3 ms·

Of course, it depends on what you view as harmful, and who's opinions you agree with. There is no obvious right answer. Pretending we can say "so this should ne

by Latty 5y ago

Of course, it depends on what you view as harmful, and who's opinions you agree with. There is no obvious right answer. Pretending we can say "so this should never happen" is absurd in my view, it implies people have to give their money to people that will use that money to fund harm. The core of free speech is that even abhorrent views should not face censorship by the government, because democracy requires it. If this is true, surely the right to not support people who's views you disagree with is just as necessary? (If not, is every Republican cancelling the Democratic party by not donating to them?) The answer, as with democracy and freedom of speech, is to make the better argument, get people to agree with you, and then use that to support the things you think are right. We don't have a better answer than that. I think there are obvious cases we can personally make better choices: seek context and clarity, don't jump to conclusions and pile on just because others say something without checking it is valid and proportionate, but again, that's never the "anti-cancel culture" argument.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
> The answer, as with democracy and freedom of speech, is to make the better argument, get people to agree with you, and then use that to support the things you think are right. I find this difficult to agree with but not because of the sentiment but because of the environment. If a bad faith actor wants to smear even totally reasoned speech by spouting complete fabrications, so long as they have the bigger platform/microphone on social media no amount of making a correct argument will resolve the problem. I agree in a perfect world without these sorts of algorithmic effects, this would be the ideal solution— but if you simply aren’t favored by the algorithm how can being reasonable save you from someone who is spewing lies?
- Latty 5y ago
  Yeah, of course that's a problem, having a bigger platform gives you more political power. This... isn't new. Money is the classic way to attain platform, and the US has repeatedly doubled down on the freedom to spend as much money as you want politically, as a core freedom. Fox News is constantly broadcasting what I would classify as complete fabrications to their bigger platform, should the government be stepping in to stop that? I agree these things are a problem, but that's the cost of free speech, the two choices are the government deciding who's speech is right, or individuals deciding who's speech is right.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  Once you start increasing the power to censor "false" ideas, who do you really trust to make those decisions and not abuse that authority?
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Please note I never advocated for censorship. I’m only saying the ideal solution won’t work. I don’t want censorship either, but also I don’t believe simply more speech is the solution. I don’t know what the solution is.
    - krapp 5y ago
      If you define anything other than "simply more speech" as censorship, as many seem to nowadays, then a solution either cannot exist or must involve censorship.
tines 5y ago
> If this is true, surely the right to not support people who's views you disagree with is just as necessary? Totally agree, but I think one of the nuances here is that what "support" means can be pretty narrow or very broad. For example, if you don't like someone's message and they're speaking at your college, you can show your disapproval by choosing a point on a spectrum of refusals. You can start light by going to hear them speak but refusing to agree with them, and get a little more intense by attending and listening and then rebutting their arguments (i.e. refusing to approve the message). Sliding further along the scale, you might refuse to go to the talk at all. Further, you might refuse to attend the college that allows them to speak. Further, you might refuse to use any social media that allows them to post. And so on. The further you go on that spectrum, the more your actions cause other people not to be able to support the speaker (or even hear them without supporting them), even if they want to. Not attending the speech yourself may cause the speaker not to be invited back if there is low enough attendance, which is just about the most minor form of that. Further along the spectrum, refusing to use social media that gives them a platform could get them banned if enough people do it, which is a more intense form of denying others access. That's really long-winded but I hope my point is clear. I think "cancel culture" isn't so much about retaining the individual's choice to not support something, but rather denying that choice to other people. And it's not even about supporting really; the ACLU that defended Nazis because they realized that if Nazis' rights can be taken away then so can any minorities' be taken away might not exist any more. Certainly they didn't support Nazism, but they felt that they didn't have to in order to defend them in a court of law. I think someone once said something like "it's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it" and I feel like at a certain level you have to trust people to do that if you want to live in a democracy. My interpretation of opponents of cancel culture is that they don't want other people to keep them from entertaining ideas just because accepting them would be bad. You have to be able to entertain an idea to destroy it as well. The more you know about racist beliefs, for example, the more easily they're destroyed. The less you know, the more appealing they are. Best to bring them out in the light and let them be destroyed by the truth (would be their argument I believe). I guess it's a difference in world view. Some think you can put people on the right track by focusing on providing them with the right information, and others think you can put them on the right track by keeping them from harmful information. The latter might be the way you can instruct a child, but for adults, the former is the only way it can work healthily (they would say). Not sure whether any of that makes any sense, I could be completely wrong, would like to hear your opinion.

