8 ms·
In recent years has become the rather less inspirational: "I disapprove of what you say and I will do what I can with a mob to ruin your reputation and career
by mellosouls 4y ago
In recent years has become the rather less inspirational:
"I disapprove of what you say and I will do what I can with a mob to ruin your reputation and career as an example to make sure nobody else says it"
- greenhorn360 4y ago[flagged]
- gotoeleven 4y agohttps://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk...
- kredd 4y agoI read the “citation needed” comment as “in real life people don’t care, it’s just chronically online people that rush from one boycott to another”. Which I think applies to JK Rowling as well, since the new Harry Potter game is making a bank and supermajority of people simply don’t care.
- greenhorn360 4y agoShe's spending millions of dollars funding anti trans political organizations. That's a bit beyond simple speech. Her life sure was ruined by that mob though. Such a shame she's poor now and no one is buying her new game. Do you have an example of this: 1.) Actually happening 2.) Happening because of only speech
- seiferteric 4y agoWho is she funding?
- idlewords 4y agoKathleen Stock is a good example, an academic philosopher run out of a job in 2021 and consistently harassed ever since for her philosophical stance on the relationship between sex and gender. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/sussex-professor-kathleen-stock-resigns-after-transgender-rights-row https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/sussex-profess...
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoThe article disagrees with your claim that she was “run out of” a job. It looks like she resigned after student criticism, even though the university still wanted to continue employing her. The outcry definitely has a negative effect on her mental health but I think calling it being “run out of” is a narrative spin on this article. She was publicly criticized and even though her employer fully supported her speech she resigned anyways.
- idlewords 4y agoWhat do you think being run out of a job means? If a mob shows up at my house with pitchforks, I will leave irrespective of whether my landlord wants to continue renting to me. Read up on what happened to Stock, and what she goes through when trying to speak in public nowadays, and you'll see my description is factual.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoA mob didn’t show up at her house. My understanding is that students were using their free speech in criticizing her speech while her right to speak was supported by her employer. I don’t see the issue here. The article doesn’t describe credible threats to her person; it’s not like someone put a bomb threat on her classes or something. It just looked like there was some outrage, maybe a protest, or a petition online, which I’m sure is hard to deal with but I don’t agree that it’s accurate to call it being run out of anything.
- nicoburns 4y agoI don't think JK Rowling is anti-trans. She just doesn't think that trans women ought to have the exact same set of rights as cis women. That's not anti-trans any more than thinking men and women ought to have different rights is anti-men.
- abduhl 4y agoI don't think this is JK Rowling's position. JK Rowling doesn't think that trans women shouldn't have the exact same set of RIGHTS as cis women, she thinks that trans women shouldn't be able have the same set of societal privileges as cis women. This seems like a thin way to slice a hair, but I think the two ideas are distinct.
- donocin 4y ago[flagged]
- nicoburns 4y agoYou're really not helping the cause here by defining "woman" in such a way that trans women are unambiguously excluded. There's an important debate to be had here about the nature of gender and the role it ought to have in society. And we can't have that debate if people insist on using language that presumes the answer.
- donocin 4y ago[flagged]
- dmix 4y agoWe also can't have a debate about defining women where even daring to ask the question brings about mobs. As much as the absolutist "men can never become women" crowd attempts to shut down these debates there's also the equally harmful groups who say that "anyone who says they are a woman is one and even questioning that makes you a transphobe". It's easier to dismiss the former as intolerant, but the latter is becoming the (only) socially accepted opinion on places like Reddit. Which is insidious for such a contentious topic. I personally don't see how we can solve this cultural issue without there being some very clear grey area in between.
- galangalalgol 4y agoI agree monetary donations are not speech, they are actions. A better example might have been Scott Adams' recent statements. In so far as I haven't heard of him funding anyone. I sympathize with the papers that dropped Dilbert, but it sets a horrible precedent to cease business relationships with people because of their political views (not actions).
- ghaff 4y agoIt's hardly a precedent. Companies have been shedding relationships with individuals, TV shows, other organizations for a very long time for expressing political and other views that alienate a sufficient percentage of their customer base such that the benefit of the relationship is no longer worth the cost.
