4 ms·

Government censorship is what the constitution protects us from, but certainly we should resist the advocates of censorship government backed or not?

lamontcg 10y ago
Until they cross the line of advocating for laws banning males from speaking about feminism, they are fundamentally not advocating 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...
- matthewmacleod 10y ago
  So the thing is - I'm uncomfortable with that definition, because it glosses over the issue that seems to be happening. Modern censorship isn't just legal - it's cultural. There seems to be this idea that the correct response to something you find offensive is to shout at the person you disagree with, attacking their character or dismissing their views because of who they are. That doesn't sit well with me, because it creates what is essentially censorship - instead of views being aired and rejected (which is fine), the person espousing them is attacked personally, and publicly. It creates a climate of fear, to the extent that speech is suppressed, and I've definitely seen it first hand.
  - jolux 10y ago
    Okay, but what exactly is the problem here, in practice? That the market of ideas is less free because it's no longer clogged with racist and otherwise offensive ones? Because I see that as a good thing, and while I sympathize with your advocacy of freedom of speech, the situation is a bit more complex than this. White supremacy is simply not something you can have an intellectual disagreement about, just like holocaust denial. It's just not as valid. And unfortunately this is not expressed in the marketplace of ideas, because we're supposed to treat every idea as equally valid even if there is immense factual evidence against it. 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?
    - matthewmacleod 10y ago
      I appreciate what you're saying, but I think there's a word of difference between saying "I disagree with you and will not provide a platform for your views" and "I disagree with you, and will personally attack you and ensure that you are not able to speak about your views." 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.
      - jolux 10y ago
        Yeah, and I for one think that most of what happens on college campuses is the former ("I disagree with you and will not provide a platform for your views").
        matthewmacleod 10y ago
        The university/college campus thing is interesting, because it's kind of like a state in microcosm. It feels to me that one of the goals of an academic institution is allowing the free exchange of ideas; it's fine to not invite speakers, but maybe it becomes a problem when the institution itself (or student government) intervenes to disallow students from hosting them. The difference I suppose between "I don't want to hear your views" and "I don't want to allow your views to be heard." 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.

lamontcg 10y ago

Until they cross the line of advocating for laws banning males from speaking about feminism, they are fundamentally not advocating 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...

matthewmacleod 10y ago
So the thing is - I'm uncomfortable with that definition, because it glosses over the issue that seems to be happening. Modern censorship isn't just legal - it's cultural. There seems to be this idea that the correct response to something you find offensive is to shout at the person you disagree with, attacking their character or dismissing their views because of who they are. That doesn't sit well with me, because it creates what is essentially censorship - instead of views being aired and rejected (which is fine), the person espousing them is attacked personally, and publicly. It creates a climate of fear, to the extent that speech is suppressed, and I've definitely seen it first hand.
- jolux 10y ago
  Okay, but what exactly is the problem here, in practice? That the market of ideas is less free because it's no longer clogged with racist and otherwise offensive ones? Because I see that as a good thing, and while I sympathize with your advocacy of freedom of speech, the situation is a bit more complex than this. White supremacy is simply not something you can have an intellectual disagreement about, just like holocaust denial. It's just not as valid. And unfortunately this is not expressed in the marketplace of ideas, because we're supposed to treat every idea as equally valid even if there is immense factual evidence against it. 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?
  - matthewmacleod 10y ago
    I appreciate what you're saying, but I think there's a word of difference between saying "I disagree with you and will not provide a platform for your views" and "I disagree with you, and will personally attack you and ensure that you are not able to speak about your views." 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.
    - jolux 10y ago
      Yeah, and I for one think that most of what happens on college campuses is the former ("I disagree with you and will not provide a platform for your views").
      - matthewmacleod 10y ago
        The university/college campus thing is interesting, because it's kind of like a state in microcosm. It feels to me that one of the goals of an academic institution is allowing the free exchange of ideas; it's fine to not invite speakers, but maybe it becomes a problem when the institution itself (or student government) intervenes to disallow students from hosting them. The difference I suppose between "I don't want to hear your views" and "I don't want to allow your views to be heard." 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.