4 ms·

> narrowing of speech will come for those who believe themselves immune. True, but on other hand, history has shown us the Paradox of Tolerance. "Liberals" ha

> narrowing of speech will come for those who believe themselves immune. True, but on other hand, history has shown us the Paradox of Tolerance. "Liberals" have learned this lesson. When I was growing up, people who I would consider socially liberal generally supported the "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" position. These days, the same people are less confident. I'm one of them. I want a free and open society where people can discuss ideas and those ideas are weighed on their merits and the ridiculous ones (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) are laughed at. But that's not what's happened. The Overton Window in the US has dramatically shifted. I don't know how to fix this. I don't even know that there is a fix for this. But I can certainly understand the mindset that says "maybe we don't need to defend nazis?"

galaxyLogic 5y ago
Of course we don't have to defend Nazis but we can defend free speech. We should attack Nazis' inhumane poisonous speech and misinformation. And especially we shouldn't amplify it. Twitter should not amplify the spread of fascist ideology in the name of "fairness". They should ban it. People still have their freedom of speech but Twitter has the right to not propagate hate and lies.
Jensson 5y ago
> I want a free and open society where people can discuss ideas and those ideas are weighed on their merits and the ridiculous ones (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) are laughed at. > But that's not what's happened. The Overton Window in the US has dramatically shifted. Any evidence for this? To me it seems like things went in the right direction and never really stopped. That things are getting worse and therefore we need to police the people harder is just a lie, don't listen to them. Example, a little over a decade ago the general consensus was that gay marriage shouldn't be legal, in what way was the overton window of gay rights better back then? Authoritarians always try to convince you that evil is growing so they need more powers, but they are wrong regardless if they are right wing or left wing authoritarians. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
- whiddershins 5y ago
  You miss the concept that gay marriage was controversial. Obama was against it. Therefore if that debate was held in the current environment proponents of gay marriage might be silenced and banned
  - Jensson 5y ago
    That is the point, restricting speech isn't a good thing. The poster I replied to argued that restricting speech is a good thing since things are getting worse, even though we can see that things has steadily gotten better. There is no need to restrict speech to make things better, instead things are likely to get much worse by restricting speech as your example shows.
    - cgrealy 5y ago
      For the record, that is not at all what I was arguing. I was arguing that completely unrestricted speech allows ideas that we really don't want (Nazism, etc) to become normalized. This isn't even controversial; it's a well known phenomenon. It's also very difficult to discuss this without talking about Trump and that instantly derails any conversation, but to address the elephant in the room, can you imagine even GW Bush saying "there were fine people on both sides"? I also said that I don't know what the correct fix for that is.
  - cgrealy 5y ago
    That seems highly unlikely. I would say that the debate over transgender rights (bathrooms, etc) is in a similar cultural position to gay marriage a few years ago (i.e. liberals are fine with it, centrists are coming round to the idea and hardline conservatives are having a "moral panic"), yet no one is being silenced there.
noduerme 5y ago
This idea just struck me reading your post, but I think it's something novel. I've read a lot of responses here, and yours encapsulates the argument that speech is subordinate to tolerance better than most. As someone whose immediate family are the only survivors of mass genocide, I'm keenly aware of the dangers of giving intolerance a platform to poison innocent minds, or of tolerating it at all. But not tolerating it, to me, means taking the time to address it rather than attempting to silence it by another act that could be portrayed as intolerant and thus give ammunition to the enemy. So I think it's succinct to say I look at the Overton Window concept like this: Anyone who wants control will try to put the window of debate where they want it, and narrow it as much as possible. The solution is not to move the window but to stand by the value of widening the window and keeping it as wide as possible. The fact that it has shifted in directions some agree with and others disagree with is useless as an argument for restricting or expanding it. Where it is wide and debate flows freely, there will be more tolerance. Where it's narrow - wherever dissenting opinion, even intolerant opinion - is treated as beyond the pale, eventually your own opinion will be treated as beyond the pale, and no one will be left to speak for you. My grandparents were communists and their family was murdered in the Holocaust. To me the primary lesson of the 20th century was that all ideology is a source of horrific torture and murder. Only by absolutely widening that window of speech as much as possible can individuals hope to fight the excesses of whichever ideology happens to be in the middle of the window at the present moment. And living through several fascist-leaning American administrations has made me realize just how temporary the current leftness of that window is, so I really shake my head when I see people of the left attempting to narrow it. I hope that makes sense programmatically, as an algorithm, if not emotionally. Edit - because I'm just formulating this. I'd say there's no place the Overton Window can be which is tolerant. Some centers maybe more than others, but actual tolerance only exists where it is wide, and surely wherever it is narrow it will end with suppression of valid dissent.

