A Letter on Justice and Open Debate VS Immunity from Criticism

[Machismo]

They are pushing a false premise, something they hope to be true, but isn't. Whether it's due to naivety or ignorance.

"This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other"

That only works if all parties being intellectually honest. As we've seen time and time again from Trumpsters, that's simply not happening. If the pigeon is shitting on the chess board, then stop treating it as an honest argument. When you refute their argument, and they simply ignore it... there is no reason to continue operating as if that person is worthy of respect.

[Saltysquidoon]

Also, as an aside, a lot of underlying context of this letter is that a whole lot of these people are fairly elite. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's also telling. I saw a younger journalist mention that getting paid a couple of grand for an article in 2000 netted you a few hundred bucks in 2010 and is now done by unpaid interns in 2020. If you look into the news organization that published the letter they only offer unpaid internships. In the most expensive city in the country. So, you end up with trust funders and rich folks nabbing all entry points into the profession. This is definitely part of the ruffled feathers response to the letter.

I would implore you to remember the most important 'culture war' is fiscal policy and economic reform (and dare I say it reforming capitalism). All the civil rights legislation on earth can't save us from billionaires and corporations hoarding wealth, driving inflation while suppressing wages and buying laws that suit them.

Money talks, bullshit walks after all.

[Themius]

For me the only speech that I want silenced is the speech that relates to causing violence. Trying to control everything else seems like a waste of time. /shrug

How can speech cause violence though? You have already said that history has no bearing on the future. So how could violent speech now cause violence later????? Explain yourself.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

I would implore you to remember the most important 'culture war' is fiscal policy and economic reform (and dare I say it reforming capitalism). All the civil rights legislation on earth can't save us from billionaires and corporations hoarding wealth, driving inflation while suppressing wages and buying laws that suit them.

Money talks, bullshit walks after all.

That's entirely a values judgement (and one I don't ascribe to), and a particularly silly one in light of the fact it just weeks ago became illegal in 29 states to fire trans people on a whim. Not everyone is a class reductionist.

[Themius]

It seems to me that there's a desire to criminalize simply having a difference of opinion.

I mean... your side tends to say shit that leads to things like synagogue shootings and the El Paso shooting.

- - - Updated - - -

Cancel culture is an unsustainable form of activism imo, but to complain about it in order to make room for your own more edgy activism is equally stupid if not more so and gets no sympathy from me.

Cancel culture does not exist, it is a fantasy invented by false moderates and right wing people who have no idea about history.

I feel people forget history of opinions and the treatises through the years... people seem to have forgotten Wollstonecraft, her "A vindication of the rights of women" and the cancel culture around that and the criticism.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

All these IT bros fall into the alt-right for the same reason. They blame feminists for them not having a billion dollar startup. They never understand that Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk all came from wealthier families. Not every college drop-out gets a 100k to start a business ... or a podcast.

Largely, this.

Though I'd also note that pure animus and cultural anger is very much a thing. For instance, a lot of Trump supporters are fairly well above the median American income, but they're also the most brutal towards minorities. Not every resentment is based on economics. A lot, in fact, aren't, and good jobs are certainly not the answer to racism and other irrational hatreds.

More importantly, base class reductionism won't even get you the Democratic nom at this point, which is a good thing.

[kasuke06]

To be fair, that can be interpreted quite broadly, if one was inclined to do so.

If silence is to be compared to violence, then even not speaking is itself a form of hate speech, disagreement is a form of hate speech, all things that aren't what "The Correct Party" tells you to say are hate speech. I know the people on the left here would break their arms jerking off if they that level of authoritarianism(but it's for my side so it's just and right!) into law.

[Saltysquidoon]

That's entirely a values judgement (and one I don't ascribe to), and a particularly silly one in light of the fact it just weeks ago became illegal in 29 states to fire trans people on a whim. Not everyone is a class reductionist.

Where I live that has been illegal for 13 years. No need to embrace Americentrism or a race to the bottom mentality.

I was just pointing out there is no need to rest on one's laurels, you know since that's what the letter this topic is about is truley trying to convince people to do.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Where I live that has been illegal for 13 years.

It wasn't the case here. It still is the case that we can be discriminated in housing, shelter, education, service, and medical treatment.

No need to embrace Americentrism or a race to the bottom mentality.

Honestly, and I don't mean this with an ounce of anger or vitriol, but I disagree. I am extremely concerned about my own status within my country, as are a lot of minorities. It's also the place where we can have an impact. I'll always focus my attention on the US because this where my politics are impactful and where I have to act to protect my family. I'm much less interested in global debates at this point.

