2 ms·
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 offensiv
by 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 agoI 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 agoYeah, 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 agoThe 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.