galaxyLogic 5y ago

Of course we don't have to defend Nazis but we can defend free speech. We should attack Nazis' inhumane poisonous speech and misinformation. And especially we shouldn't amplify it. Twitter should not amplify the spread of fascist ideology in the name of "fairness". They should ban it. People still have their freedom of speech but Twitter has the right to not propagate hate and lies.

Jensson 5y ago

> I want a free and open society where people can discuss ideas and those ideas are weighed on their merits and the ridiculous ones (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) are laughed at. > But that's not what's happened. The Overton Window in the US has dramatically shifted. Any evidence for this? To me it seems like things went in the right direction and never really stopped. That things are getting worse and therefore we need to police the people harder is just a lie, don't listen to them. Example, a little over a decade ago the general consensus was that gay marriage shouldn't be legal, in what way was the overton window of gay rights better back then? Authoritarians always try to convince you that evil is growing so they need more powers, but they are wrong regardless if they are right wing or left wing authoritarians. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

whiddershins 5y ago
You miss the concept that gay marriage was controversial. Obama was against it. Therefore if that debate was held in the current environment proponents of gay marriage might be silenced and banned
- Jensson 5y ago
  That is the point, restricting speech isn't a good thing. The poster I replied to argued that restricting speech is a good thing since things are getting worse, even though we can see that things has steadily gotten better. There is no need to restrict speech to make things better, instead things are likely to get much worse by restricting speech as your example shows.
  - cgrealy 5y ago
    For the record, that is not at all what I was arguing. I was arguing that completely unrestricted speech allows ideas that we really don't want (Nazism, etc) to become normalized. This isn't even controversial; it's a well known phenomenon. It's also very difficult to discuss this without talking about Trump and that instantly derails any conversation, but to address the elephant in the room, can you imagine even GW Bush saying "there were fine people on both sides"? I also said that I don't know what the correct fix for that is.
- cgrealy 5y ago
  That seems highly unlikely. I would say that the debate over transgender rights (bathrooms, etc) is in a similar cultural position to gay marriage a few years ago (i.e. liberals are fine with it, centrists are coming round to the idea and hardline conservatives are having a "moral panic"), yet no one is being silenced there.

noduerme 5y ago

This idea just struck me reading your post, but I think it's something novel. I've read a lot of responses here, and yours encapsulates the argument that speech is subordinate to tolerance better than most. As someone whose immediate family are the only survivors of mass genocide, I'm keenly aware of the dangers of giving intolerance a platform to poison innocent minds, or of tolerating it at all. But not tolerating it, to me, means taking the time to address it rather than attempting to silence it by another act that could be portrayed as intolerant and thus give ammunition to the enemy. So I think it's succinct to say I look at the Overton Window concept like this: Anyone who wants control will try to put the window of debate where they want it, and narrow it as much as possible. The solution is not to move the window but to stand by the value of widening the window and keeping it as wide as possible. The fact that it has shifted in directions some agree with and others disagree with is useless as an argument for restricting or expanding it. Where it is wide and debate flows freely, there will be more tolerance. Where it's narrow - wherever dissenting opinion, even intolerant opinion - is treated as beyond the pale, eventually your own opinion will be treated as beyond the pale, and no one will be left to speak for you. My grandparents were communists and their family was murdered in the Holocaust. To me the primary lesson of the 20th century was that all ideology is a source of horrific torture and murder. Only by absolutely widening that window of speech as much as possible can individuals hope to fight the excesses of whichever ideology happens to be in the middle of the window at the present moment. And living through several fascist-leaning American administrations has made me realize just how temporary the current leftness of that window is, so I really shake my head when I see people of the left attempting to narrow it. I hope that makes sense programmatically, as an algorithm, if not emotionally. Edit - because I'm just formulating this. I'd say there's no place the Overton Window can be which is tolerant. Some centers maybe more than others, but actual tolerance only exists where it is wide, and surely wherever it is narrow it will end with suppression of valid dissent.