I was just pointing out there is no need to rest on one's laurels, you know since that's what the letter this topic is about is truley trying to convince people to do.

I honestly believe this letter is about a bunch of cultural elites trying to insulate themselves from the rubes and unwashed. They're not actually used to criticism and are responding by advocating the notion that freedom of association is not an actual civil right.

[Dezerte]

Cancel culture is an unsustainable form of activism imo, but to complain about it in order to make room for your own more edgy activism is equally stupid if not more so and gets no sympathy from me.

Cancel culture does not exist, it is a fantasy invented by false moderates and right wing people who have no idea about history.

I feel people forget history of opinions and the treatises through the years... people seem to have forgotten Wollstonecraft, her "A vindication of the rights of women" and the cancel culture around that and the criticism.

Cancel culture is at it's core about social ostracization, more specifically boycotting - which is nothing new. What has changed is the arena (social media), and the size of that arena.

Instead of focusing on cancel culture itself the debate should rather be about the things people are being boycotted for.

[Themius]

Cancel culture is at it's core about social ostracization, more specifically boycotting - which is nothing new. What has changed is the arena (social media), and the size of that arena.

Instead of focusing on cancel culture itself the debate should rather be about the things people are being boycotted for.

Social media has always existed through history in the form of societies. The idea now is that "it spreads faster" but spreading faster doesn't make it something new. Like... people now spread news faster but that doesn't make news today something other than news.

In the. past it was even easier to suppress voices and boycott people because you could almost crush them away from society entirely. IN the past it was far easier to crush someone and really utterly silence them.

Also it isn't always boycotting it is sometimes just "mmm I don't care for that'

[Zython]

It takes a GALLING amount of self-important tone-deafness to complain about censorship when protesters are being disappeared and murdered, and cancelling when 20% of the workforce lost their jobs due to no fault of their own. These people could simply live their lives being richer than God, but they insist on self-martyring themselves until us "little people" start worshiping the ground they walk on and stop talking out-of-turn. Nothing gets me seeing red like smug arrogance, and these fucks have it in spades.

Honestly, I think the discourse has heard enough from the people who dictate policy. They've done enough damage as it is. We need to hear from the people who have been affected by it. Convicts, sex workers, homeless people, etc. Stop talking ABOUT them and start talking TO them.

[eschatological]

I've seen Chomsky (and to a lesser extent Gloria Steinem) get a lot of shit for signing on to this letter with a TERF like Rowling, Bari Weiss (who has a whole set of her own problems), and so on.

Chomsky is from an old school of liberal thought that I was brought up in, that you let all the speech out in the open, you don't hide it, and you defeat it in the arena of public debate. Chomsky once defended a neo-Nazi's right to speak about how Chomsky was an evil Jew, for example. Chomsky (and I, for a long time) believed exactly what MLK said in his Noble Laureate speech, "I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."

And in the larger public forum, I still agree with this. I never really cared for barring people like Milo and Sam Harris on college campuses. To me, those are great opportunities to have other speakers who just outright destroy their false, psuedo-intellectualism, on stage. College activists tend to now literally drown out these speakers with noise, when I was a college activist (back at the turn of the century), we would always organize these speeches with multiple speakers on different sides of the issues, and an open Q&A. If any speaker refused, we didn't let them come on campus. Even when College Republicans refused to abide by these ground rules, we didn't noisily disrupt their events - we wrote op-eds, we protested outside those events, and if we protested inside the event, it was usually just standing up and turning our back to the speaker.

This was the old approach. And, to be fair to the new approach, there are a few problems with that:

1) Speakers who demand unfairly balanced forums to just spew their bile uncontested and undebated. They have a lot more power now to "demand" the format they want for their speeches.

2) Social media. Even if they are on a panel, they can clip, cut context out, cut out rebuttals, and only post their vileness, while ignoring the utter destruction of their argument that took place in real time but is never seen again online. Social media is too shallow, too immediate, too limited (twitter limits its video clips to like 2 minutes!), and create an air of authority for having spoken at "prestigious university X" and seemingly been a wild success. In the social media world, you almost HAVE to disrupt the video clip they are inevitably gonna post of their speech.

3) The gaslighting of "free speech" as a virtue in and of itself, and not the content of what you said. I'm fairly sure Chomsky would disagree wholeheartedly on most of what Bari Weiss says, and what Rowling says on trans rights. But because he's taking an esoteric, semiotic based position on it, and Rowling/Weiss are gaslighting about free speech being important so they can pass off their toxicity as virtue, it lumps them all together when they're not, in any way shape or form. Personally, I would have preferred if each wrote their own opinion on this, but again, in a social media world, an "open letter with 150 signatories" is all the public has the time or interest to consume.

