4 ms·

I wouldn't feel sorry for him, but I'd certainly want to interrogate the psychology of the people who insisted, wailing and screaming, that he be disinvited. T

by safek 9y ago

I wouldn't feel sorry for him, but I'd certainly want to interrogate the psychology of the people who insisted, wailing and screaming, that he be disinvited. The arguments I've seen on this subject revolve around two poles. One argues that if we give "hateful" (replace hateful with whatever fashionable adjective) speakers a platform, it will "promote," "validate," and "normalize" them. If Hitler gets to give a talk, it "sends the message" that he's a reasonable guy. The other pole argues, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." If this Hitler guy really is as bad as you say, let him babble without interruption. The more the talks, the more people will realize how crazy he is. And if they don't, have someone sane and reasonable respond to his ideas. The stark contrast will be apparent to the audience. It seems to me that the first camp always uses such vague language. What on earth does it means to "validate" or "normalize" someone? What does it mean to "send a message?" Who is the recipient of this message? Who is the hypothetical citizen today who will look on the stage, see Hitler there, and think to himself, "Hmm, that man is standing on a stage. That's where the important people stand. Gee, his ideas must be pretty good."? Who is conceivably that dumb, and why should political theory be informed by such a mentality? As someone who sometimes attends these college talks as a member of the audience, I find it insulting that I should be disallowed to listen to someone on the basis that they are so odiously toxic I have to be protected from them. Can't I just decide for myself?

ivanbakel 9y ago
I don't believe the argument is that people are convinced by power, but rather that people who agree with the speaker will be encouraged to be more vocal and confident in expressing and acting on views that the protestors oppose. >What on earth does it means to "validate" or "normalize" someone? To make their views appear valid, and to make it appear more normal to hold them, respectively. I really disagree that this is vague language.
- glenra 9y ago
  What really validates is all this protesting. If the protestors are so afraid of a mild-mannered speaker that they need to prevent the speech from happening at all, that sends a pretty strong signal that the views being suppressed must be really powerful and probably contain a kernel of truth worth listening to. Or perhaps protests send the message that the views of the protestors are really fragile and can easily be disproven by the arguments of these speakers. The bigger the protest, the less credible the protestors seem. It's odd that they haven't yet noticed this.
  - ivanbakel 9y ago
    >The bigger the protest, the less credible the protestors seem. I wouldn't agree. I've certainly never looked at a large protest and thought "wow, certainly those people look insecure", or seen someone speak unopposed and come to the logical conclusion that everyone who disagrees with them is so confident as to not show up. >If the protestors are so afraid of a mild-mannered speaker that they need to prevent the speech from happening at all, that sends a pretty strong signal that the views being suppressed must be really powerful and probably contain a kernel of truth worth listening to. There's a big debate as to what "mild-mannered" means, but I think it sends the stronger signal that there's a large group of the population who strongly oppose the speaker and will do the same to anyone who agrees with them: this is definitely effective, since articles like the one in the OP keep cropping up about how these people should be allowed to speak without fear of the protestors. In any case, the protest is not over how convincing the views are, but whether they should be expressible at all.
    - safek 9y ago
      What shows weakness isn't that the protestors are protesting rather than staying home. It's that they're protesting rather than engaging in debate. There seems to be this idea that especially outrageous views ought to be banned outright. This seems weird to me, since the more obviously crazy an idea is, the easier it is to dismantle it. I'd rather debate Hitler than some of these speakers who get protested, because in front of an educated audience I'd win so quickly. Protesting speakers to bar them from speaking entirely certainly is effective as you say, but the effect of it is for onlookers to view the protestors as infants throwing their toys out the pram. What they're doing is an energetic way of saying, "I don't like what you're saying, so you can't speak." Their most promising defense is that speech is a threat to their safety, but I've yet to see the chain of reasoning that supports this. As a side note, I don't know how old you are and make no presumptions, but it's sometimes hard for me to explain to people over, say, 35 why this is a problem. "Well, social justice is good! Young people should be applauded for caring about it!" Right, but the banhammer has extended far beyond genuine racists, fascists, and nationalists. I encourage anyone to go on YouTube and listen to some of the speakers who've recently gotten banned. They're just not Hitler. They have criticisms, which frankly no one should be exempt from anyway, and they're right about some things and wrong about others. A lot of people would like to hear the bits they're right about.
jamescostian 9y ago
> What on earth does it means to "validate" or "normalize" someone? What does it mean to "send a message?" Read Freakonomics, specifically the part about Broken Windows, and you'll understand these words. > Who is conceivably that dumb, and why should political theory be informed by such a mentality? If you talk to someone on the far-left, they will tell you that the answer to this question is "everyone on the far right! They believe everything they read on fox news!" and if you ask someone on the far-right, they will tell you that the answer to this question is "everyone on the far left! They believe 100% of the fake news". Either way, there's one thing far-left and far-right people can agree on: yes, there are plenty of people like this. I don't think people are always like this, but I do think we all have brainfarts. At some point or another, we've all been extremely susceptible to influences like this. > I find it insulting that I should be disallowed to listen to someone on the basis that they are so odiously toxic I have to be protected from them. Can't I just decide for myself? Yes, please do! Decide for yourself that you want to listen to them! Find them on Facebook, Twitter, or whatever, and start talking to them! Enjoy your free speech! Call them on the phone! Email them! Anyone who wants to take those things away from you is a serious threat.
colordrops 9y ago
Furthermore, language can be on the spectrum from promoting genocide to seeking immortality for all, along with countless other dimensions, and who gets to decide where to draw the line on the various dimensions of opinion about what is not allowed?

