4 ms·

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

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.
  - rtpg 9y ago
    Right, separating the social contract from the gov't was what I was trying to point out. "in my house" can be replaced with "on my website" or "in my restaurant" for most purposes. There's some stuff about monopolies and access guarantees to utilities.... but for most purposes the discussion is far from those cases I believe.
- camgunz 9y ago
  No one's going to jail for using slurs. The rhetoric around this has gotten really heated, especially given that we have many other actual problems (North Korea, global warming) we should be spending our energy on.
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    Have you seen uk news recently?
    - DanBC 9y ago
      Please link to someone who's gone to jail for using a slur, rather than for mounting a campaign of harassment or making credible threats of violence.
      - blackbagboys 9y ago
        https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297128/matthew-doyle-arrest-muslim-tweet-brussels https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297128/matthew-doyle-ar... One of literally dozens if not hundreds of incidents
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
booleandilemma 9y ago
I agree. A lot of this drama can be avoided if we just all act like adults.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Sure, if you force people to behave a certain way, the conflict can be avoided. The problem stems from the fundamental fact that a very small percentage of people are assholes, a faction of people are intent on forcibly silencing and harming assholes for being assholes, and a faction of people are intent on not permitting that second group of people to do so. That's the problem: two groups of people are prepared to use force to enact their contrary visions, while a third (relatively small group) is catalyzing the conflict.
amarkov 9y ago
We can and do. The question is whether we need to go further, and tell everyone they can't let slur-users play with their stuff.
WillPostForFood 9y ago
Yes, the question is, why can't we? Becasue apparently we can't stop at that point. We've already gone so far past that that the slippery slope has been established in this case.
- camgunz 9y ago
  We absolutely can. No one's gone to jail for being a racist or a misogynist. Hooray, everything's fine.
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    No one goes to jail for being a racist, but people are physically assaulted for saying mildly controversial things. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middlebury-free-speech-violence/518667/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middleb... http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/berkeley-riots-inside-the-campus-showdown-over-free-speech-w465151 http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/berkeley-riots-...
    - Frondo 9y ago
      People are beat up, shot, and run over for being black, too. They don't even have to say anything. Man, if I had to pick a side I'd stand up and fight for, I know who I'm out there defending.
      - camgunz 9y ago
        Yeah right, what's a bigger problem: not being able to say the N word or going to jail for no reason and feeling lucky that you weren't shot for no reason because you're Black?
        WillPostForFood 9y ago
        Going to jail, but they are unrelated. If you can't separate the two, you will make bad policy.
IBM 9y ago
Every free speech absolutist should be asked to explain Germany.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- indubitable 9y ago
  If you mean Nazi Germany then your example is indeed quite interesting. Hitler did not come to power through mass consensus, or really any consensus. He came to power through political maneuvering. The Nazi's largest victory in anything like an open election was in mid 1932 [1] where they gained 37% of the vote. Failing to form a government, a new election was called in late 1932 [2] where the Nazis were down to 33% support. In spite of the lack of support, Hitler gained the chancellorship through a series of fortunate (for him) events and backroom dealings. His supporters then escalated things they had already been doing which included disrupting meetings of opposition, preventing their speakers from speaking, engage in often violent conflict with supporters of other groups, and so on. This culminated then with the formal banning of speech that spoke negatively of their politics. The net effect of this was that in 1933 [3] the Nazis managed to get 44% of the vote. After that, the ban on free speech and politics was escalated with him ultimately banning all political parties except the Nazi party. Had Germany had strong and real protections of free speech, it's very likely that the Nazis would never have been able to come to power. And they certainly would not have been able to hold onto it. And this is a recurring theme in nations that end up going down the path tyranny and oppression. The first thing to go is free speech, often started on the ground level by political supporters who work to stop people they disagree with from being able to speak. It's easy to condemn things in hindsight and claim people should have seen what was coming. But that's disingenuous. People generally want to do the right thing, though we all disagree on what right is. Germany and the German people were struggling and felt they were being exploited by capitalism and certain unfairly privileged groups within society. Hitler used this to gain a minority support of people by with rousing talks against capitalism and against the privileged few. Few were thinking about the implications of such rhetoric -- the dangers of when groups become mobs. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_Novem... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March...
BurningFrog 9y ago
