6 ms·

"the overprotection of children, the rise of “safetyism,” and the shouting down of speakers on university campuses when students deemed the speaker to be “harmf

"the overprotection of children, the rise of “safetyism,” and the shouting down of speakers on university campuses when students deemed the speaker to be “harmful.” The emphasis is mine. What does that to do with any of this? University students aren't children and, agree or disagree with the result, they are the ones with agency there.

mantas 3y ago
Both are protecting from anything outside of one's comfort zone. What's next, shout down politicians you don't agree with? That's not how democratical societies work.
- wvenable 3y ago
  Or it's merely intolerance of intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    There should be a variation of godwin's law for this, as it's the go-to excuse for anyone to justify not having to listen to anything that makes them uncomfortable.
  - tremon 3y ago
    Intolerance is hardly the only thing that gets shouted down.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    Quite a lot of aggressors consider themselves to be righteous ad good when they attack some unpopular person/people. The paradox of intolerance stems from the 1930s. When we stay there for a bit longer - do you think that the participants of the Kristallnacht considered themselves evil? No, they were brainwashed into thinking that they were righteous, fighting to save their country from corruption and evil brought upon it by ... their victims, who "had it coming". "We are fighting for a just and important cause!" or "We are protecting the vulnerable!" means precisely nothing from the mouths of a mob. A mob is mostly a psychopathic entity that just seeks rationalizations for its outpouring of violence.
    - wvenable 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - mantas 3y ago
        His point was that Kristallnacht people thought they are „cancelling“ evil too.
        wvenable 3y ago
        So the point is we have to listen to evil because we might be wrong about what is evil? It makes no sense. Especially when we're talking about, in some cases, literal modern Nazis.
        dotnet00 3y ago
        The point is that you are not a reliable judge of what is evil and thus not a reliable judge of what should not be tolerated. Since apparently it still isn't clear to you what they're saying, Nazis, like many other authoritarian regimes, punished criticism of them. That has the exact same logic as yours, they think they're doing the right thing, thus criticizing them is promoting evil and thus should be shut down (another very visible example of this would be the various forms of "hurt sentiments" related issues in various Asian countries). This is why "intolerance of intolerance" is a fallacy. It presumes that those being accused of intolerance are doing it in bad faith rather than out of a genuine belief that they are doing the right thing.
        wvenable 3y ago
        All "punishments" are not the same. Free speech means that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech. You can't imprisoned or physically harmed. But people equate that with speech without consequence and, even more, that they are entitled to someone else's forum for their speech. In authoritarian regimes we are talking about real criminal-type punishments. You're purposely conflating these ideas together when they are different. If nobody wants to listen to your terrible idea or give you a forum for them then that's their right. If people don't want to associate with you because of what you believe that is their right. If people want to convince others to not give you that forum, that's their free speech. We don't have to give a forum to the very ideas that lead to real punishment of criticism.
  - mantas 3y ago
    Then both sides start doing the same and using same excuse. Final result is decay of democracy and ultimately civil war. Looking from afar, US left/woke/whatever is nowhere close to objectively tolerant. Unless you use a very nuanced tolerance definition. It’s long past „live and let live".
smcin 3y ago
Haidt is referring to the heckling and deplatforming of speakers on (US) university campuses because some group disagrees with their message. And one aspect of "safetyism" invoked to that end is claiming that to allowing said (lawful, non-inciting) speech itself per se makes students "feel unsafe", aka the "words are violence" trope Haidt mentions frequently. See e.g. 2016 NYU The Forum: "Right to Say: Freedom, Respect, and Campus Speech" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTU3hxgr2Kc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTU3hxgr2Kc (As to to who ultimately has agency in inviting/platforming/deplatforming/protesting/canceling speakers on US campuses, that's a very long-running story, can involve media, donors, boards of regents, not just the students etc. But yes, noone's compelling the students to attend and listen, and in any case they can speak in response.) A 2020 article on "safetyism" as defined by Haidt and Lukianoff in their book, The Coddling of the American Mind: “Safetyism refers to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people are unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns.” : https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/safetyism-was-never-real https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/safetyism... . One incident commonly cited was the 2015 Yale Halloween costume matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Yale_Halloween_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Yale_Hallo...
- wvenable 3y ago
  It's ironic to me that "safetyism" is mixed in with screen time because it's never been easier for children to have access to ideas. For example, every middle school teacher in the country knows about Andrew Tate through their students.
  - smcin 3y ago
    You're conflating many many things, and between university and middle school (ages 10-14) children, also conflating the huge difference between them theoretically having "access to" ideas or people, versus getting recommended that several times an hour by online recommender systems, feed from friends etc. I think you're quite aware there are severely different legal considerations on content access to under-13s, 13-17s, and over-18s, in most jurisdictions.

