13 ms·

From TFA: > Americans don’t have, and have never had, any right to be free of shaming or shunning. The First Amendment protects our right to speak free of gove

From TFA: > Americans don’t have, and have never had, any right to be free of shaming or shunning. The First Amendment protects our right to speak free of government interference. It does not protect us from other people saying mean things in response to our speech. First, the term "free speech" is overloaded-- it means a legal right to speak free of government interference, and it also means a cultural environment of pluralism where opposing views are welcomed and debate is encouraged. Here Ken conflates the two meanings. Second, unlike legal norms, cultural norms are continuous rather than discrete. There are maybe 3-5 definitions of murder (premeditated, involuntary, etc.), but saying mean things is a continuum. You can live in a society like Soviet Union c 1930 where your coworker who wants your position calls for "the people's court" because of a joke you made-- a completely informal struggle session that doesn't involve the government. Or you can live in a society where you can express anything whatsoever and not get fired. Or at a million points in between. Third, legal norms follow cultural norms. See gay marriage. When people talk about cancel culture they talk about cultural norms shifting toward struggle sessions (the word "culture" is in the term!), and concerns that some day legal norms may follow this cultural shift. In this context the word "right" is used colloquially. Obviously nobody has a legal right to speak without fear of shaming. We want to live in a culture where a joke on the internet doesn't lead to a struggle session at work. It isn't batshit insane, it isn't gobsmackingly wrong, and it isn't that difficult to understand.

