11 ms·

There is little or nothing in this agitprop essay that actually undermines or even directly confronts McCarthy's original points. There's two irreconcilable phi

There is little or nothing in this agitprop essay that actually undermines or even directly confronts McCarthy's original points. There's two irreconcilable philosophical positions at play here: either you believe that there are things - like preventing people from seeing "hurtful" humor - that are more important than freedom of expression, or you believe that freedom of expression is foundational for all other human freedoms. Neither side is ever going to convince the other because they want to live in fundamentally different worlds. If you're on the former side, your only option is to silence your opponents; if you're on the latter, your only option is to resist being silenced.

AdeptusAquinas 9y ago
It's pretty clear from the article and anyone who cares to glance at the news today that the 'freedom of speech activists' do plenty of silencing themselves. Afterall, the issue at Stanford was that minority groups were being causally belittled and excluded. But hey: no one is allowed to descriminate against the right to descriminate!
- blackbagboys 9y ago
  This is nowhere in evidence in the article. Disagreement is not exclusion or silencing.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  >It's pretty clear from the article and anyone who cares to glance at the news today that the 'freedom of speech activists' do plenty of silencing themselves. It's not clear to me. How about a few examples?
camgunz 9y ago
Why can't we say, "hey, no slurs please" without civilization collapsing into a communist authoritarian nightmare? It works in basically all aspects of public life and things seem (more or less) alright.
- rtpg 9y ago
  There's also a major difference between someone saying "hey, no slurs please in my house" and the gov't pointing a gun at you and saying "no slurs ever".
  - apcragg 9y ago
    It isn't the government that is doing that. It is society as a group that has decided that "no slurs" is the norm. If you want to use slurs, use them in a subgroup that for whatever reasons deem them acceptable. Don't use them around society as a whole as it has decided that there are social consequences for using them. Again, if you don't like it either campaign to change it or exclude yourself from society but don't conflate the social contract with government authoritarianism.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      > It is society as a group that has decided that "no slurs" is the norm. Society is not a uniform group with a single way of thinking.
      - alphabettsy 9y ago
        I think you should review the definition of society.
      - h0l0cube 9y ago
        apcragg is probably referring to social mores and the social compact. Ultimately there are conventions, explicit or otherwise, that compel our social interactions.
        ekianjo 9y ago
        > Ultimately there are conventions, explicit or otherwise, that compel our social interactions. I agree, but as far as I know in the US the spirit behind such interactions is pretty much described in the constitution, and the first amendment makes it very clear that freedom of opinion/expression is paramount, no matter what.
apcragg 9y ago
It isn't a binary decision and it is incredibly dishonest for you to frame it like it is. Freedom of expression is not foundational. Certainly inciting violence, advocating genocide, or engaging in targeted and repeated harassment does not fall under the auspice of an unalienable and foundational right. In consenting to governance and inclusion in society one forfeits some absolute freedom that society has deemed unacceptable. That is the nature of society. The argument should lie in what and how society deems things acceptable because there is certainly a debate to be had there. Concerns about oppressive governments or censorship of thought are valid and just but do not and should not require declaring expression limitless. Society has deemed some expression harmful and participating in society requires accepting that. I believe it is a good thing that there are things society has deemed unacceptable and acknowledge that I give up some of my absolute freedoms to live in such a society.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Society is not a force of nature such that its decrees carry the weight of natural law. People can (and often should) resist what society decrees, because it's only through that dynamic tension of conflicting forces in society that we can reasonably advance. > I believe it is a good thing that there are things society has deemed unacceptable and acknowledge that I give up some of my absolute freedoms to live in such a society. You buried the lede -- your whole post is really dressing up why we shouldn't resist a societal decision you personally heavily agree with, while not giving real credence to people who disagree with you. Pitching society-uber-als when society has made the choice you like is really cheap partisanship. > Freedom of expression is not foundational. Certainly inciting violence, advocating genocide, or engaging in targeted and repeated harassment does not fall under the auspice of an unalienable and foundational right. These are also things on which many people radically disagree with you. Stating them as facts is just begging the question.
  - apcragg 9y ago
    > You buried the lede -- your whole post is really dressing up why we shouldn't resist a societal decision you personally heavily agree with, while not giving real credence to people who disagree with you. That is a fair criticism. A counterpoint to my own post would be that pushing what is acceptable and questioning the norm is what has always driven progress, be it abolishing slavery, accepting other sexualities, religions, scientific views, etc. My point was rather that rights like expression are not absolute by the nature of the social contract. Requiring that they be unimpeachable is not compatible with living in a social structure. > These are also things on which many people radically disagree with you. Stating them as facts are just begging the question. There are people that disagree for sure. The point isn't that those, in particular, are universally agreed upon but that there exist limits to absolute freedom.
ekianjo 9y ago
In the US it seems that the first amendment's principle is very, very clear in that regard. This was the draft proposed to Congress here below, which is longer than the final version but clearly represents the thinking behind it without ambiguity: > The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. In other words, the first amendment is clearly against censorship of any kind.