Then the power rests with whoever decides what is and isn't a "slur".
- camgunz 9y ago
  It's like 30 words, I think we can handle it.
  - pacala 9y ago
    The list is ever expanding. See the Canadian pronoun-gate. Under current Canadian law, using the wrong pronoun can get you in jail for "hate speech". http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada-passes-law-criminalizing-use-of-wrong-gender-pronouns/ http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada-passes-law-criminal... Edit: That sounds quite absurd to me, happy to be educated otherwise.
    - camgunz 9y ago
      First of all The Daily Caller is a conservative rag started by Tucker Carlson. Second the characterization of the bill comes from "critics"; it doesn't at all do what you say it does. Stuff like this is designed to sound absurd. It's written to get people enraged so they worry that their fundamental rights are being abrogated. Conservative media is full of articles like this, and it's started a dangerous race to the bottom where now the right and the left are struggling to enrage their bases more than the other. Sorry I'm not yelling at you but things like this are responsible for a lot of problems. Please read the bill and you'll see it's merely adding gender identification to the list of categories you can't discriminate on.
      - pacala 9y ago
        Thanks for the response. I just googled "canada pronoun hate speech" and felt lucky, that is picked the first response. The situation appears more nuanced. Third link: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-canadas-bill-c-16-believed-to-be-legislating-pronoun-use https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-ca.... The fundamental issue with the "ever expanding slur list" remains, until we all speak the language certified by the party bureaucracy.
creep 9y ago
That all depends on the majority social opinion of what defines a slur. The problem arising at the moment is aggression. Social opinions are being divided from every angle, almost systematically, categorizing and sorting the world's thoughts, behaviors, and opinions. And we can think of these categories as tribes, and we see a sort of competition. Since each person belonging to a subset necessarily feels a connection to their category, they seek validation. Since these categories are highly specific there will inevitably be conflict between them, differences in definition, and the seeking of validation paired with such differences will arise in aggression when confronted with another "tribe". This is not about social courtesy at all. It is a sort of social warfare that would not exist if it weren't for the very specific divisions. A group of 100 people can get along just fine with a certain mindset-- that is, each person sees everyone else as individuals, unique and variable. To keep the peace in such a situation, each person must understand they do not hold the truth for anybody but themselves, and they also must be willing to listen to others when they speak. But a group of 10 philosophers from differing schools of thought will likely be in for many heated arguments. Our social atmosphere at this period of time is like the latter case, and there is no agreement or moderation to be had. Each "school of thought" has its axioms, which cannot be violated if one is an adherent.
- camgunz 9y ago
  I think this is fundamentally wrong. I think we haven't placed enough emphasis on understanding other people, histories, experiences, and cultures, and at this point in our history we're being forced to confront that fact. For example, when women say, "hey we're sexually harassed basically all the time", or when Black people say, "hey racism is insidiously intertwined in our culture", and we ignore them, we're failing to respect their experiences. This isn't warfare at all. It's just hard for us to understand an experience that's so different from our own. I had a girlfriend once who used to walk to work and she'd get catcalled basically every time she did it. She told me about this and at first I didn't believe her because it was so outside my experience. No one catcalls me! And no one catcalled her when we were together. People just want to be respected. They want to be believed. They aren't waging class warfare or social warfare. They basically just don't want to catch shit all the time. We'll (probably?) get past this. We just have to work a lot harder at listening and respecting other people.
rsj_hn 9y ago
Why can't we say, "hey, no slurs please" without civilization collapsing into a communist authoritarian nightmare? Understanding that this proposal is clear, simple, and wrong is kinda the basis of reaching the Enlightenment. But because this is a bit subtle, many people -- too many people -- can't understand it. You have to think structurally, rather than emotionally. 1. Who do you think will be in charge of determining what is a "slur" and what is not? Is saying "It's OK to be white" a slur? How about "Women prefer to work with people, men prefer to work with things"? At the time of the Enlightenment, a slur was basically an insult to the King or Nobility. Which of course applied equally if you were criticizing their judgement/policies, which then grew some more. This was called "Lese Majeste" or violating the majesty of the Sovereign, and evolved into the hate speech laws, for example, in Weimar, that did absolutely nothing to prevent the rise anti-semitism in Europe. Banning hate speech has always failed to protect people against hatred. Now a lot of people think that only those who are oppressed will be protected by bans on slurs, but actually those who decide what is and is not a slur are not just going to be the oppressed. They will be also the ones who already have power, and they will use that ban as another lever to stifle dissent. So, that's one problem right there -- same problem as "Why can't we give this organization vague, broad powers and not have the powers be