otterley 5y ago
> We want to live in a culture where a joke on the internet doesn't lead to a struggle session at work. Everyone wants to do that, until they find themselves the target of a joke while struggling to have a good career, live in a nice place, and raise a family as a member of an unprivileged group with a lot of adverse baggage to overcome. Not everyone thinks such jokes are funny, and they have just as much a right to be pissed off about them as you think you have to make them. Getting along with your peers is an essential duty at most jobs, and that includes refraining from unnecessarily upsetting them.
- coffeemug 5y ago
  These things start out attempting to correct an injustice and then take on a life of their own. Unscrupulous people see it as a career opportunity under the pretense of moral righteousness. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union in 1930s. All the evils were done in the name of correcting injustice and helping the oppressed. I'm in favor of correcting injustices, obviously. The problem is with the opportunists.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Do you have to be part of an unprivileged group to find a joke offensive and deserving of a severe reaction? And does this only apply in America? Like if I go to Germany and they make fun of Americans for being fat I can get really mad and shame them and stuff right? ———- Though in my own personal experience of being the butt of many jokes, I find it’s easiest to just disarm them by laughing and then trying to take the person out for a beer. Then we can laugh at my expense together. I’ve never found being angry to be a long-term solution TBH. But that’s my experience.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > in my own personal experience of being the butt of many jokes, I find it’s easiest to just disarm them by laughing and then trying to take the person out for a beer. Then we can laugh at my expense together It sounds like the jokes people are making at your expense are because of a single action that they are mocking, possibly as a callback to a trait you have. Do you see how it would be different was a joke about something intrinsic and permanent that you've been hearing your whole life? And that instead of being good natured, it was being told by someone who would never share a beer with you?
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Well there are very few such people, and even KKK members can be befriended by a black person. > It sounds like the jokes people are making at your expense are because of a single action that they are mocking, possibly as a callback to a trait you have. Are traits ok to make fun of? And if I take an action and someone makes fun of it, is it not hurtful? I’m not trying to draw comparisons here, but I’m not sure you can generally invalidate the experiences of others either. Comedy, and making fun of these things and each other is progress. When we let words make us fragile we give them power that they shouldn’t have. People all over the world are or can be mean because of ignorance. Why give them more power and leverage over you?
tptacek 5y ago
Ken White agrees with you that there are disproportionate responses to speech on the Internet and, if you follow him, isn't any more amenable to struggle sessions than you are (see: his years-long advocacy of what Lukianoff is doing at FIRE). The problem is that the NYT here managed to articulate a different, and stupid, problem: the eroding of our supposed right to speak without shame or shunning. The NYT's arguments are in a line of similar arguments that are not in fact about free speech, but rather the opposite: they purport to defend speech, but only selectively, and in the cases they don't defend, they're an appeal to shut down speech and voluntary association.
- coffeemug 5y ago
  I didn't interpret the editorial this way. I saw it as articulating a very real problem of eroding cultural norms that welcome and promote pluralism. I don't know why you say "supposed right". It's not a legal right, obviously, but in a sense people have a human right to give a talk at a university without needing a police escort.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Ken White agrees with you that you shouldn't need a police escort to give a talk at a university, and said so in this response.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mjlawson 5y ago
> First, the term "free speech" is overloaded-- it means a legal right to speak free of government interference, and it also means a cultural environment of pluralism where opposing views are welcomed and debate is encouraged. Here Ken conflates the two meanings. Wait, what? No he doesn't. "Free speech" isn't in the quote you pulled from, nor was it in the quote that Ken was responding to. The Times started by saying that there was a "fundamental right" to speak your mind without fear of reprisal. That's pure hogwash. As I understand the history of the United States, I can't recall a single time where the cultural environment you've described existed. It might be an ideal, but we've never even been close to it. There's always been public backlash for unpopular opinions. But again, we're getting distracted from the larger point, which is that was a _horrible_ piece by The Times.
causality0 5y ago
We want to live in a culture where a joke on the internet doesn't lead to a struggle session at work. It isn't batshit insane, it isn't gobsmackingly wrong, and it isn't that difficult to understand. I question, however, if there's been as much societal change between the internet wild west days we all miss and the current day. Sure, you could write a ten page screed on how much you hate those evil left-handed people and think they should all be put into death camps, but you weren't doing it under your own name and your next-door neighbor wasn't reading it. It's only when people insist on linking their online persona with their real-life persona that they have problems. That is what I think changed. Not the way people respond to speech but peoples' propensity for making that speech under their real name.
evrydayhustling 5y ago
As the top post says, White would probably agree with you about the struggle session. But there is room for a wide gulf between a joke leading to a struggle session and "other people people saying mean things in response to your speech". The category potentially covered by "cancel culture" is too broad, and failure to dig into the details and trade offs is at best unserious. At worst, it's a dishonest way to use norms at one end of the spectrum (let's all take jokes in stride) to defend norm-breaking on the other side (Milo should get invited to university stages even though he uses them to bully individuals).
RangerScience 5y ago
First, I think your points are well made and articulated. I particularly like your term "struggle session". Second, I think you're missing what Ken called the "First Speaker Problem" (which IMHO is one of the most important parts of Ken's thinking) > "We want to live in a culture where a joke on the internet doesn't lead to a struggle session at work" The implication I'm hearing in those word is that the "first speaker" shouldn't be thrust into a struggle session at work for their speech; what I'm not hearing (although your literal words would cover this situation, so maybe I'm mishearing) is consideration into if the joke (or other statement) thrusts someone else into a struggle session at work. IMHO, to re-use your words; it isn't batshit insane, it isn't gobsmackingly wrong, and it isn't that difficult to understand - whatever principles you want to apply to the responders to the apparent "First Speaker" should also be applied to the "First Speaker" as if they are themselves a responder. (If only because, I'd argue, they are meaningfully actually a responder themselves)
- coffeemug 5y ago
  I don't understand the "first speaker" problem, or why this abstraction is necessary. You shouldn't be thrust into a struggle session at work independent of when you entered the conversation or whether you entered into it at all.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Perhaps you should spend some time thinking about the distinction he's making before trying to take the piece apart based on an abstraction he's not talking about.
    - coffeemug 5y ago
      I did, and I still don't understand why it's a necessary abstraction. As I said, you shouldn't be thrust into a struggle session at work independent of when you entered the conversation or whether you entered into it at all. That's the whole point of liberal order-- equal justice under the law. Nobody is trying to get responders to shut up. They're trying to stop responders from shutting up the initiators. The distinction between the two is that the latter is usually qualitatively escalatory. Alice makes a joke on Twitter, but rather than respond on Twitter Bob calls her employer. Alice schedules a talk at a university, but rather than scheduling a rebuttal Bob calls the university demanding to cancel the talk. Alice writes an op-ed, Bob publishes her address. Both are speech, but a cultural norm of escalation makes the culture a pretty awful place to live.
chrismcb 5y ago
White didn't conflate anything. I'm pretty sure White understand the difference between free speech and Free Speech (shoot, he even said so in the article) White was basically saying we need to come to an agreement on a definition of Cancel Culture. And he suggests the messaging is about the disproportionate response to speech.

