3 ms·

Any thoughts on this quote from [1]? > Similarly, Hector Cantú, best known for his Latino-American comic Baldo, said he believes in freedom of speech, but not

by xpe 4y ago

Any thoughts on this quote from [1]? > Similarly, Hector Cantú, best known for his Latino-American comic Baldo, said he believes in freedom of speech, but not freedom from repercussions. > "Don't gloss this over by saying it's politics or it's cancel culture," he said. "If you're going to offend people, you risk paying the price." Sub-questions: - Does it matter if the offensive comments are "out of band?" i.e. on a YouTube channel, not in the cartoon? - Did the various publishers explore other options besides dropping Dilbert altogether? Should they have? - Media outlets may claim that they are acting morally. Still, to a large degree, they are responding to societal and commercial pressures. Does this weaken their argument? - Free speech is easy to support when no one cares about what you say. When it strikes a nerve, that's when we have to confront the issue. - What happens when more content producers use pen names to limit their risk of public backlash? [1]: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/28/1159605012/dilbert-cartoonist-scott-adams-rant-rebuke https://www.npr.org/2023/02/28/1159605012/dilbert-cartoonist...

logicalmonster 4y ago
I think what's often labeled as "free speech/wokeness/cancel-culture" sort of issues would best be called a "freedom of association" issue. And I support freedom of association. But either you have freedom of association or you don't. Now, the problem from my libertarian-ish perspective, is that the government has meddled in freedom of association significantly. There's obvious types of examples (Bake the cake, bigot!) and far less obvious examples like the government enforced credit card cartel that gives a small number of financiers significant artificial power to shape the world. I'm fine living with the consequences of a society with freedom of association, however that turns out, if only we had that. But I suspect that most people on the political left who currently champion ideas like "Actually, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences" don't actually want freedom of association. It seems like they like that there's a system where they have their cake and eat it too. As far as Scott Adams comments, I have been busy lately and haven't had the chance to listen to the full podcast and his followup arguments, but I strongly suspect that few people have actually really analyzed his arguments and are just feigning moral outrage. Personally speaking, I'd say it's a big fucking problem for me too if 50% of black people can't agree with a statement like "It's Ok to Be White".
- xpe 4y ago
  I'm still processing the Scott Adams situation. WRT responses to survey prompts, it is easy to forget that the same words can mean different things to different people. To some, the prompt might mean: - "it is ok to be white today, even though history has shown the terrible things white people have done in the past" - "it is ok to embody the full set of ideas that are associated with whiteness" - "it's ok for white people to have a structural advantage over non-whites" These differences in interpretation lead to more plausible interpretations of the survey.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    One can examine the ethics of a racial question by switching the races. If you were asked whether or not "It's Ok to Be Black" or "It's Ok to be Jewish" or "It's Ok to Be Hispanic" or "It's Ok to be Asian" and answered with anything but "yes", what would people say about you?
    - xpe 4y ago
      I agree this is a useful philosophical and logical lens. Rearranging logical statements and forms and ensuring that certain higher principles hold (which we might call 'moral invariants') is a useful way to do moral reasoning! Still, the logical reasoning above is only part of the larger discussion of human meaning in general and {race and identity} in particular. Words relating to history and culture are not so neatly substitutable and reversible. Personal note: I hope I've been at least clear (and perhaps even persuasive) w.r.t. to the subjective interpretation of survey questions. Merely swapping labels without bringing along the cultural and mental connections isn't enough. Example: a narrow textual analysis of the following phrases tends to miss what people actually mean when using them: - "Black lives matter" - "All lives matter" - "Blue lives matter" --- A summary of the necessary context, from the corresponding Wikipedia pages, copypastad today: > Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and racial inequality experienced by black people. Its primary concerns are incidents of police brutality and racially motivated violence against black people. It started following the killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Rekia Boyd, among others. The movement and its related organizations typically advocate for various policy changes considered to be related to black liberation. --- > The All Lives Matter movement was created as a response to the Black Lives Matter movement. Use of the phrase began as an inclusive alternative to Black Lives Matter, though it quickly became associated with opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement. The use of the All Lives Matter slogan on Twitter following the murders of Michael Brown and Eric Garner began in 2014 to "undermine the purpose and message of the #BlackLivesMatter call to action", and it was used to deny recognition of racial violence against African Americans. Some supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement adopted the All Lives Matter slogan to shift debate away from semantics, while others avoided the term entirely. --- > Blue Lives Matter (also known as Police Lives Matter) is a countermovement in the United States advocating that those who are prosecuted and convicted of killing law enforcement officers should be sentenced under hate crime statutes. > Critics have pointed out that while being Black is an identity-based characteristic, being a police officer is a choice, and that police officers are already typically respected and honored in communities. They add that attacking or killing a police officer already carries a higher penalty than attacking a non-police officer, and argue that the movement is really more about suppressing minorities than supporting law enforcement.