abused? What's so hard about that?" Well, it's not how life works, and we should know that by now. We should always think about policies with the view that untrustworthy people are in charge, rather than with a simplistic view. 2. In every society, there is an overton window of acceptable views. Society has many, many ways of punishing those who step outside of that window. Everything from social ostracism, to getting fired, to losing customers, etc. You don't really need to worry that society has no way of punishing those who offend them. In fact, it's really a silly thing to worry about. We don't need additional ways of enforcing thought-discipline and speech discipline beyond informal ostracism. Few can stand up to it, and when someone is saying something obviously hateful, those who disagree tend to be strengthened in their resolve against that view. 3. If society already has informal ways of curtailing offensive speech, what is the harm of additionally formalizing more policies or laws that (according to 1.) will curtail speech that elites find offensive? And what is the benefit of not formalizing them? This is what the Enlightenment thinkers understood, but which many have now forgotten. The benefit is when the overton window as espoused by the elites doesn't match with the overton window of society as a whole: in normal situations (both overton windows are the same), you don't need to exert additional pressure on the person engaging in transgressive speech, because they wont find an audience. But what if they do find an audience? That's usually the "emperor has no clothes" scenario, where those in charge of the institution have an overton window that is different from members of the institution, or a sizeable minority of members. In that case, people will listen to the transgressor and say "hey, the emperor is naked!" while the emperor will accuse the transgressor of making slurs. That's the situation in which freedom of speech is so crucial -- when it will resonate and the normal social pressures don't quash the transgressor. This is the example of "It's OK to be white." So freedom of speech serves as a safety valve from the elites enforcing their bubble. No one cares about actual slurs -- those that don't find an audience -- society will always punish those people. No one cares about freedom to remain within the overton window of the elites. Those aren't considered a slur. All that matters is the ability to mock someone for being naked, when many believe they are naked. But to protect this valuable corrective mechanism, we have to protect all slurs, knowing that what is outside both windows wont find an audience and so we don't care if it's spoken. But what if a sizeable minority of people really are awful people -- e.g. racists? Wont silencing them teach them to not be racists? Can't the elites force a large chunk of the public into believing something they don't by banning the airing of opposing views? No, they can't. Part of the reason the Weimar hate speech laws didn't work, although many Nazis were arrested for hate speech, was that seeing people arrested solely for expressing their views gave them sympathy with the public and promoted their cause. Just as the anti-fascist movement gave rise to the SS and strengthened fascism, so the anti-hate speech laws radicalized Germany towards hate. It's funny how well meaning things can backfire, but at some point we need to learn from history. So in that situation in which you have a sizeable minority that is racists, you have to deal with that head on, by letting people speak (and making a fool of themselves), and you have to debate them openly in a war of ideas, rather than by suppressing their speech (and making them appear as unjustly muzzled). If someone who says "It's OK to be white" is really a racist, and they have a podium, they will soon say things a lot less benign, and people will hear that and be disgusted. Others, who also have their own podium, will counter. But if the same person is punished merely for saying "It's OK to be white", then they will be viewed more favorably. So you have to let them speak. They have to be free to air all of their hate, so that it can be debated openly, so people can see it and reject it. You can't discipline society to be more open minded than they are by policing speech. You can't give moral authority to the racists that they wouldn't otherwise have. No one has ever defeated (or even weakened) racism by banning racist speech. But if you are only thinking emotively, rather than structurally, you don't see the role that free speech has to play in keeping foolishness in check, whether by letting extremists discredit themselves, or by showing the emperor that they have no clothes. You are thinking simplistically ("X offends me, so why can't I ban X") rather than structurally. And by doing so, you lose an important corrective mechanism and end up with a very sick society as a result. As well as a more racist society. So the Enlightenment view is to let people speak, and not fret so much about slurs. The slurs will take care of themselves, and will also keep people honest. Society must be one in which there is an open exchange of ideas, especially ideas that many find offensive. It's just a shame that we are losing an appreciation for this view in our war against impoliteness and our forgetting of our history.
tomjen3 9y ago
That depends on what you mean by slur. If you just mean "bad word" then we can certainly replace some, but I am not convinced saying "John is feeble-minded" rather than "John is an idiot" is really different, although saying "John has a learning disability" may be more correct (and does offer the chance that is can either be worked around or fixed). The world "nigger" is essentially completely banned from society, so much so that people call it the n-word, but has that changed attitudes? Or is the person just going to say racist stuff with African-American instead of Nigger?