by Latty 5y ago

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago

> The answer, as with democracy and freedom of speech, is to make the better argument, get people to agree with you, and then use that to support the things you think are right. I find this difficult to agree with but not because of the sentiment but because of the environment. If a bad faith actor wants to smear even totally reasoned speech by spouting complete fabrications, so long as they have the bigger platform/microphone on social media no amount of making a correct argument will resolve the problem. I agree in a perfect world without these sorts of algorithmic effects, this would be the ideal solution— but if you simply aren’t favored by the algorithm how can being reasonable save you from someone who is spewing lies?

Latty 5y ago
Yeah, of course that's a problem, having a bigger platform gives you more political power. This... isn't new. Money is the classic way to attain platform, and the US has repeatedly doubled down on the freedom to spend as much money as you want politically, as a core freedom. Fox News is constantly broadcasting what I would classify as complete fabrications to their bigger platform, should the government be stepping in to stop that? I agree these things are a problem, but that's the cost of free speech, the two choices are the government deciding who's speech is right, or individuals deciding who's speech is right.
jimbokun 5y ago
Once you start increasing the power to censor "false" ideas, who do you really trust to make those decisions and not abuse that authority?
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  Please note I never advocated for censorship. I’m only saying the ideal solution won’t work. I don’t want censorship either, but also I don’t believe simply more speech is the solution. I don’t know what the solution is.
  - krapp 5y ago
    If you define anything other than "simply more speech" as censorship, as many seem to nowadays, then a solution either cannot exist or must involve censorship.

tines 5y ago

> If this is true, surely the right to not support people who's views you disagree with is just as necessary? Totally agree, but I think one of the nuances here is that what "support" means can be pretty narrow or very broad. For example, if you don't like someone's message and they're speaking at your college, you can show your disapproval by choosing a point on a spectrum of refusals. You can start light by going to hear them speak but refusing to agree with them, and get a little more intense by attending and listening and then rebutting their arguments (i.e. refusing to approve the message). Sliding further along the scale, you might refuse to go to the talk at all. Further, you might refuse to attend the college that allows them to speak. Further, you might refuse to use any social media that allows them to post. And so on. The further you go on that spectrum, the more your actions cause other people not to be able to support the speaker (or even hear them without supporting them), even if they want to. Not attending the speech yourself may cause the speaker not to be invited back if there is low enough attendance, which is just about the most minor form of that. Further along the spectrum, refusing to use social media that gives them a platform could get them banned if enough people do it, which is a more intense form of denying others access. That's really long-winded but I hope my point is clear. I think "cancel culture" isn't so much about retaining the individual's choice to not support something, but rather denying that choice to other people. And it's not even about supporting really; the ACLU that defended Nazis because they realized that if Nazis' rights can be taken away then so can any minorities' be taken away might not exist any more. Certainly they didn't support Nazism, but they felt that they didn't have to in order to defend them in a court of law. I think someone once said something like "it's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it" and I feel like at a certain level you have to trust people to do that if you want to live in a democracy. My interpretation of opponents of cancel culture is that they don't want other people to keep them from entertaining ideas just because accepting them would be bad. You have to be able to entertain an idea to destroy it as well. The more you know about racist beliefs, for example, the more easily they're destroyed. The less you know, the more appealing they are. Best to bring them out in the light and let them be destroyed by the truth (would be their argument I believe). I guess it's a difference in world view. Some think you can put people on the right track by focusing on providing them with the right information, and others think you can put them on the right track by keeping them from harmful information. The latter might be the way you can instruct a child, but for adults, the former is the only way it can work healthily (they would say). Not sure whether any of that makes any sense, I could be completely wrong, would like to hear your opinion.