mantas 3y ago

Both are protecting from anything outside of one's comfort zone. What's next, shout down politicians you don't agree with? That's not how democratical societies work.

wvenable 3y ago
Or it's merely intolerance of intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- dotnet00 3y ago
  There should be a variation of godwin's law for this, as it's the go-to excuse for anyone to justify not having to listen to anything that makes them uncomfortable.
- tremon 3y ago
  Intolerance is hardly the only thing that gets shouted down.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Quite a lot of aggressors consider themselves to be righteous ad good when they attack some unpopular person/people. The paradox of intolerance stems from the 1930s. When we stay there for a bit longer - do you think that the participants of the Kristallnacht considered themselves evil? No, they were brainwashed into thinking that they were righteous, fighting to save their country from corruption and evil brought upon it by ... their victims, who "had it coming". "We are fighting for a just and important cause!" or "We are protecting the vulnerable!" means precisely nothing from the mouths of a mob. A mob is mostly a psychopathic entity that just seeks rationalizations for its outpouring of violence.
  - wvenable 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mantas 3y ago
      His point was that Kristallnacht people thought they are „cancelling“ evil too.
      - wvenable 3y ago
        So the point is we have to listen to evil because we might be wrong about what is evil? It makes no sense. Especially when we're talking about, in some cases, literal modern Nazis.
        dotnet00 3y ago
        The point is that you are not a reliable judge of what is evil and thus not a reliable judge of what should not be tolerated. Since apparently it still isn't clear to you what they're saying, Nazis, like many other authoritarian regimes, punished criticism of them. That has the exact same logic as yours, they think they're doing the right thing, thus criticizing them is promoting evil and thus should be shut down (another very visible example of this would be the various forms of "hurt sentiments" related issues in various Asian countries). This is why "intolerance of intolerance" is a fallacy. It presumes that those being accused of intolerance are doing it in bad faith rather than out of a genuine belief that they are doing the right thing.
        wvenable 3y ago
        All "punishments" are not the same. Free speech means that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech. You can't imprisoned or physically harmed. But people equate that with speech without consequence and, even more, that they are entitled to someone else's forum for their speech. In authoritarian regimes we are talking about real criminal-type punishments. You're purposely conflating these ideas together when they are different. If nobody wants to listen to your terrible idea or give you a forum for them then that's their right. If people don't want to associate with you because of what you believe that is their right. If people want to convince others to not give you that forum, that's their free speech. We don't have to give a forum to the very ideas that lead to real punishment of criticism.
- mantas 3y ago
  Then both sides start doing the same and using same excuse. Final result is decay of democracy and ultimately civil war. Looking from afar, US left/woke/whatever is nowhere close to objectively tolerant. Unless you use a very nuanced tolerance definition. It’s long past „live and let live".

smcin 3y ago

Haidt is referring to the heckling and deplatforming of speakers on (US) university campuses because some group disagrees with their message. And one aspect of "safetyism" invoked to that end is claiming that to allowing said (lawful, non-inciting) speech itself per se makes students "feel unsafe", aka the "words are violence" trope Haidt mentions frequently. See e.g. 2016 NYU The Forum: "Right to Say: Freedom, Respect, and Campus Speech" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTU3hxgr2Kc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTU3hxgr2Kc (As to to who ultimately has agency in inviting/platforming/deplatforming/protesting/canceling speakers on US campuses, that's a very long-running story, can involve media, donors, boards of regents, not just the students etc. But yes, noone's compelling the students to attend and listen, and in any case they can speak in response.) A 2020 article on "safetyism" as defined by Haidt and Lukianoff in their book, The Coddling of the American Mind: “Safetyism refers to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people are unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns.” : https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/safetyism-was-never-real https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/safetyism... . One incident commonly cited was the 2015 Yale Halloween costume matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Yale_Halloween_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Yale_Hallo...

wvenable 3y ago
It's ironic to me that "safetyism" is mixed in with screen time because it's never been easier for children to have access to ideas. For example, every middle school teacher in the country knows about Andrew Tate through their students.
- smcin 3y ago
  You're conflating many many things, and between university and middle school (ages 10-14) children, also conflating the huge difference between them theoretically having "access to" ideas or people, versus getting recommended that several times an hour by online recommender systems, feed from friends etc. I think you're quite aware there are severely different legal considerations on content access to under-13s, 13-17s, and over-18s, in most jurisdictions.