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.
- rtpg 9y ago
  Right, separating the social contract from the gov't was what I was trying to point out. "in my house" can be replaced with "on my website" or "in my restaurant" for most purposes. There's some stuff about monopolies and access guarantees to utilities.... but for most purposes the discussion is far from those cases I believe.
camgunz 9y ago
No one's going to jail for using slurs. The rhetoric around this has gotten really heated, especially given that we have many other actual problems (North Korea, global warming) we should be spending our energy on.
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  Have you seen uk news recently?
  - DanBC 9y ago
    Please link to someone who's gone to jail for using a slur, rather than for mounting a campaign of harassment or making credible threats of violence.
    - blackbagboys 9y ago
      https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297128/matthew-doyle-arrest-muslim-tweet-brussels https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297128/matthew-doyle-ar... One of literally dozens if not hundreds of incidents
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

booleandilemma 9y ago

I agree. A lot of this drama can be avoided if we just all act like adults.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Sure, if you force people to behave a certain way, the conflict can be avoided. The problem stems from the fundamental fact that a very small percentage of people are assholes, a faction of people are intent on forcibly silencing and harming assholes for being assholes, and a faction of people are intent on not permitting that second group of people to do so. That's the problem: two groups of people are prepared to use force to enact their contrary visions, while a third (relatively small group) is catalyzing the conflict.

amarkov 9y ago

We can and do. The question is whether we need to go further, and tell everyone they can't let slur-users play with their stuff.

WillPostForFood 9y ago

Yes, the question is, why can't we? Becasue apparently we can't stop at that point. We've already gone so far past that that the slippery slope has been established in this case.

camgunz 9y ago
We absolutely can. No one's gone to jail for being a racist or a misogynist. Hooray, everything's fine.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  No one goes to jail for being a racist, but people are physically assaulted for saying mildly controversial things. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middlebury-free-speech-violence/518667/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middleb... http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/berkeley-riots-inside-the-campus-showdown-over-free-speech-w465151 http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/berkeley-riots-...
  - Frondo 9y ago
    People are beat up, shot, and run over for being black, too. They don't even have to say anything. Man, if I had to pick a side I'd stand up and fight for, I know who I'm out there defending.
    - camgunz 9y ago
      Yeah right, what's a bigger problem: not being able to say the N word or going to jail for no reason and feeling lucky that you weren't shot for no reason because you're Black?
      - WillPostForFood 9y ago
        Going to jail, but they are unrelated. If you can't separate the two, you will make bad policy.

IBM 9y ago

Every free speech absolutist should be asked to explain Germany.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
indubitable 9y ago
If you mean Nazi Germany then your example is indeed quite interesting. Hitler did not come to power through mass consensus, or really any consensus. He came to power through political maneuvering. The Nazi's largest victory in anything like an open election was in mid 1932 [1] where they gained 37% of the vote. Failing to form a government, a new election was called in late 1932 [2] where the Nazis were down to 33% support. In spite of the lack of support, Hitler gained the chancellorship through a series of fortunate (for him) events and backroom dealings. His supporters then escalated things they had already been doing which included disrupting meetings of opposition, preventing their speakers from speaking, engage in often violent conflict with supporters of other groups, and so on. This culminated then with the formal banning of speech that spoke negatively of their politics. The net effect of this was that in 1933 [3] the Nazis managed to get 44% of the vote. After that, the ban on free speech and politics was escalated with him ultimately banning all political parties except the Nazi party. Had Germany had strong and real protections of free speech, it's very likely that the Nazis would never have been able to come to power. And they certainly would not have been able to hold onto it. And this is a recurring theme in nations that end up going down the path tyranny and oppression. The first thing to go is free speech, often started on the ground level by political supporters who work to stop people they disagree with from being able to speak. It's easy to condemn things in hindsight and claim people should have seen what was coming. But that's disingenuous. People generally want to do the right thing, though we all disagree on what right is. Germany and the German people were struggling and felt they were being exploited by capitalism and certain unfairly privileged groups within society. Hitler used this to gain a minority support of people by with rousing talks against capitalism and against the privileged few. Few were thinking about the implications of such rhetoric -- the dangers of when groups become mobs. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_Novem... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March...