- galangalalgol 4y agoYeah that is a fair point, nothing new.
- ouid 4y agoDo you really find language like "chest feeding" to be a non-degrading way of talking about women? I can't imagine successfully defending that language to anyone, say 10 years ago. I think you just missed the point where it became insane, instead of progressive, because the line was blurry.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoI want to ask, please read this question in good faith: why is chest feeding insane now, verses other polite terms established decades ago? What difference is it to cease making differentiations between ms/mrs(mz), or to call someone Chinese instead of chinaman, or calling someone African American instead of colored? Yeah it seems new, and therefore unusual/weird, but I don’t know if I can identify a clear and rational rubric as to what makes new progressive terminology insane and older progressive terminology sane. (Also, I don’t personally agree with “chest feeding” since breasts don’t necessarily have anything to do with gender, men can have breasts. But like, if someone else wants to call their own child feeding activity chest feeding, what do I care? Also, I’m not feeding any kids witth mammary glands so I don’t really know if I even get to be an arbiter of sane/insane terminology to refer to those activities.)
- ouid 4y agoI think you will find that hyperfixation on calling people by the "correct term" for their race is also insane, but less insane, which is why I described the line as blurry. The benefit of changing the terms by which we express our fixation on race is that the old terms were largely associated with hateful speech, and the hope is that the new term might be less inflammatory. If you actually feel comfortable using someone's race as an adjective when referring to them, regardless of what form that adjective takes. I would suggest that you consider that more thoughtfully. in the case if removing the word woman from the lexicon, the people who are being appeased have a problem with whether or not they get/have to be identified as women. Not that woman is a hateful word, but that you might exclude someone from the category. This is different. It is true that arbitrary exclusion from categories is occasionally hateful, but it is not the case that people have been using breast feeding as a slur, and trying to retcon that to be so is obviously degrading to women who have not used it vitriolically, and do not consider it hate speech. In good faith, can you really not imagine the difference between telling someone not to use the word chinaman to refer to someone who doesnt want to be called a chinaman, and telling them not to refer to thenselves as a woman, because someone else doesn't want you to?
- klyrs 4y agoBoycotting is an exercise of free association. Critique is an exercise of free speech. JK Rowling is rich af. Citation still needed.
- Georgelemental 4y agoThe high-profile "cancellation" cases like Rowling make a lot of headlines, but people like her will be fine, they have money and support. The real danger is when ordinary people lose their jobs for standing up to HR and DEI bureaucracy, univeristy reseachers get canned because their results contradict dogma, Colorado bakers get sued into the ground for living by their religious convictions, construction workers get fired for making an "OK" hand sign, etc
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoSmall note about the bakers: they haven’t been sued “into the ground”. In fact my understanding is that they’re actually doing really well nowadays. They’re still open with 4 stars on Yelp with over 200 reviews. I think we shouldn’t twist narratives to argue against twisting narratives.
- bentley 4y ago> they haven’t been sued “into the ground”. Not for lack of trying. The baker in question has been beset with over‐the‐top cake requests, and there have been several lawsuits against him since the famous Supreme Court ruling. In fact, in January one succeeded in having the baker fined for refusing to bake a transgender‐themed cake, and survived appeal. So Masterpiece Cakeshop may yet be sued into the ground. https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-baker-protagonist-satan-dildo-cake-other-bakeries-wouldnt-create-1077250 https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-baker-protagonist-satan-di...
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoThat’s just moving goalposts. I’m merely pointing out that the post I’m responding to is exaggerating, and thereby dishonest.
- jvanderbot 4y agoFree speech (in the "I can say whatever I can get away with" sense) cuts both ways. If you disagree with a community, they will use their favorite language to cut you down. I disagree with that sense of free speech, as it does away with measured dialog around issues in favor of pitchforks.
- logicalmonster 4y ago"You don't need a citation for an opinion." --- Wayne Gretzky
- amalcon 4y agoBest example I can come up with is Colin Kaepernick. This isn't even a great example, he's doing pretty well in the scheme of things. It also isn't satisfying to most people, since it cuts against the political undertone of the question.