by safek 9y ago

ivanbakel 9y ago

I don't believe the argument is that people are convinced by power, but rather that people who agree with the speaker will be encouraged to be more vocal and confident in expressing and acting on views that the protestors oppose. >What on earth does it means to "validate" or "normalize" someone? To make their views appear valid, and to make it appear more normal to hold them, respectively. I really disagree that this is vague language.

glenra 9y ago
What really validates is all this protesting. If the protestors are so afraid of a mild-mannered speaker that they need to prevent the speech from happening at all, that sends a pretty strong signal that the views being suppressed must be really powerful and probably contain a kernel of truth worth listening to. Or perhaps protests send the message that the views of the protestors are really fragile and can easily be disproven by the arguments of these speakers. The bigger the protest, the less credible the protestors seem. It's odd that they haven't yet noticed this.
- ivanbakel 9y ago
  >The bigger the protest, the less credible the protestors seem. I wouldn't agree. I've certainly never looked at a large protest and thought "wow, certainly those people look insecure", or seen someone speak unopposed and come to the logical conclusion that everyone who disagrees with them is so confident as to not show up. >If the protestors are so afraid of a mild-mannered speaker that they need to prevent the speech from happening at all, that sends a pretty strong signal that the views being suppressed must be really powerful and probably contain a kernel of truth worth listening to. There's a big debate as to what "mild-mannered" means, but I think it sends the stronger signal that there's a large group of the population who strongly oppose the speaker and will do the same to anyone who agrees with them: this is definitely effective, since articles like the one in the OP keep cropping up about how these people should be allowed to speak without fear of the protestors. In any case, the protest is not over how convincing the views are, but whether they should be expressible at all.
  - safek 9y ago
    What shows weakness isn't that the protestors are protesting rather than staying home. It's that they're protesting rather than engaging in debate. There seems to be this idea that especially outrageous views ought to be banned outright. This seems weird to me, since the more obviously crazy an idea is, the easier it is to dismantle it. I'd rather debate Hitler than some of these speakers who get protested, because in front of an educated audience I'd win so quickly. Protesting speakers to bar them from speaking entirely certainly is effective as you say, but the effect of it is for onlookers to view the protestors as infants throwing their toys out the pram. What they're doing is an energetic way of saying, "I don't like what you're saying, so you can't speak." Their most promising defense is that speech is a threat to their safety, but I've yet to see the chain of reasoning that supports this. As a side note, I don't know how old you are and make no presumptions, but it's sometimes hard for me to explain to people over, say, 35 why this is a problem. "Well, social justice is good! Young people should be applauded for caring about it!" Right, but the banhammer has extended far beyond genuine racists, fascists, and nationalists. I encourage anyone to go on YouTube and listen to some of the speakers who've recently gotten banned. They're just not Hitler. They have criticisms, which frankly no one should be exempt from anyway, and they're right about some things and wrong about others. A lot of people would like to hear the bits they're right about.

jamescostian 9y ago

> What on earth does it means to "validate" or "normalize" someone? What does it mean to "send a message?" Read Freakonomics, specifically the part about Broken Windows, and you'll understand these words. > Who is conceivably that dumb, and why should political theory be informed by such a mentality? If you talk to someone on the far-left, they will tell you that the answer to this question is "everyone on the far right! They believe everything they read on fox news!" and if you ask someone on the far-right, they will tell you that the answer to this question is "everyone on the far left! They believe 100% of the fake news". Either way, there's one thing far-left and far-right people can agree on: yes, there are plenty of people like this. I don't think people are always like this, but I do think we all have brainfarts. At some point or another, we've all been extremely susceptible to influences like this. > I find it insulting that I should be disallowed to listen to someone on the basis that they are so odiously toxic I have to be protected from them. Can't I just decide for myself? Yes, please do! Decide for yourself that you want to listen to them! Find them on Facebook, Twitter, or whatever, and start talking to them! Enjoy your free speech! Call them on the phone! Email them! Anyone who wants to take those things away from you is a serious threat.

colordrops 9y ago

Furthermore, language can be on the spectrum from promoting genocide to seeking immortality for all, along with countless other dimensions, and who gets to decide where to draw the line on the various dimensions of opinion about what is not allowed?