4 ms·

"it also seems there is an increasing sense of entitlement to be able to say whatever you want and not be held accountable for it. " ??? I think it's definite

by jariel 6y ago

"it also seems there is an increasing sense of entitlement to be able to say whatever you want and not be held accountable for it. " ??? I think it's definitely the opposite. The evidence seems clear - dozens of the centre-left's most foundational global thinkers (i.e Noam Chomsky et. al.) have had to take out a page in Harper's to literally tamp down the authoritarian tendencies of those suppressing speech, mostly more extremists of 'their own side'. [1] This represents a profound shift in sentiment from just one generation ago whereupon thinkers (such as Chomsky!) would have been fighting the 'other side' for the ability to speak their minds - as in the case in more classical authoritarian societies (i.e. Belarus). We are not entering a world where 'those evil racist using the n-word are finally being called out' - frankly - this was already the case for at least generation. We are now entering the phase where people are destroyed for having slightly controversial, but nevertheless respectable opinions that fit within civil discourse. Student unions are banning comedians, and thinkers with whom they disagree. Aside from 'public statements' - there is of course the reasonable act of contextualization. What people say while they are partying, drinking it up, among one another, as friends, is not 'public discourse'. This notion that people must live 'professionally sanitized lives every waking moment' is rubbish. The whole point of 'privacy' is the ability to speak freely. I'm concerned by your statement, because as your professional life encroaches upon you with 'greater degrees of responsibility' - you may be projecting that narrow perspective onto society at large, and risk authoritarian moralizing from a sanitized executive bubble 'where even thoughts are guarded'. So yes, there are a few dirtbags being called out, but for everyone one of them there's a long list of legit thinkers being blacklisted, and a much longer list of regular plebes unable to just act normally, within their own context with the moral beam of globalism like a spotlight upon them at all times. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_on_Justice_and_Open_Debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_on_Justice_and_Open_D...

ardy42 6y ago
>> In my 20+ years of being a professional, and especially after having been in leadership positions I’ve always been careful to watch what I say, when, and to whom. This isn’t paranoia and I haven’t felt “unable to express myself”, this is just part of functioning in polite society. >> While I do agree there is more calling out of people for saying things (for better and worse) it also seems there is an increasing sense of entitlement to be able to say whatever you want and not be held accountable for it. This article seems to be falling into the latter bucket. > ??? > I think it's definitely the opposite. > The evidence seems clear - dozens of the centre-left's most foundational global thinkers (i.e Noam Chomsky et. al.) have had to take out a page in Harper's to literally tamp down the authoritarian tendencies of those suppressing speech, mostly more extremists of 'their own side'. [1] You're both right: On the right, there seems to be a growing view that "free speech" means that you should be able to say whatever you want (even if it's literally a factually untrue lie), and not experience any social censure and be welcome on any platform or venue. For an example of this, see the nonsense around the false claims of election fraud and people quitting Twitter for Parler because of Twitter's labels on that misinformation. On the left, there's the extreme form of political correctness that's metastasized into "cancel culture," where in some quarters there's an unwillingness to tolerate differing opinions and perspectives on many topics.
- jariel 6y ago
  " there seems to be a growing view that "free speech" means that you should be able to say whatever you want (even if it's literally a factually untrue lie)" This is a good point, however, it's worth pointing out that 'free speech' definitely covers 'untrue and false facts'. I guess, if you're the President of the US, lying about election outcomes, the the results of the lies are so outrageous, that there may be some 'sanction' on a private platform. I'm not sure what the 'censure' should be for private individuals, sometimes regular people have difficulty with the facts.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    >> On the right, there seems to be a growing view that "free speech" means that you should be able to say whatever you want (even if it's literally a factually untrue lie), and not experience any social censure and be welcome on any platform or venue. > This is a good point, however, it's worth pointing out that 'free speech' definitely covers 'untrue and false facts'. I suppose so, but such things are often not protected by the First Amendment, and expressions of falsehood have no positive value except when corrected. The point I was making was actually the clause after the one you quoted. > I guess, if you're the President of the US, lying about election outcomes, the the results of the lies are so outrageous, that there may be some 'sanction' on a private platform. > I'm not sure what the 'censure' should be for private individuals, sometimes regular people have difficulty with the facts. What I meant by "social censure" was criticism, condemnation, correction, social rejection, etc. The people on the right that I was talking about seem to believe the free speech means they should be immune from those things, or that their statements should be presented with a false balance (e.g. as a he-said-she-said, "Trump says the sky is green, but Biden disagrees and says the sky is blue"), or that others should be obligated to repeat them without further comment. The Parler things show that clearly, since their main objection was that their false statements on Twitter were being paired with corrective warnings and sometimes even hidden behind them.

by jariel 6y ago

ardy42 6y ago

>> In my 20+ years of being a professional, and especially after having been in leadership positions I’ve always been careful to watch what I say, when, and to whom. This isn’t paranoia and I haven’t felt “unable to express myself”, this is just part of functioning in polite society. >> While I do agree there is more calling out of people for saying things (for better and worse) it also seems there is an increasing sense of entitlement to be able to say whatever you want and not be held accountable for it. This article seems to be falling into the latter bucket. > ??? > I think it's definitely the opposite. > The evidence seems clear - dozens of the centre-left's most foundational global thinkers (i.e Noam Chomsky et. al.) have had to take out a page in Harper's to literally tamp down the authoritarian tendencies of those suppressing speech, mostly more extremists of 'their own side'. [1] You're both right: On the right, there seems to be a growing view that "free speech" means that you should be able to say whatever you want (even if it's literally a factually untrue lie), and not experience any social censure and be welcome on any platform or venue. For an example of this, see the nonsense around the false claims of election fraud and people quitting Twitter for Parler because of Twitter's labels on that misinformation. On the left, there's the extreme form of political correctness that's metastasized into "cancel culture," where in some quarters there's an unwillingness to tolerate differing opinions and perspectives on many topics.

jariel 6y ago
" there seems to be a growing view that "free speech" means that you should be able to say whatever you want (even if it's literally a factually untrue lie)" This is a good point, however, it's worth pointing out that 'free speech' definitely covers 'untrue and false facts'. I guess, if you're the President of the US, lying about election outcomes, the the results of the lies are so outrageous, that there may be some 'sanction' on a private platform. I'm not sure what the 'censure' should be for private individuals, sometimes regular people have difficulty with the facts.
- ardy42 6y ago
  >> On the right, there seems to be a growing view that "free speech" means that you should be able to say whatever you want (even if it's literally a factually untrue lie), and not experience any social censure and be welcome on any platform or venue. > This is a good point, however, it's worth pointing out that 'free speech' definitely covers 'untrue and false facts'. I suppose so, but such things are often not protected by the First Amendment, and expressions of falsehood have no positive value except when corrected. The point I was making was actually the clause after the one you quoted. > I guess, if you're the President of the US, lying about election outcomes, the the results of the lies are so outrageous, that there may be some 'sanction' on a private platform. > I'm not sure what the 'censure' should be for private individuals, sometimes regular people have difficulty with the facts. What I meant by "social censure" was criticism, condemnation, correction, social rejection, etc. The people on the right that I was talking about seem to believe the free speech means they should be immune from those things, or that their statements should be presented with a false balance (e.g. as a he-said-she-said, "Trump says the sky is green, but Biden disagrees and says the sky is blue"), or that others should be obligated to repeat them without further comment. The Parler things show that clearly, since their main objection was that their false statements on Twitter were being paired with corrective warnings and sometimes even hidden behind them.