- s9w 4y ago[dead]
- tsimionescu 4y agoIf you take a look at historical media, the breadth of opinions you can find written today, especially if we include online media, is staggering compared to the past. For example, defending homosexuality as a legitimate life choice would have gotten you packed and sent away to the crazy house, and no paper would have ever written about this before the late 80s or so. Same with overt atheism in much public discourse, with respect for native rights, black rights, Irish and Italian rights and many others. Opposition to Israel used to be swiftly boycotted in any public forum. Opposition to the Vietnam War could get you in jail when it started. Communist sympathies too. Apart from overt racism (which you can still easily find online, even among pretty popular figures in New media), virtually no position that used to be expressed in public discourse has disappeared, and many many ideas that used to be unthinkable and definitely unspeakable are now common place. So where exactly is this terrible mob?
- tmn 4y agoRight now they’re having a fit over hogwarts legacy
- tsimionescu 4y agoWho? The millions that have collectively payed 100+ million dollars to pay it? Or some handful of busy bodies that no one really cares about? There are even proeminent leftist streamers who have gotten into spats with JK Rowling that are still playing it publicly (Vaush, Hassan).
- tmn 4y agoThe busy bodies. This is a sampling of the mob being referred to. From your reply I’m sure you know this. You’re pointing out how irrelevant they are in this context which I agree with. But they are still a fair manifestation of the mob dynamic being referenced.
- tstrimple 4y agoI'm sorry you have a problem with people exercising their right to free speech.
- maxerickson 4y agoWeird to bring reputation into it. The original formulation doesn't say that saying whatever should be from from social consequences.
- royaltheartist 4y agoSeems like a lot of people who want to be heard but don't like it when people actually listen
- NewEntryHN 4y agoSocial consequences is a cute term for savage justice.
- Zagill 4y agoNo justice more savage than a bunch of people on Twitter saying mean things about you
- josephcsible 4y agoTrue, just saying mean things isn't savage justice. Savage justice is when the lynch mob successfully bullies your employer into firing you.
- 1270018080 4y agoAfter someone get fired from their job for saying something evil, they still have the freedom of speech to continue saying it.
- UncleMeat 4y agoSavage justice is when somebody comes to your house and beats you to death with a tire iron. People calling JK Rowling a hateful bigot on Twitter and telling people to stop purchasing Harry Potter content isn't that.
- int_19h 4y ago
- renewiltord 4y agoThat's also speech, and even though I disagree with it, I will defend it.
- lolinder 4y agoIt's the kind of speech that borders on the proverbial "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater".
- renewiltord 4y agoYes, that is also speech. Unfortunately, most free speech advocates are not of the "I disapprove of what you say but will defend it" variety. They are of the similar species "I disapprove of what you say and will apply my principles in an inconsistent manner to ensure that your speech is suppressed while speech I do not disapprove of which nonetheless violates the same principles is permitted" variety. Talk to any free speech advocate but those who preserve the purity of speech and you will rapidly find that they add epicycles for all sorts of things.
- junofan 4y agoI disagree. The law pretty clearly draws a line at harassment.
- renewiltord 4y agoSure, because the law doesn't support freedom of speech. We're discussing the morals here.
- lolinder 4y agoIt's funny you mention epicycles, because those were added to the solar model to try to account for the fact that the pristine geocentric model alone couldn't account for reality. Rather than change the model, they tried to patch it. To continue your analogy, free speech absolutism would be the geocentric model of the universe, the epicycles would be attempts to explain the obviously desirable exceptions to the rule (harassment, incitement to violence, etc). That suggests that there is a missing heliocentric model for free speech, one that is not based on absolutism and thereby avoids needing to add exceptions while simultaneously avoiding the trap of strict epicycle-free absolutism (which, to continue your analogy, doesn't accurately describe our observations).
- expazl 4y agoFree speech does not mean free from consequences. Its perfectly understandable to want to protect the freedom that allows nazi sympathisers to speak about their hatred for the Jewish people, while still wanting for no-one to chose to do so, and also there to be social consequences for the people who do so. The anti-freedom of speech path would be to ban any pro nazi speech entirely.