by xpe 4y ago

logicalmonster 4y ago

I think what's often labeled as "free speech/wokeness/cancel-culture" sort of issues would best be called a "freedom of association" issue. And I support freedom of association. But either you have freedom of association or you don't. Now, the problem from my libertarian-ish perspective, is that the government has meddled in freedom of association significantly. There's obvious types of examples (Bake the cake, bigot!) and far less obvious examples like the government enforced credit card cartel that gives a small number of financiers significant artificial power to shape the world. I'm fine living with the consequences of a society with freedom of association, however that turns out, if only we had that. But I suspect that most people on the political left who currently champion ideas like "Actually, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences" don't actually want freedom of association. It seems like they like that there's a system where they have their cake and eat it too. As far as Scott Adams comments, I have been busy lately and haven't had the chance to listen to the full podcast and his followup arguments, but I strongly suspect that few people have actually really analyzed his arguments and are just feigning moral outrage. Personally speaking, I'd say it's a big fucking problem for me too if 50% of black people can't agree with a statement like "It's Ok to Be White".

xpe 4y ago
I'm still processing the Scott Adams situation. WRT responses to survey prompts, it is easy to forget that the same words can mean different things to different people. To some, the prompt might mean: - "it is ok to be white today, even though history has shown the terrible things white people have done in the past" - "it is ok to embody the full set of ideas that are associated with whiteness" - "it's ok for white people to have a structural advantage over non-whites" These differences in interpretation lead to more plausible interpretations of the survey.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  One can examine the ethics of a racial question by switching the races. If you were asked whether or not "It's Ok to Be Black" or "It's Ok to be Jewish" or "It's Ok to Be Hispanic" or "It's Ok to be Asian" and answered with anything but "yes", what would people say about you?
  - xpe 4y ago
    I agree this is a useful philosophical and logical lens. Rearranging logical statements and forms and ensuring that certain higher principles hold (which we might call 'moral invariants') is a useful way to do moral reasoning! Still, the logical reasoning above is only part of the larger discussion of human meaning in general and {race and identity} in particular. Words relating to history and culture are not so neatly substitutable and reversible. Personal note: I hope I've been at least clear (and perhaps even persuasive) w.r.t. to the subjective interpretation of survey questions. Merely swapping labels without bringing along the cultural and mental connections isn't enough. Example: a narrow textual analysis of the following phrases tends to miss what people actually mean when using them: - "Black lives matter" - "All lives matter" - "Blue lives matter" --- A summary of the necessary context, from the corresponding Wikipedia pages, copypastad today: > Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and racial inequality experienced by black people. Its primary concerns are incidents of police brutality and racially motivated violence against black people. It started following the killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Rekia Boyd, among others. The movement and its related organizations typically advocate for various policy changes considered to be related to black liberation. --- > The All Lives Matter movement was created as a response to the Black Lives Matter movement. Use of the phrase began as an inclusive alternative to Black Lives Matter, though it quickly became associated with opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement. The use of the All Lives Matter slogan on Twitter following the murders of Michael Brown and Eric Garner began in 2014 to "undermine the purpose and message of the #BlackLivesMatter call to action", and it was used to deny recognition of racial violence against African Americans. Some supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement adopted the All Lives Matter slogan to shift debate away from semantics, while others avoided the term entirely. --- > Blue Lives Matter (also known as Police Lives Matter) is a countermovement in the United States advocating that those who are prosecuted and convicted of killing law enforcement officers should be sentenced under hate crime statutes. > Critics have pointed out that while being Black is an identity-based characteristic, being a police officer is a choice, and that police officers are already typically respected and honored in communities. They add that attacking or killing a police officer already carries a higher penalty than attacking a non-police officer, and argue that the movement is really more about suppressing minorities than supporting law enforcement.