3 ms·
His “First Speaker Problem” is exactly why I’ve hated these discussions thus far; why is the speech of one person sacred, but speech in response to that person
by TameAntelope 5y ago
His “First Speaker Problem” is exactly why I’ve hated these discussions thus far; why is the speech of one person sacred, but speech in response to that person not? The idea that the First Speaker is, themself, responding to yet someone else is a great follow up that I hadn’t considered.
I also have very low expectations for this community’s ability to discuss this reasonably. So far is seems like folks are posting responses to the topic, rather than the article, and that hardly bodes well.
- croes 5y agoIf you say something and someone calls you an idiot it's free speech but if hundreds do it at the same time it's bullying.
- topaz0 5y agoFrom the essay: >> Saying “colleges shouldn’t disinvite speakers because of controversy” is a good specific action item; we can debate it. Saying “Ken, stop piling on 20-follower Twitter accounts when they say stupid things” is an action item; I can debate it. [Shan’t.] Saying “stop demanding that businesses fire people for what they say off the job” is an action item. I might not agree but we can discuss it. Saying “if a minor says something racist in a semi-private setting we shouldn’t put them on blast and make them infamous” is an action item. We can grapple with it. We can’t grapple with “the culture makes me feel uncomfortable speaking.” Saying that just returns us to our cultural and partisan priors.