otterley 5y ago

> We want to live in a culture where a joke on the internet doesn't lead to a struggle session at work. Everyone wants to do that, until they find themselves the target of a joke while struggling to have a good career, live in a nice place, and raise a family as a member of an unprivileged group with a lot of adverse baggage to overcome. Not everyone thinks such jokes are funny, and they have just as much a right to be pissed off about them as you think you have to make them. Getting along with your peers is an essential duty at most jobs, and that includes refraining from unnecessarily upsetting them.

coffeemug 5y ago
These things start out attempting to correct an injustice and then take on a life of their own. Unscrupulous people see it as a career opportunity under the pretense of moral righteousness. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union in 1930s. All the evils were done in the name of correcting injustice and helping the oppressed. I'm in favor of correcting injustices, obviously. The problem is with the opportunists.
ericmay 5y ago
Do you have to be part of an unprivileged group to find a joke offensive and deserving of a severe reaction? And does this only apply in America? Like if I go to Germany and they make fun of Americans for being fat I can get really mad and shame them and stuff right? ———- Though in my own personal experience of being the butt of many jokes, I find it’s easiest to just disarm them by laughing and then trying to take the person out for a beer. Then we can laugh at my expense together. I’ve never found being angry to be a long-term solution TBH. But that’s my experience.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > in my own personal experience of being the butt of many jokes, I find it’s easiest to just disarm them by laughing and then trying to take the person out for a beer. Then we can laugh at my expense together It sounds like the jokes people are making at your expense are because of a single action that they are mocking, possibly as a callback to a trait you have. Do you see how it would be different was a joke about something intrinsic and permanent that you've been hearing your whole life? And that instead of being good natured, it was being told by someone who would never share a beer with you?
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Well there are very few such people, and even KKK members can be befriended by a black person. > It sounds like the jokes people are making at your expense are because of a single action that they are mocking, possibly as a callback to a trait you have. Are traits ok to make fun of? And if I take an action and someone makes fun of it, is it not hurtful? I’m not trying to draw comparisons here, but I’m not sure you can generally invalidate the experiences of others either. Comedy, and making fun of these things and each other is progress. When we let words make us fragile we give them power that they shouldn’t have. People all over the world are or can be mean because of ignorance. Why give them more power and leverage over you?

tptacek 5y ago

Ken White agrees with you that there are disproportionate responses to speech on the Internet and, if you follow him, isn't any more amenable to struggle sessions than you are (see: his years-long advocacy of what Lukianoff is doing at FIRE). The problem is that the NYT here managed to articulate a different, and stupid, problem: the eroding of our supposed right to speak without shame or shunning. The NYT's arguments are in a line of similar arguments that are not in fact about free speech, but rather the opposite: they purport to defend speech, but only selectively, and in the cases they don't defend, they're an appeal to shut down speech and voluntary association.

coffeemug 5y ago
I didn't interpret the editorial this way. I saw it as articulating a very real problem of eroding cultural norms that welcome and promote pluralism. I don't know why you say "supposed right". It's not a legal right, obviously, but in a sense people have a human right to give a talk at a university without needing a police escort.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Ken White agrees with you that you shouldn't need a police escort to give a talk at a university, and said so in this response.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mjlawson 5y ago

