4 ms·

This is a bit of a contentious opinion perhaps, but I think there is a generational thing going on. Younger generations seem to have a lot of certainty about w

This is a bit of a contentious opinion perhaps, but I think there is a generational thing going on. Younger generations seem to have a lot of certainty about what is good or bad (but how do they know?) and are unable to hold a conversation that challenges them without feeling offended. The idea of 'hate speech' is ascendent, that it is right to deplatform and marginalise. Mostly forgotten is the idea that people have freedom of speech, and that many and various opinions are fine, and should even be encouraged. If only a narrow (often corporate or governmental) set of opinions are acknowledged, yes many feel marginalised. Which leads to anger. And also leads to a deteriorating social situation where everyone is the poorer, even if they think they are right.

ryandrake 2y ago
We could turn it around: How do you -know- that freedom of speech is some kind of absolute good? It seems this, like any proposition, should not be simply taken as axiomatic. Maybe reasonable people can disagree. Support for freedom of speech is indeed decreasing with each generation[1] and it is a pretty clear trend. Specifically, and from an older survey, 40% of Millennials are OK with limiting free speech that is offensive to minorities[2]. The age cohort trend is pretty clear here, too. While we may not agree, the next generations will shape things to come (assuming democracy survives). 1: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/08/30/more-so-than-adults-u-s-teens-value-people-feeling-safe-online-over-being-able-to-speak-freely/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/08/30/more-so-t... 2: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/40-of-mil...
- verisimi 2y ago
  > We could turn it around: How do you -know- that freedom of speech is some kind of absolute good? It seems this, like any proposition, should not be simply taken as axiomatic. Maybe reasonable people can disagree. Fair enough - but surely you can answer this for yourself? Do you prefer to be able to speak your mind or not? And if you do speak your mind, are you causing harm? You may then turn around and say 'define harm'. Fair enough again - but I would answer while words might offend, stir trouble, no physical harm is occurring - ie no harm done. And sometimes, what is being suggested, although unpleasant, will be closer to the truth (or at least sincerely believed). Which is a fair basis for social interactions. Sticks and stones and all that. The alternative is highly conformist and surely satisfies no individual. In general, people ought to develop themselves, developing a thicker skin perhaps whilst maintaining their sanity, in response to other people's words.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    I happen to mostly agree with you, and am kind of just playing devil's advocate here. But if I were the 25 year old with a negative or shaky view of free speech, I might offer this: Suppose you were a researcher and managed to prove some conclusion about people or the world, that you knew with certainty, would be used to justify something really bad, like genocide, ethnic cleansing, racial supremacy, or similar. Would you publish it? I'd hope only the most dogmatic free speech absolutist would say yes, you have the duty to find and share truth, no matter what it is. Most others hopefully would argue: what is the purpose of your research, if not to benefit humanity? That's an extreme example with an extreme evil outcome--but how mild does the evil have to be in order for one to support publication?
    - verisimi 2y ago
      I think we have a different view on what research is capable of. I think such information already exists, but that it is up to the individual to make that interpretation. And it is fine to interpret things as you like. And it is fine for others to form their own interpretation. No one actually has 'the truth'. In a way what we are talking about is acknowledging what is called the 'Russell conjugation', where, imo, truth cannot be isolated from the emotional interpretation. An example is: > I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing. Of course, the fusspot 'he' in the example, could say the same in reverse! The personal bias/interpretation is always there. It's very hard (impossible) to see the truth of a thing without the emotional interpretation. I'm saying this is fine, it's simply a constraint of reality. If one is aware that one's own opinion is just one opinion amongst many (perhaps based in better reasoning than the next person's), make your case. But that no one has 'the truth' - all one can have is a well-reasoned interpretation (or not)... So no one has the right to limit another's opinions, as no one has the truth - no individual, no organisation. Believing oneself to be right does not give one a right to inflict one's opinions on others, to be treated as fact. In fact, those with the most certainty about the rights and wrongs are almost certainly operating within a highly constrained set of information, and can often be shown to be making erroneous judgements (or acting in bad faith). https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation

ryandrake 2y ago

We could turn it around: How do you -know- that freedom of speech is some kind of absolute good? It seems this, like any proposition, should not be simply taken as axiomatic. Maybe reasonable people can disagree. Support for freedom of speech is indeed decreasing with each generation[1] and it is a pretty clear trend. Specifically, and from an older survey, 40% of Millennials are OK with limiting free speech that is offensive to minorities[2]. The age cohort trend is pretty clear here, too. While we may not agree, the next generations will shape things to come (assuming democracy survives). 1: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/08/30/more-so-than-adults-u-s-teens-value-people-feeling-safe-online-over-being-able-to-speak-freely/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/08/30/more-so-t... 2: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/40-of-mil...

verisimi 2y ago
> We could turn it around: How do you -know- that freedom of speech is some kind of absolute good? It seems this, like any proposition, should not be simply taken as axiomatic. Maybe reasonable people can disagree. Fair enough - but surely you can answer this for yourself? Do you prefer to be able to speak your mind or not? And if you do speak your mind, are you causing harm? You may then turn around and say 'define harm'. Fair enough again - but I would answer while words might offend, stir trouble, no physical harm is occurring - ie no harm done. And sometimes, what is being suggested, although unpleasant, will be closer to the truth (or at least sincerely believed). Which is a fair basis for social interactions. Sticks and stones and all that. The alternative is highly conformist and surely satisfies no individual. In general, people ought to develop themselves, developing a thicker skin perhaps whilst maintaining their sanity, in response to other people's words.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  I happen to mostly agree with you, and am kind of just playing devil's advocate here. But if I were the 25 year old with a negative or shaky view of free speech, I might offer this: Suppose you were a researcher and managed to prove some conclusion about people or the world, that you knew with certainty, would be used to justify something really bad, like genocide, ethnic cleansing, racial supremacy, or similar. Would you publish it? I'd hope only the most dogmatic free speech absolutist would say yes, you have the duty to find and share truth, no matter what it is. Most others hopefully would argue: what is the purpose of your research, if not to benefit humanity? That's an extreme example with an extreme evil outcome--but how mild does the evil have to be in order for one to support publication?
  - verisimi 2y ago
    I think we have a different view on what research is capable of. I think such information already exists, but that it is up to the individual to make that interpretation. And it is fine to interpret things as you like. And it is fine for others to form their own interpretation. No one actually has 'the truth'. In a way what we are talking about is acknowledging what is called the 'Russell conjugation', where, imo, truth cannot be isolated from the emotional interpretation. An example is: > I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing. Of course, the fusspot 'he' in the example, could say the same in reverse! The personal bias/interpretation is always there. It's very hard (impossible) to see the truth of a thing without the emotional interpretation. I'm saying this is fine, it's simply a constraint of reality. If one is aware that one's own opinion is just one opinion amongst many (perhaps based in better reasoning than the next person's), make your case. But that no one has 'the truth' - all one can have is a well-reasoned interpretation (or not)... So no one has the right to limit another's opinions, as no one has the truth - no individual, no organisation. Believing oneself to be right does not give one a right to inflict one's opinions on others, to be treated as fact. In fact, those with the most certainty about the rights and wrongs are almost certainly operating within a highly constrained set of information, and can often be shown to be making erroneous judgements (or acting in bad faith). https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation