Censorship vs. conflict resolution

[icehorse]

I first heard this from Sam Harris, whom I'll poorly paraphrase: "Conflicts are inevitable. People have two basic ways to resolve conflicts, discussion and violence."

To me, this is one of the strongest arguments in support of free speech. Apart from inciting imminent violence (which is the current limit to speech), it seems to me that even well intended attempts at censorship end up curtailing discussions and hence lead (directly or indirectly), to violence.

I think extremists at whatever end of whatever spectrums who advocate for censorship need to be fought. For example, I'm looking at folks like the Christian nationalists AND at the SJW, identity politics crowd.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Not all "woke" folks (or even Christian nationalists) advocate censorship. But there is a vocal subset of both these groups that do. I'm sure that's who you are referring.

I feel the same way as OP. The best way to fight racism ISN'T to shut down all racist language. I say, let the racists talk. Let everyone hear how utterly ignorant they are. That will damage racism far more than never allowing a racist idea to be uttered.

I never liked racism or found it appealing at all. But I didn't despise it at first.

Not until I spent the summer with my aunt when I was 19. A lot of her friends were Hell's Angels and had done hard time in penitentiaries. Many of them associated with white supremacists during their stint in prison.

I made no qualms about debating their racist ideas with them. Not only was I able to make some headway in convincing some of them that their racist ideas were erroneous and fear-based, I would have never learned how ignorant and stupid racism was had I not sat and listened to their side. Racists aren't evil demons. They are people who have picked up bad ideas. Those ideas don't go away by silencing these folks. They go away by bringing them out in the open and letting everyone see what's wrong with those ideas.

 

[SomeRandom]

I first heard this from Sam Harris, whom I'll poorly paraphrase: "Conflicts are inevitable. People have two basic ways to resolve conflicts, discussion and violence."

To me, this is one of the strongest arguments in support of free speech. Apart from inciting imminent violence (which is the current limit to speech), it seems to me that even well intended attempts at censorship end up curtailing discussions and hence lead (directly or indirectly), to violence.

I think extremists at whatever end of whatever spectrums who advocate for censorship need to be fought. For example, I'm looking at folks like the Christian nationalists AND at the SJW, identity politics crowd.

Whilst I can certainly agree with that premise. Like with everything, there is nuance.
Extremists certainly have a bit of tunnel vision, imo.
But that could also be said for free speech extremists as well.

Take blackface, just for an easy example of something particularly loaded with historical baggage.
Now on the one hand I certainly agree that we shouldn’t be censoring the specific historic usage of the concept. But that is in the specific context of not only acknowledging its history but learning from it and evolving (hopefully)
We might not be able to make up for its usage, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t better ourselves either.
On the other hand, such a concept might be better suited to have a bit of an “age restriction” insofar as we probably should be a bit careful about what age range interacts with the concept. Even if it’s merely to learn about its history. So some censorship may be required, to various degrees.

It’s also very easy to fall into the trap of going too far in the name of defending free speech.
Does a comedian have the right to tell explicitly racist, sexist and homophobic jokes?
Absolutely. But freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. If the audience collectively decides that such material is without merit, then the comedian can either improve their material or seek out another audience.
Which very conveniently seems to happen to a a lot of supposedly “cancelled” comedians these days. Instead of improving their craft, taking criticism on the chin and growing from the experience. They just double down and find a crowd who applaud them for being jerks. Oh my apologies for “owning them damned snowflake SJW liberals”
Lol

Society collectively decides what is appropriate speech. Those lines always change, sometimes change back and sometimes pushed in other directions. That’s just human civilisation for you

 

[vulcanlogician]

It’s also very easy to fall into the trap of going too far in the name of defending free speech.
Does a comedian have the right to tell explicitly racist, sexist and homophobic jokes?
Absolutely. But freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. If the audience collectively decides that such material is without merit, then the comedian can either improve their material or seek out another audience.

Excellent point. When a comedian tells a homophobic joke and gets "cancelled" that's NOT an infringement of free speech. That's free speech going both ways. First, it's free speech for the comedian to tell the joke. THEN it's further free speech for people to vocalize their disdain for the joke and cancel the guy.

 

[SomeRandom]

Excellent point. When a comedian tells a homophobic joke and gets "cancelled" that's NOT an infringement of free speech. That's free speech going both ways. First, it's free speech for the comedian to tell the joke. THEN it's further free speech for people to vocalize their disdain for the joke and cancel the guy.

My thoughts exactly

 

[icehorse]

Excellent point. When a comedian tells a homophobic joke and gets "cancelled" that's NOT an infringement of free speech. That's free speech going both ways. First, it's free speech for the comedian to tell the joke. THEN it's further free speech for people to vocalize their disdain for the joke and cancel the guy.

Agreed.

OTOH, the long-standing idea at many universities has been that if a club / group recognized by the university invites a speaker, that group has the right to hear what the speaker has to say. (Remembering that free speech importantly includes the right to HEAR stuff.) So when one group attempts to cancel a speaker that another group wants to hear, that becomes a huge problem. imo.

