3 ms·

Actions as an employee are another issue. The problem with de-platforming in the public sphere (rather than the private) is arrogance and condescension. De-pla

Actions as an employee are another issue. The problem with de-platforming in the public sphere (rather than the private) is arrogance and condescension. De-platformers presume to be protectors from ideas that they find bad or dangerous. The reason why it won't survive as a strategy is because it seeds resentment among the people who have to go along with the platforming choices of their 'betters.' It's becoming obvious that not everyone agrees with PC/call-out culture, but they don't feel comfortable saying so. We're in a preference falsification bubble now. It's going to pop.

dalke 11y ago
Your objection about actions of an employee give an easy out - a university can say that employee X did the wrong thing by inviting person Y and thereby justify cancelling the invitation to Y not as "de-platforming" but simply that X was not authorized to make that decision. You objection has another easy out - most places are neither fully public nor fully private, so the distinction "public sphere" vs. "private sphere" doesn't really apply. For example, if Y were invited for a private conversation with the university president, then is that public or private? What about if it's only limited to university staff? Only to university students? What if it's a private university? A private, for-profit university? A third easy out is to couple the invitation to the number of ticket buyers or attendees. If there are many protests then the host can say "our analysis says that fewer people than we thought would attend the event so we have decided to exercise our option to cancel the invitation." In any case, my third example, which is obviously based on the current news about Hastert, was constructed to let you explain why that Hastert-like figure should be allowed to speak on how to be moral, rather than being uninvited. Finally, your statement "De-platformers presume to be protectors from ideas that they find bad or dangerous" is at best incomplete. Some protests are from students who are upset that their student fees are being used to pay speaker fees for someone who they disagree with. For example, I think that Kissinger is a war criminal. I wouldn't want some of my student fees and tuition going into his wallet, even if Clinton might be right by saying he has excellent insights about global politics. When haven't we been in a "preference falsification bubble"?
- golemotron 11y ago
  Maybe instead of looking for "outs" we should look for the positive value of ideological diversity. People get lost in the argument that the First Amendment only applies to the government. To be fair, you didn't. You sidestepped it entirely in your examples. This issue is whether people consider themselves strong enough to allow a marketplace of ideas. The answer for this fragile generation appears to be no.
  - dalke 11y ago
    Most of the people who "get lost in the First Amendment" are those who get stuck on "freedom of speech" and forget the entire "freedom of assembly" part. That's the one that says you aren't forced to include people you don't want to include. It's the reason why a private club can legally exclude Jews. The objections I raised all had to do with including that aspect of the First. This generation is no more fragile than the previous ones. In my generation, we were the weak ones because we were too fragile for the corporal punishment - beating by wooden boards - that previous generations received as children.

dalke 11y ago

Your objection about actions of an employee give an easy out - a university can say that employee X did the wrong thing by inviting person Y and thereby justify cancelling the invitation to Y not as "de-platforming" but simply that X was not authorized to make that decision. You objection has another easy out - most places are neither fully public nor fully private, so the distinction "public sphere" vs. "private sphere" doesn't really apply. For example, if Y were invited for a private conversation with the university president, then is that public or private? What about if it's only limited to university staff? Only to university students? What if it's a private university? A private, for-profit university? A third easy out is to couple the invitation to the number of ticket buyers or attendees. If there are many protests then the host can say "our analysis says that fewer people than we thought would attend the event so we have decided to exercise our option to cancel the invitation." In any case, my third example, which is obviously based on the current news about Hastert, was constructed to let you explain why that Hastert-like figure should be allowed to speak on how to be moral, rather than being uninvited. Finally, your statement "De-platformers presume to be protectors from ideas that they find bad or dangerous" is at best incomplete. Some protests are from students who are upset that their student fees are being used to pay speaker fees for someone who they disagree with. For example, I think that Kissinger is a war criminal. I wouldn't want some of my student fees and tuition going into his wallet, even if Clinton might be right by saying he has excellent insights about global politics. When haven't we been in a "preference falsification bubble"?

golemotron 11y ago
Maybe instead of looking for "outs" we should look for the positive value of ideological diversity. People get lost in the argument that the First Amendment only applies to the government. To be fair, you didn't. You sidestepped it entirely in your examples. This issue is whether people consider themselves strong enough to allow a marketplace of ideas. The answer for this fragile generation appears to be no.
- dalke 11y ago
  Most of the people who "get lost in the First Amendment" are those who get stuck on "freedom of speech" and forget the entire "freedom of assembly" part. That's the one that says you aren't forced to include people you don't want to include. It's the reason why a private club can legally exclude Jews. The objections I raised all had to do with including that aspect of the First. This generation is no more fragile than the previous ones. In my generation, we were the weak ones because we were too fragile for the corporal punishment - beating by wooden boards - that previous generations received as children.