17 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt'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 agoYou'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.
- wvenable 3y agoI didn't conflate those things, the article did. I pointed out that in my original comment. But I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say; it seems like you're agreeing with me. As for legal considerations, it doesn't appear to matter that much.
- smcin 3y agoI disagreed emphatically with claiming "it's never been easier for children to have access to ideas." Most children online consume media and follow recommendations, ads and friend feeds, rather than intentionally searching for topics in a structured and coherent way. Doomscrolling, bingeing, mindless zombie mode, whatever. We may not like it but you're aware that's the way it actually is. As for legal considerations, it does matter: they define/limit the ability of YT, FB, TT et al. to build a profile and blend recommendations, ads and organic content. More so for under-18s and under-13s, more so where there are privacy laws (GDPR). If the US actually passed meaningful privacy laws this would have more effect.