Notably, this university-canceling has happened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Notably, this university-canceling has happened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

I'm actually troubled by "university cancelling." I could care less about comedians and celebrities being cancelled on Twatter. But universities ought to be a marketplace of ideas. Universities need to expose students to bad ideas in order to train those students to produce good counter arguments to them.

That being said, I don't know who this Ayaan Hirsi Ali fellow is. It's reasonable to censor CERTAIN speakers at universities if they are just horrible people with nothing valuable to say.

But I see the general trend as going to far... at least as it pertains to the idea that students need exposure to bad ideas in order to properly criticize them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.

Yup. Too bad many fail to accept that as a fact of life and feel freedom means being free from the consequences.

 

[icehorse]

I'm actually troubled by "university cancelling." I could care less about comedians and celebrities being cancelled on Twatter. But universities ought to be a marketplace of ideas. Universities need to expose students to bad ideas in order to train those students to produce good counter arguments to them.

That being said, I don't know who this Ayaan Hirsi Ali fellow is. It's reasonable to censor CERTAIN speakers at universities if they are just horrible people with nothing valuable to say.

But I see the general trend as going to far... at least as it pertains to the idea that students need exposure to bad ideas in order to properly criticize them.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a victim of Islam-influenced FGM, and is an outspoken critic of Islam, especially as it relates to women's rights.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a victim of Islam-influenced FGM, and is an outspoken critic of Islam, especially as it relates to women's rights.

Just based on that, this is a person who needs to have their voice heard. What was the reason given for cancelling her?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I first heard this from Sam Harris, whom I'll poorly paraphrase: "Conflicts are inevitable. People have two basic ways to resolve conflicts, discussion and violence."

To me, this is one of the strongest arguments in support of free speech. Apart from inciting imminent violence (which is the current limit to speech), it seems to me that even well intended attempts at censorship end up curtailing discussions and hence lead (directly or indirectly), to violence.

I think extremists at whatever end of whatever spectrums who advocate for censorship need to be fought. For example, I'm looking at folks like the Christian nationalists AND at the SJW, identity politics

We are realistically ruled by those who hit others the hardest.

It's why police and the military are armed. The goal is always subjugation by force or the threat of force.

 

[icehorse]

Just based on that, this is a person who needs to have their voice heard. What was the reason given for cancelling her?

Islamophobia.

(I term I find to be dishonest on its face. Often used to try to curtail criticism of Islam.)

 

[Alien826]

I have always understood "free speech" to be summarized by whoever said "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it".

Being offended by others is the price we pay for being allowed to express our own opinions. It's a bit like democracy. If you support it you also have to accept the fact that sometimes you lose elections.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I first heard this from Sam Harris, whom I'll poorly paraphrase: "Conflicts are inevitable. People have two basic ways to resolve conflicts, discussion and violence."

To me, this is one of the strongest arguments in support of free speech. Apart from inciting imminent violence (which is the current limit to speech), it seems to me that even well intended attempts at censorship end up curtailing discussions and hence lead (directly or indirectly), to violence.

I think extremists at whatever end of whatever spectrums who advocate for censorship need to be fought. For example, I'm looking at folks like the Christian nationalists AND at the SJW, identity politics crowd.

The argument relies on theorizing without empirical support. Statistics show that the US has far higher rates of violence than multiple countries that have much stronger hate speech laws, such as the Netherlands, Norway, and Germany. Violence is usually influenced by a lot of factors that have little to do with discussion or censorship per se.

"Free speech" as commonly defined in the US is a global anomaly that most other countries legally consider undesirable, and rightfully so. I find that hate speech laws and defamation laws are necessary in any cohesive society.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Islamophobia.

(I term I find to be dishonest on its face. Often used to try to curtail criticism of Islam.)

I did a little googling and have found that she supports a few "pro-TERF" ideas.

I still think it's a bad idea for universities to not let her speak. Students need to hear these arguments and have long debates about WHY TERF-ism is bad.

But I think that's the reason she was cancelled rather than Islamophobia.

 

[icehorse]

The argument relies on theorizing without empirical support. Statistics show that the US has far higher rates of violence than multiple countries that have much stronger hate speech laws, such as the Netherlands, Norway, and Germany. Violence is usually influenced by a lot of factors that have little to do with discussion or censorship per se.

"Free speech" as commonly defined in the US is a global anomaly that most other countries legally consider undesirable, and rightfully so. I find that hate speech laws and defamation laws are necessary in any cohesive society.

Harris and I (ha! ), are not saying that censorship is the only cause of violence, of course not! I think that figuring out "rates of violence" is a tricky undertaking. For example, I would guess that the US's radical lack of gun laws is a far, far bigger contributor to violence than speech.

As for hate speech and defamation, those I think need to be considered independently, no?

The other problem I have with the idea of hate speech, is who's the judge? We see apologists frequently claim that legitimate criticism of their ideas is hate speech.

 

[icehorse]

I did a little googling and have found that she supports a few "pro-TERF" ideas.

I still think it's a bad idea for universities to not let her speak. Students need to hear these arguments and have long debates about WHY TERF-ism is bad.

But I think that's the reason she was cancelled rather than Islamophobia.

Well I was referring to her being canceled from speaking at Brandeis back in 2014. In that case, I think "Islamophobia" was the reason. Perhaps she's been canceled again more recently?