5 ms·

The problem is of course when legitimate facts or opinions hurt others, it has the side effect of silencing others and creating a false sense of consensus (some

The problem is of course when legitimate facts or opinions hurt others, it has the side effect of silencing others and creating a false sense of consensus (sometimes, literally, a false sense of scientific consensus) and debating the actual merit of different policies. The flipside of your statement is "I'm starting to think that only the people whose opinions aren't silenced are the ones who like safe spaces"

tptacek 7y ago
The reason this isn't a devastating rhetorical blow is that everyone from scientists to basement-dwelling bigots believes they have "legitimate facts" on their side. People believe all sorts of random things, and some of those things are genuinely harmful. I'm not saying I know where the line needs to be drawn, but there clearly is a line somewhere; "drink bleach to cure diseases" seems like a solid (and real!) example.
- ItsMattyG 7y ago
  I mean, are you advocating for the policy that people shouldn't be allowed to say this? Would you have also advocated that people shouldn't say "mold cures disease"? How would we have then come to a consensus that in fact this mold does cure bacterial infections if we couldn't discuss it because it was considered "too dangerous to ever discuss"?
  - tptacek 7y ago
    No. Rather, I'm saying two other things. First, that it doesn't get us anywhere to declare some statements as "facts" or "objective truth", because whether or not something is or isn't a "fact" is in effect the entire debate; it begs the question. Second, I'm pointing out that we already draw lines between colorable arguments and disqualified nonsense. For instance, if you attended Yale Medicine and started preaching that vaccines were poison and bleach was medicine, you would probably not last long there; Yale Medicine classes are (I presume) a "safe space" against "drink bleach" --- which, again, is an actual thing. For the most part, you're allowed to tell people that bleach is medicine. You shouldn't, but you won't get arrested for it. Similarly: people who want other kinds of "safe spaces" aren't going to achieve a public policy outcome where transphobia and other forms of bigotry are outlawed; rather, they're aiming for something similar, in specific settings, to what top-tier medical schools do to disqualify laetrile advocacy. That doesn't sound crazy to me. All this stuff is fraught, of course; I follow and endorse FIRE, who seem to have interesting things to say about this and come at it from a fairly hard-line 1A set of principles. Also, if you pay attention to FIRE, you'll see that this kind of campus free speech stuff comes from all sides of the political spectrum. Everyone overreaches; we're human.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Facts are objective truths. I don't see how discussing them could ever be a problem, regardless of how you consider the person quoting them. "Drink bleach to cure diseases" is not a fact. I'm not sure what that example is supposed to mean. Obviously people making stuff up is a problem but isn't that the complete opposite of facts?
  - tptacek 7y ago
    How do you know what is an isn't an objective truth? People disagree about things. You've just shut down a real (and inexplicably popular) opposing view, that vaccines are poison and bleach is medicine. What gave you the right to do this?
    - manigandham 7y ago
      The definition of objective means it's untainted by interpretation. These facts are scientific: studied, documented and verified with proofs and experiments to a complete consensus on their acceptance as truth. Now people can still discuss and debate anything based on the facts as a narrative and reason for other topics and scenarios, but if you're debating the facts themselves then we're not going to get very far unless you bring evidence.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        How do you know what is and isn't untainted by interpretation? Who adjudicates? Do you think the "avoid vaccines drink bleach" people don't believe what they're advocating for, or think the science isn't on their side? They absolutely have coherent (stupid, but coherent) arguments about why they're the ones advocating for something studied, documented, and verified. The point isn't that they're right; the point is that you can't simply declare one side of an argument "factual" and the other not and then walk away from it without acknowledging that some exogenous authority is what's allowing you to do that, and while we're probably all going to agree about the right authority for basic medicine, we're likely to disagree about the authorities on other issues.

tptacek 7y ago

The reason this isn't a devastating rhetorical blow is that everyone from scientists to basement-dwelling bigots believes they have "legitimate facts" on their side. People believe all sorts of random things, and some of those things are genuinely harmful. I'm not saying I know where the line needs to be drawn, but there clearly is a line somewhere; "drink bleach to cure diseases" seems like a solid (and real!) example.

ItsMattyG 7y ago
I mean, are you advocating for the policy that people shouldn't be allowed to say this? Would you have also advocated that people shouldn't say "mold cures disease"? How would we have then come to a consensus that in fact this mold does cure bacterial infections if we couldn't discuss it because it was considered "too dangerous to ever discuss"?
- tptacek 7y ago
  No. Rather, I'm saying two other things. First, that it doesn't get us anywhere to declare some statements as "facts" or "objective truth", because whether or not something is or isn't a "fact" is in effect the entire debate; it begs the question. Second, I'm pointing out that we already draw lines between colorable arguments and disqualified nonsense. For instance, if you attended Yale Medicine and started preaching that vaccines were poison and bleach was medicine, you would probably not last long there; Yale Medicine classes are (I presume) a "safe space" against "drink bleach" --- which, again, is an actual thing. For the most part, you're allowed to tell people that bleach is medicine. You shouldn't, but you won't get arrested for it. Similarly: people who want other kinds of "safe spaces" aren't going to achieve a public policy outcome where transphobia and other forms of bigotry are outlawed; rather, they're aiming for something similar, in specific settings, to what top-tier medical schools do to disqualify laetrile advocacy. That doesn't sound crazy to me. All this stuff is fraught, of course; I follow and endorse FIRE, who seem to have interesting things to say about this and come at it from a fairly hard-line 1A set of principles. Also, if you pay attention to FIRE, you'll see that this kind of campus free speech stuff comes from all sides of the political spectrum. Everyone overreaches; we're human.
manigandham 7y ago
Facts are objective truths. I don't see how discussing them could ever be a problem, regardless of how you consider the person quoting them. "Drink bleach to cure diseases" is not a fact. I'm not sure what that example is supposed to mean. Obviously people making stuff up is a problem but isn't that the complete opposite of facts?
- tptacek 7y ago
  How do you know what is an isn't an objective truth? People disagree about things. You've just shut down a real (and inexplicably popular) opposing view, that vaccines are poison and bleach is medicine. What gave you the right to do this?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    The definition of objective means it's untainted by interpretation. These facts are scientific: studied, documented and verified with proofs and experiments to a complete consensus on their acceptance as truth. Now people can still discuss and debate anything based on the facts as a narrative and reason for other topics and scenarios, but if you're debating the facts themselves then we're not going to get very far unless you bring evidence.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      How do you know what is and isn't untainted by interpretation? Who adjudicates? Do you think the "avoid vaccines drink bleach" people don't believe what they're advocating for, or think the science isn't on their side? They absolutely have coherent (stupid, but coherent) arguments about why they're the ones advocating for something studied, documented, and verified. The point isn't that they're right; the point is that you can't simply declare one side of an argument "factual" and the other not and then walk away from it without acknowledging that some exogenous authority is what's allowing you to do that, and while we're probably all going to agree about the right authority for basic medicine, we're likely to disagree about the authorities on other issues.