3 ms·

If someone said "we have a right to food and housing," would you call them "batshit insane"? While I agree that we don't have a right "speak [our] minds and voi

by slibhb 5y ago

If someone said "we have a right to food and housing," would you call them "batshit insane"? While I agree that we don't have a right "speak [our] minds and voice [our] opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned," you (and the author) are adopting a style of argument where certain positions are subjected to intense scrutiny. The first paragraph of the NYT op-ed doesn't stand up under that scrutiny but the rest of it does, more or less. The blog just gets weird: > It’s good that the Times is worried about speech-suppressing laws promoted by some conservatives, but it’s terrible that the Times is gullibly accepting the Right’s deeply dishonest assertion that it doesn’t engage in the sort of behavior it calls “cancel culture.” There is no serious argument that conservatives refrain from “cancel culture.” Which part of the following quote from the op-ed claims that conservatives "refrain from cancel culture"? > How has this happened? In large part, it’s because the political left and the right are caught in a destructive loop of condemnation and recrimination around cancel culture. Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech. Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms. None of it! It says that conservatives have taken cancel culture further. The author is worried that agreeing that cancel culture is a problem will help the right. But he does agree, so he does his agreeing in a roundabout way while heaping scorn on the op-ed. The overall effect is unpleasant.

tptacek 5y ago
You don't in fact have a right to food and housing. But a right to food and housing would be a coherent proposition; you could design such a right (within obvious limits). You can't do that with the proposition that people have a right to speech without fear of shame or shunning; like, the logic itself literally doesn't work. You could simply shut down anyone's objectionable political speech by saying that it is shaming or shunning; they could respond in kind. Again: this is what White is saying with his "First Speaker Problem". I don't think you've very effectively rebutted his argument here.
- slibhb 5y ago
  I didn't try to rebut the blog. And anyway, my comment doesn't hang on right to no-shunning/right to food being identical. My point was that the blog is strange because the author agrees with the spirit of the op-ed while taking pains to criticize it. I think this is clearly because he dislikes being on the same side as conservatives. If I was going to disagree with the blog, it would be over this strange idea that we should only talk about specific cancel culture incidents and never about the principle of free speech. Why not both?
  - tptacek 5y ago
    He clearly doesn't agree with the spirit of the editorial (it's a staff editorial, not an op-ed). He thinks there are real free speech problems, but that the editorial (and the public sentiment it cites) terribly misconstrues them, succumbing to sloppy thinking in a way that not only works against their stated goal but actually further jeopardizes speech.
    - juliusdavies 5y ago
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" NYT would prefer: "I slightly disapprove, err--- I mean I very very very mildly approve of what you say, and I will defend to the death your right to say it, while also acknowledging that I must be respectful to you in all that I say regarding what you said." (Here in British Columbia, Canada, a Jewish lawyer famously defended a holocaust denier's right to free speech (pro-bono!). I remember the lawyer telling people that he planned to be the first to piss on his client's grave, but that he also intended to defend him in the courts to the very best of his abilities.)
    - slibhb 5y ago
      He agrees with the spirit of the op-ed: > I believe that “cancel culture” exists — that is, I believe that some responses to speech are disproportionate and outside norms of decency, and I think the culture sometimes encourages such responses. He's criticizing how the editorial talks about the problem. I agree with the spirit of the blog and the op-ed. I'm criticizing how the blog talks about the op-ed.

by slibhb 5y ago

tptacek 5y ago

You don't in fact have a right to food and housing. But a right to food and housing would be a coherent proposition; you could design such a right (within obvious limits). You can't do that with the proposition that people have a right to speech without fear of shame or shunning; like, the logic itself literally doesn't work. You could simply shut down anyone's objectionable political speech by saying that it is shaming or shunning; they could respond in kind. Again: this is what White is saying with his "First Speaker Problem". I don't think you've very effectively rebutted his argument here.

slibhb 5y ago
I didn't try to rebut the blog. And anyway, my comment doesn't hang on right to no-shunning/right to food being identical. My point was that the blog is strange because the author agrees with the spirit of the op-ed while taking pains to criticize it. I think this is clearly because he dislikes being on the same side as conservatives. If I was going to disagree with the blog, it would be over this strange idea that we should only talk about specific cancel culture incidents and never about the principle of free speech. Why not both?
- tptacek 5y ago
  He clearly doesn't agree with the spirit of the editorial (it's a staff editorial, not an op-ed). He thinks there are real free speech problems, but that the editorial (and the public sentiment it cites) terribly misconstrues them, succumbing to sloppy thinking in a way that not only works against their stated goal but actually further jeopardizes speech.
  - juliusdavies 5y ago
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" NYT would prefer: "I slightly disapprove, err--- I mean I very very very mildly approve of what you say, and I will defend to the death your right to say it, while also acknowledging that I must be respectful to you in all that I say regarding what you said." (Here in British Columbia, Canada, a Jewish lawyer famously defended a holocaust denier's right to free speech (pro-bono!). I remember the lawyer telling people that he planned to be the first to piss on his client's grave, but that he also intended to defend him in the courts to the very best of his abilities.)
  - slibhb 5y ago
    He agrees with the spirit of the op-ed: > I believe that “cancel culture” exists — that is, I believe that some responses to speech are disproportionate and outside norms of decency, and I think the culture sometimes encourages such responses. He's criticizing how the editorial talks about the problem. I agree with the spirit of the blog and the op-ed. I'm criticizing how the blog talks about the op-ed.