> First, the term "free speech" is overloaded-- it means a legal right to speak free of government interference, and it also means a cultural environment of pluralism where opposing views are welcomed and debate is encouraged. Here Ken conflates the two meanings. Wait, what? No he doesn't. "Free speech" isn't in the quote you pulled from, nor was it in the quote that Ken was responding to. The Times started by saying that there was a "fundamental right" to speak your mind without fear of reprisal. That's pure hogwash. As I understand the history of the United States, I can't recall a single time where the cultural environment you've described existed. It might be an ideal, but we've never even been close to it. There's always been public backlash for unpopular opinions. But again, we're getting distracted from the larger point, which is that was a _horrible_ piece by The Times.

causality0 5y ago

We want to live in a culture where a joke on the internet doesn't lead to a struggle session at work. It isn't batshit insane, it isn't gobsmackingly wrong, and it isn't that difficult to understand. I question, however, if there's been as much societal change between the internet wild west days we all miss and the current day. Sure, you could write a ten page screed on how much you hate those evil left-handed people and think they should all be put into death camps, but you weren't doing it under your own name and your next-door neighbor wasn't reading it. It's only when people insist on linking their online persona with their real-life persona that they have problems. That is what I think changed. Not the way people respond to speech but peoples' propensity for making that speech under their real name.

evrydayhustling 5y ago

As the top post says, White would probably agree with you about the struggle session. But there is room for a wide gulf between a joke leading to a struggle session and "other people people saying mean things in response to your speech". The category potentially covered by "cancel culture" is too broad, and failure to dig into the details and trade offs is at best unserious. At worst, it's a dishonest way to use norms at one end of the spectrum (let's all take jokes in stride) to defend norm-breaking on the other side (Milo should get invited to university stages even though he uses them to bully individuals).

RangerScience 5y ago

First, I think your points are well made and articulated. I particularly like your term "struggle session". Second, I think you're missing what Ken called the "First Speaker Problem" (which IMHO is one of the most important parts of Ken's thinking) > "We want to live in a culture where a joke on the internet doesn't lead to a struggle session at work" The implication I'm hearing in those word is that the "first speaker" shouldn't be thrust into a struggle session at work for their speech; what I'm not hearing (although your literal words would cover this situation, so maybe I'm mishearing) is consideration into if the joke (or other statement) thrusts someone else into a struggle session at work. IMHO, to re-use your words; it isn't batshit insane, it isn't gobsmackingly wrong, and it isn't that difficult to understand - whatever principles you want to apply to the responders to the apparent "First Speaker" should also be applied to the "First Speaker" as if they are themselves a responder. (If only because, I'd argue, they are meaningfully actually a responder themselves)

coffeemug 5y ago
I don't understand the "first speaker" problem, or why this abstraction is necessary. You shouldn't be thrust into a struggle session at work independent of when you entered the conversation or whether you entered into it at all.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Perhaps you should spend some time thinking about the distinction he's making before trying to take the piece apart based on an abstraction he's not talking about.
  - coffeemug 5y ago
    I did, and I still don't understand why it's a necessary abstraction. As I said, you shouldn't be thrust into a struggle session at work independent of when you entered the conversation or whether you entered into it at all. That's the whole point of liberal order-- equal justice under the law. Nobody is trying to get responders to shut up. They're trying to stop responders from shutting up the initiators. The distinction between the two is that the latter is usually qualitatively escalatory. Alice makes a joke on Twitter, but rather than respond on Twitter Bob calls her employer. Alice schedules a talk at a university, but rather than scheduling a rebuttal Bob calls the university demanding to cancel the talk. Alice writes an op-ed, Bob publishes her address. Both are speech, but a cultural norm of escalation makes the culture a pretty awful place to live.

chrismcb 5y ago

White didn't conflate anything. I'm pretty sure White understand the difference between free speech and Free Speech (shoot, he even said so in the article) White was basically saying we need to come to an agreement on a definition of Cancel Culture. And he suggests the messaging is about the disproportionate response to speech.