BurningFrog 9y ago

Then the power rests with whoever decides what is and isn't a "slur".

camgunz 9y ago
It's like 30 words, I think we can handle it.
- pacala 9y ago
  The list is ever expanding. See the Canadian pronoun-gate. Under current Canadian law, using the wrong pronoun can get you in jail for "hate speech". http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada-passes-law-criminalizing-use-of-wrong-gender-pronouns/ http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada-passes-law-criminal... Edit: That sounds quite absurd to me, happy to be educated otherwise.
  - camgunz 9y ago
    First of all The Daily Caller is a conservative rag started by Tucker Carlson. Second the characterization of the bill comes from "critics"; it doesn't at all do what you say it does. Stuff like this is designed to sound absurd. It's written to get people enraged so they worry that their fundamental rights are being abrogated. Conservative media is full of articles like this, and it's started a dangerous race to the bottom where now the right and the left are struggling to enrage their bases more than the other. Sorry I'm not yelling at you but things like this are responsible for a lot of problems. Please read the bill and you'll see it's merely adding gender identification to the list of categories you can't discriminate on.
    - pacala 9y ago
      Thanks for the response. I just googled "canada pronoun hate speech" and felt lucky, that is picked the first response. The situation appears more nuanced. Third link: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-canadas-bill-c-16-believed-to-be-legislating-pronoun-use https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-ca.... The fundamental issue with the "ever expanding slur list" remains, until we all speak the language certified by the party bureaucracy.

creep 9y ago

That all depends on the majority social opinion of what defines a slur. The problem arising at the moment is aggression. Social opinions are being divided from every angle, almost systematically, categorizing and sorting the world's thoughts, behaviors, and opinions. And we can think of these categories as tribes, and we see a sort of competition. Since each person belonging to a subset necessarily feels a connection to their category, they seek validation. Since these categories are highly specific there will inevitably be conflict between them, differences in definition, and the seeking of validation paired with such differences will arise in aggression when confronted with another "tribe". This is not about social courtesy at all. It is a sort of social warfare that would not exist if it weren't for the very specific divisions. A group of 100 people can get along just fine with a certain mindset-- that is, each person sees everyone else as individuals, unique and variable. To keep the peace in such a situation, each person must understand they do not hold the truth for anybody but themselves, and they also must be willing to listen to others when they speak. But a group of 10 philosophers from differing schools of thought will likely be in for many heated arguments. Our social atmosphere at this period of time is like the latter case, and there is no agreement or moderation to be had. Each "school of thought" has its axioms, which cannot be violated if one is an adherent.

camgunz 9y ago
I think this is fundamentally wrong. I think we haven't placed enough emphasis on understanding other people, histories, experiences, and cultures, and at this point in our history we're being forced to confront that fact. For example, when women say, "hey we're sexually harassed basically all the time", or when Black people say, "hey racism is insidiously intertwined in our culture", and we ignore them, we're failing to respect their experiences. This isn't warfare at all. It's just hard for us to understand an experience that's so different from our own. I had a girlfriend once who used to walk to work and she'd get catcalled basically every time she did it. She told me about this and at first I didn't believe her because it was so outside my experience. No one catcalls me! And no one catcalled her when we were together. People just want to be respected. They want to be believed. They aren't waging class warfare or social warfare. They basically just don't want to catch shit all the time. We'll (probably?) get past this. We just have to work a lot harder at listening and respecting other people.