AdeptusAquinas 9y ago

It's pretty clear from the article and anyone who cares to glance at the news today that the 'freedom of speech activists' do plenty of silencing themselves. Afterall, the issue at Stanford was that minority groups were being causally belittled and excluded. But hey: no one is allowed to descriminate against the right to descriminate!

blackbagboys 9y ago
This is nowhere in evidence in the article. Disagreement is not exclusion or silencing.
rhapsodic 9y ago
>It's pretty clear from the article and anyone who cares to glance at the news today that the 'freedom of speech activists' do plenty of silencing themselves. It's not clear to me. How about a few examples?

camgunz 9y ago

Why can't we say, "hey, no slurs please" without civilization collapsing into a communist authoritarian nightmare? It works in basically all aspects of public life and things seem (more or less) alright.

rtpg 9y ago
There's also a major difference between someone saying "hey, no slurs please in my house" and the gov't pointing a gun at you and saying "no slurs ever".
- apcragg 9y ago
  It isn't the government that is doing that. It is society as a group that has decided that "no slurs" is the norm. If you want to use slurs, use them in a subgroup that for whatever reasons deem them acceptable. Don't use them around society as a whole as it has decided that there are social consequences for using them. Again, if you don't like it either campaign to change it or exclude yourself from society but don't conflate the social contract with government authoritarianism.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > It is society as a group that has decided that "no slurs" is the norm. Society is not a uniform group with a single way of thinking.
    - alphabettsy 9y ago
      I think you should review the definition of society.
    - h0l0cube 9y ago
      apcragg is probably referring to social mores and the social compact. Ultimately there are conventions, explicit or otherwise, that compel our social interactions.
      - ekianjo 9y ago
        > Ultimately there are conventions, explicit or otherwise, that compel our social interactions. I agree, but as far as I know in the US the spirit behind such interactions is pretty much described in the constitution, and the first amendment makes it very clear that freedom of opinion/expression is paramount, no matter what.

apcragg 9y ago

It isn't a binary decision and it is incredibly dishonest for you to frame it like it is. Freedom of expression is not foundational. Certainly inciting violence, advocating genocide, or engaging in targeted and repeated harassment does not fall under the auspice of an unalienable and foundational right. In consenting to governance and inclusion in society one forfeits some absolute freedom that society has deemed unacceptable. That is the nature of society. The argument should lie in what and how society deems things acceptable because there is certainly a debate to be had there. Concerns about oppressive governments or censorship of thought are valid and just but do not and should not require declaring expression limitless. Society has deemed some expression harmful and participating in society requires accepting that. I believe it is a good thing that there are things society has deemed unacceptable and acknowledge that I give up some of my absolute freedoms to live in such a society.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Society is not a force of nature such that its decrees carry the weight of natural law. People can (and often should) resist what society decrees, because it's only through that dynamic tension of conflicting forces in society that we can reasonably advance. > I believe it is a good thing that there are things society has deemed unacceptable and acknowledge that I give up some of my absolute freedoms to live in such a society. You buried the lede -- your whole post is really dressing up why we shouldn't resist a societal decision you personally heavily agree with, while not giving real credence to people who disagree with you. Pitching society-uber-als when society has made the choice you like is really cheap partisanship. > Freedom of expression is not foundational. Certainly inciting violence, advocating genocide, or engaging in targeted and repeated harassment does not fall under the auspice of an unalienable and foundational right. These are also things on which many people radically disagree with you. Stating them as facts is just begging the question.
- apcragg 9y ago
  > You buried the lede -- your whole post is really dressing up why we shouldn't resist a societal decision you personally heavily agree with, while not giving real credence to people who disagree with you. That is a fair criticism. A counterpoint to my own post would be that pushing what is acceptable and questioning the norm is what has always driven progress, be it abolishing slavery, accepting other sexualities, religions, scientific views, etc. My point was rather that rights like expression are not absolute by the nature of the social contract. Requiring that they be unimpeachable is not compatible with living in a social structure. > These are also things on which many people radically disagree with you. Stating them as facts are just begging the question. There are people that disagree for sure. The point isn't that those, in particular, are universally agreed upon but that there exist limits to absolute freedom.

ekianjo 9y ago

In the US it seems that the first amendment's principle is very, very clear in that regard. This was the draft proposed to Congress here below, which is longer than the final version but clearly represents the thinking behind it without ambiguity: > The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. In other words, the first amendment is clearly against censorship of any kind.