful people aligned with them, there would be some outrage. What about a county clerk refusing to sign legal marriage certificates for gay couples?
      - 11y ago
elect083839 11y ago
Ironically, by pivoting the discussion to systemic power differences as justification for large groups of students to disallow smaller groups of their ability to voice their opinions by passive-aggressive force, you are supporting the conceptional framework that in large part allows the abuses of power, which can be aggressive force, you oppose. If it is wrong for the powerful to prevent the less powerful from speech, then it is wrong for the large to prevent the smaller from speech even the majority against the minority. The 'core issue' of free speech has never been the opposition of those in power with the speech of a majority, even a localized majority, but the empowerment of every individual to speech regardless of their opinions popularity or any of its other attributes, except for those who cause tremendous harm. If it is wrong for the government because it is more powerful to abuse their power, it is wrong for the group because it is larger to abuse their size to limit others. I think the cause of this whole situation is due to the conflation of speech meant to harm other persons (i.e yelling fire, inciting a riot) and speech that causes subjective discomfort or intellectual disagreement. One is a crime, and the other is the heart of every civil discussion.
- gizmo 11y ago
  I'm pivoting the discussion so that we can look at the actual consequences of (putting limits on) speech, instead of categorizing "free speech" as a silly absolute. I showed how true unlimited libertarian free speech doesn't exist and cannot possibly exist in an unequal society. This is separate from Free Speech as a legal concept. The government should never silence dissenting voices, no matter how abhorrent. In this sense I'm a free speech absolutist. It makes no sense to blindly apply free speech principles based on majority/minority. By that logic we ought to amplify the voices of neo-nazis and other undesirables simply because they're a minority that would otherwise go unheard. To the contrary, I believe we're better off banishing them from the campus instead. I completely disagree with your characterization of hate speech as speech that causes "subjective discomfort". Specific types of speech can do a lot of harm to e.g. individuals who suffer from mental illnesses or PTSD. So organizations have to choose. Either you ban the speech that will predictably harm individuals or minority groups, or you allow all speech (including hate speech) and the more vulnerable people will be forced to leave to protect their mental health. That's the reality of the situation. I don't think this is a difficult choice. In practice free speech restrictions on college campuses don't restrict scientific work or scientific debate (in the broadest sense), so I don't think there is any cause for concern.

by gizmo 11y ago

golemotron 11y ago

Two wrongs don't make a right. If there's anything to be learned in school, that's it.

gizmo 11y ago
The moment you give people a little bit of power they'll find a way to abuse it. People can be really petty and spiteful. What happened at this university is no different from a secretary deliberating forgetting to book a hotel room for the person they like least in the group. No different from the clerk at the DMV sending you to the back of the line because you made a paperwork mistake. Where is the moral panic about this type of petty nonsense? Nowhere! Because we recognize it's petty nonsense, and not worthy of hand-wringing commentary or a national conversation. But when it comes to students and free speech and safe spaces every news channel and every major magazine is talking about it like it signifies the end of Freedom itself. It's totally absurd.
- golemotron 11y ago
  The secretary knows he's doing something wrong.
  - gizmo 11y ago
    You'd be amazed at how creative people are at rationalizing their actions.
    - golemotron 11y ago
      I've known. It's certainly on display these days.
- Overtonwindow 11y ago
  Oh wow this is very good. I wrote out this long paragraph but you said it much better and more succintly.
- hsod 11y ago
  > Where is the moral panic about this type of petty nonsense? I think the difference is that petty nonsense on college campuses is publicized and quasi-institutional. If, somehow, a DMV employee was publicly and proudly making people they don't like go to the back of the line, and they had powerful people aligned with them, there would be some outrage. While a few overzealous activists are not going to end Freedom itself, I (and apparently many others) still want to confront petty nonsense when it begins to institutionalize (by being supported by faculty/admin or influential media members).
  - fluxquanta 11y ago
    >If, somehow, a DMV employee was publicly and proudly making people they don't like go to the back of the line, and they had powerful people aligned with them, there would be some outrage. What about a county clerk refusing to sign legal marriage certificates for gay couples?
    - 11y ago

elect083839 11y ago

Ironically, by pivoting the discussion to systemic power differences as justification for large groups of students to disallow smaller groups of their ability to voice their opinions by passive-aggressive force, you are supporting the conceptional framework that in large part allows the abuses of power, which can be aggressive force, you oppose. If it is wrong for the powerful to prevent the less powerful from speech, then it is wrong for the large to prevent the smaller from speech even the majority against the minority. The 'core issue' of free speech has never been the opposition of those in power with the speech of a majority, even a localized majority, but the empowerment of every individual to speech regardless of their opinions popularity or any of its other attributes, except for those who cause tremendous harm. If it is wrong for the government because it is more powerful to abuse their power, it is wrong for the group because it is larger to abuse their size to limit others. I think the cause of this whole situation is due to the conflation of speech meant to harm other persons (i.e yelling fire, inciting a riot) and speech that causes subjective discomfort or intellectual disagreement. One is a crime, and the other is the heart of every civil discussion.

gizmo 11y ago
I'm pivoting the discussion so that we can look at the actual consequences of (putting limits on) speech, instead of categorizing "free speech" as a silly absolute. I showed how true unlimited libertarian free speech doesn't exist and cannot possibly exist in an unequal society. This is separate from Free Speech as a legal concept. The government should never silence dissenting voices, no matter how abhorrent. In this sense I'm a free speech absolutist. It makes no sense to blindly apply free speech principles based on majority/minority. By that logic we ought to amplify the voices of neo-nazis and other undesirables simply because they're a minority that would otherwise go unheard. To the contrary, I believe we're better off banishing them from the campus instead. I completely disagree with your characterization of hate speech as speech that causes "subjective discomfort". Specific types of speech can do a lot of harm to e.g. individuals who suffer from mental illnesses or PTSD. So organizations have to choose. Either you ban the speech that will predictably harm individuals or minority groups, or you allow all speech (including hate speech) and the more vulnerable people will be forced to leave to protect their mental health. That's the reality of the situation. I don't think this is a difficult choice. In practice free speech restrictions on college campuses don't restrict scientific work or scientific debate (in the broadest sense), so I don't think there is any cause for concern.