- twblalock 4y ago“Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences” can just as easily be used to justify imprisoning critics of the government as it can to justify shunning people. Not all consequences are justified. Plus, let’s be honest — most of the “consequences” of speech, like cancelling people, are not really targeted at the person being cancelled. They are really happening because people want to suppress speech they don’t like by scaring other people into silence. Government is not the only source of oppression. We should be very careful about excusing social consequences for people speaking their mind, or we will lose free speech because of a cancel-culture mob mentality rather than because of government oppression. The end result is pretty much the same and we shouldn’t let it happen.
- lern_too_spel 4y agoIs there no nuance left in the world? If we remove consequences from people who criticize the government, must we also remove consequences from people spreading Nazi rhetoric? If we eat bread, must we also eat shit? Free speech is not an ideal that we should strive for in itself but shorthand for a principle that helps promote stronger societies that help its members live longer. Any speech that goes against that basic goal is stupid to fight for. Eating is something that is not something we should strive for in itself but shorthand for fulfilling the nutritional needs of the body. Any eating that goes against that basic goal is stupid to promote.
- twblalock 4y agoFree speech is definitely an idea we should strive for on its own. We should strive for free speech even if it hurts people’s feelings, and even if it gives a microphone to crazy people, even Nazis. The alternative is a world where the government, or a mob, or both, get to dictate what we can say and think. It would also be a world where we cannot point out errors without being shouted down, resulting in things like Soviet science and basic errors of governance being uncorrected until they ruin everything (e.g. the recent history of Sri Lanka). It would be a world where both scientists and critics of science have no ability to deal with pandemics or other disasters outside the bounds set by politicians who have no idea what they are doing. There was a time when cancel culture was turned against people arguing for gay rights, desegregation, and feminism. That time may come again, quite soon, and people on the left who have recently turned against free speech and created mechanisms to weaken it will reap what they have sown.
- healsdata 4y agoCan you help me understand what rights you'd take away from others to change this situation? 1. If everyone has free speech, then people are free to criticize the speech of others. 2. If everyone has free speech, others are free to publicize the things you said. 3. If everyone has free association, others have a right not to associate with you based on your speech.
- dnissley 4y agoWhoa whoa whoa, why are we immediately jumping to solving this problem through legislation / talk of rights?
- healsdata 4y agoI'm all ears for other idea that don't infringe on others' rights.
- dnissley 4y agoTalk it out, change the culture -- the same way so many other problems have been solved. Homosexuality went from culturally prohibited to culturally celebrated over the course of time. Surely we will find ways to inoculate ourselves and our culture against misinformation and rage-bait as well.
- healsdata 4y agoThat's a rose-colored reimaging of the past, including for your own example. I imagine most problems you'd point to were solved via criticism, protests, violence, and more. To look at your example in a US-centric light, being homosexual was literally lethal for some and cost thousands others their jobs. LGBTQ+ people are still losing their jobs for being homosexual. People are still saying things about the LGBTQ+ community that are statistically and provably untrue. I personally don't understand why we would hold those perpetuating such things above criticism or force association.
- wvenable 4y agoOn the other hand, the definition of free speech has changed from speech is not criminalized to speech without any negative consequences. People who speak out want to influence people or policy, which to them would be positive consequences, and yet immediately label negative consequences as being "cancelled".
- qu4z-2 4y agoThis has not really changed. There are negative consequences we should accept, such as criticism and disagreement, and negative consequences we should not, such as an online mob getting you fired from your job or the government sending goons to disappear you.
- wvenable 4y agoYet the speech we are talking about general involves other people losing rights or violence against them. So that's ok but getting fired from a job is not? Seems like a double standard to me.
- ropable 4y agoThat's literally the absolute-free-speech feedback loop in action, isn't it? Someone making a statement that a person disagrees with, the second person making an argument against it, and the first person suffering a social consequence as a result. Substitute "a mob to ruin your reputation" for "educating a number of other people about how your argument is a bad one" for a less-hyperbolic result, maybe.