rsj_hn 9y ago

Why can't we say, "hey, no slurs please" without civilization collapsing into a communist authoritarian nightmare? Understanding that this proposal is clear, simple, and wrong is kinda the basis of reaching the Enlightenment. But because this is a bit subtle, many people -- too many people -- can't understand it. You have to think structurally, rather than emotionally. 1. Who do you think will be in charge of determining what is a "slur" and what is not? Is saying "It's OK to be white" a slur? How about "Women prefer to work with people, men prefer to work with things"? At the time of the Enlightenment, a slur was basically an insult to the King or Nobility. Which of course applied equally if you were criticizing their judgement/policies, which then grew some more. This was called "Lese Majeste" or violating the majesty of the Sovereign, and evolved into the hate speech laws, for example, in Weimar, that did absolutely nothing to prevent the rise anti-semitism in Europe. Banning hate speech has always failed to protect people against hatred. Now a lot of people think that only those who are oppressed will be protected by bans on slurs, but actually those who decide what is and is not a slur are not just going to be the oppressed. They will be also the ones who already have power, and they will use that ban as another lever to stifle dissent. So, that's one problem right there -- same problem as "Why can't we give this organization vague, broad powers and not have the powers be abused? What's so hard about that?" Well, it's not how life works, and we should know that by now. We should always think about policies with the view that untrustworthy people are in charge, rather than with a simplistic view. 2. In every society, there is an overton window of acceptable views. Society has many, many ways of punishing those who step outside of that window. Everything from social ostracism, to getting fired, to losing customers, etc. You don't really need to worry that society has no way of punishing those who offend them. In fact, it's really a silly thing to worry about. We don't need additional ways of enforcing thought-discipline and speech discipline beyond informal ostracism. Few can stand up to it, and when someone is saying something obviously hateful, those who disagree tend to be strengthened in their resolve against that view. 3. If society already has informal ways of curtailing offensive speech, what is the harm of additionally formalizing more policies or laws that (according to 1.) will curtail speech that elites find offensive? And what is the benefit of not formalizing them? This is what the Enlightenment thinkers understood, but which many have now forgotten. The benefit is when the overton window as espoused by the elites doesn't match with the overton window of society as a whole: in normal situations (both overton windows are the same), you don't need to exert additional pressure on the person engaging in transgressive speech, because they wont find an audience. But what if they do find an audience? That's usually the "emperor has no clothes" scenario, where those in charge of the institution have an overton window that is different from members of the institution, or a sizeable minority of members. In that case, people will listen to the transgressor and say "hey, the emperor is naked!" while the emperor will accuse the transgressor of making slurs. That's the situation in which freedom of speech is so crucial -- when it will resonate and the normal social pressures don't quash the transgressor. This is the example of "It's OK to be white." So freedom of speech serves as a safety valve from the elites enforcing their bubble. No one cares about actual slurs -- those that don't find an audience -- society will always punish those people. No one cares about freedom to remain within the overton window of the elites. Those aren't considered a slur. All that matters is the ability to mock someone for being naked, when many believe they are naked. But to protect this valuable corrective mechanism, we have to protect all slurs, knowing that what is outside both windows wont find an audience and so we don't care if it's spoken. But what if a sizeable minority of people really are awful people -- e.g. racists? Wont silencing them teach them to not be racists? Can't the elites force a large chunk of the public into believing something they don't by banning the airing of opposing views? No, they can't. Part of the reason the Weimar hate speech laws didn't work, although many Nazis were arrested for hate speech, was that seeing people arrested solely for expressing their views gave them sympathy with the public and promoted their cause. Just as the anti-fascist movement gave rise to the SS and strengthened fascism, so the anti-hate speech laws radicalized Germany towards hate. It's funny how well meaning things can backfire, but at some point we need to learn from history. So in that situation in which you have a sizeable minority that is racists, you have to deal with that head on, by letting people speak (and making a fool of themselves), and you have to debate them openly in a war of ideas, rather than by suppressing their speech (and making them appear as unjustly muzzled). If someone who says "It's OK to be white" is really a racist, and they have a podium, they will soon say things a lot less benign, and people will hear that and be disgusted. Others, who also have their own podium, will counter. But if the same person is punished merely for saying "It's OK to be white", then they will be viewed more favorably. So you have to let them speak. They have to be free to air all of their hate, so that it can be debated openly, so people can see it and reject it. You can't discipline society to be more open minded than they are by policing speech. You can't give moral authority to the racists that they wouldn't otherwise have. No one has ever defeated (or even weakened) racism by banning racist speech. But if you are only thinking emotively, rather than structurally, you don't see the role that free speech has to play in keeping foolishness in check, whether by letting extremists discredit themselves, or by showing the emperor that they have no clothes. You are thinking simplistically ("X offends me, so why can't I ban X") rather than structurally. And by doing so, you lose an important corrective mechanism and end up with a very sick society as a result. As well as a more racist society. So the Enlightenment view is to let people speak, and not fret so much about slurs. The slurs will take care of themselves, and will also keep people honest. Society must be one in which there is an open exchange of ideas, especially ideas that many find offensive. It's just a shame that we are losing an appreciation for this view in our war against impoliteness and our forgetting of our history.

tomjen3 9y ago

That depends on what you mean by slur. If you just mean "bad word" then we can certainly replace some, but I am not convinced saying "John is feeble-minded" rather than "John is an idiot" is really different, although saying "John has a learning disability" may be more correct (and does offer the chance that is can either be worked around or fixed). The world "nigger" is essentially completely banned from society, so much so that people call it the n-word, but has that changed attitudes? Or is the person just going to say racist stuff with African-American instead of Nigger?