[Ooid]

“I agree with this thing.”
Someone pRoBlEmAtIc also agrees with thing.
“I am sorry I agreed with this thing and no longer agree with it.”

[Endus]

I've seen Chomsky (and to a lesser extent Gloria Steinem) get a lot of shit for signing on to this letter with a TERF like Rowling, Bari Weiss (who has a whole set of her own problems), and so on.

Chomsky is from an old school of liberal thought that I was brought up in, that you let all the speech out in the open, you don't hide it, and you defeat it in the arena of public debate. Chomsky once defended a neo-Nazi's right to speak about how Chomsky was an evil Jew, for example. Chomsky (and I, for a long time) believed exactly what MLK said in his Noble Laureate speech, "I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."

And in the larger public forum, I still agree with this. I never really cared for barring people like Milo and Sam Harris on college campuses. To me, those are great opportunities to have other speakers who just outright destroy their false, psuedo-intellectualism, on stage. College activists tend to now literally drown out these speakers with noise, when I was a college activist (back at the turn of the century), we would always organize these speeches with multiple speakers on different sides of the issues, and an open Q&A. If any speaker refused, we didn't let them come on campus. Even when College Republicans refused to abide by these ground rules, we didn't noisily disrupt their events - we wrote op-eds, we protested outside those events, and if we protested inside the event, it was usually just standing up and turning our back to the speaker.

This was the old approach. And, to be fair to the new approach, there are a few problems with that:

1) Speakers who demand unfairly balanced forums to just spew their bile uncontested and undebated. They have a lot more power now to "demand" the format they want for their speeches.

2) Social media. Even if they are on a panel, they can clip, cut context out, cut out rebuttals, and only post their vileness, while ignoring the utter destruction of their argument that took place in real time but is never seen again online. Social media is too shallow, too immediate, too limited (twitter limits its video clips to like 2 minutes!), and create an air of authority for having spoken at "prestigious university X" and seemingly been a wild success. In the social media world, you almost HAVE to disrupt the video clip they are inevitably gonna post of their speech.

3) The gaslighting of "free speech" as a virtue in and of itself, and not the content of what you said. I'm fairly sure Chomsky would disagree wholeheartedly on most of what Bari Weiss says, and what Rowling says on trans rights. But because he's taking an esoteric, semiotic based position on it, and Rowling/Weiss are gaslighting about free speech being important so they can pass off their toxicity as virtue, it lumps them all together when they're not, in any way shape or form. Personally, I would have preferred if each wrote their own opinion on this, but again, in a social media world, an "open letter with 150 signatories" is all the public has the time or interest to consume.

I would take this analysis a significant step further;

The entire concept of "cancelling", of people stating they do not want to hear your bullshit any more (which is what it boils down to), that's what the free and unrestricted debate arena of free speech is. The only way to get around that is by arguing that no one should have freedom of association, and should be forced to sit down and listen to and accept messaging they find execrable. You want to stop people from saying "jesus christ, what is wrong with you" and walking away.

I think that's what the "old guard" misses. That they thought the free-for-all arena of free speech would be all "jolly good show, old chap" enlightened discourse, with everyone who's wrong always saying "by golly, you have demonstrated to me the error of my ways! I shall amend them forthwith, good sir/madam/etc!"

And that's so egregiously naive that it's honestly just a little sad.

Instead, you have neo-Nazi racists shouting "KILL ALL JEWS", and everyone else saying "FUCK OFF NAZI SCUM". That's free speech. And when people say "for the love of christ, I'm not employing a fucking Nazi", and fire you, that's freedom of association. The status quo today is what freedom looks like. People telling you that your ideas are bad and you're awful and you should shove it up your ass, that's what you get in a free speech venue.

And this is how we get to MLK's hypothetical future of unconditional love. By purging the hate. You can't just let it coexist as an "alternative but legitimate point of view". It's antithetical to that hypothetical future. Purge it. With fire and venom.

If there's something that acts against this in the long run, it isn't a "lack of sufficient freedom of speech". It's that people are jerkwads and tend to prefer people who speak to their prejudices and tell them they're right to be assholes about it. With the glut of information sources on the Internet these days, you can pick and choose your bubble to a heretofore never-seen degree. And it feeds itself; feel a little irked about Jews? Well, here's some content that tells you why you're right. And why you should be even more angry about the Jews. Those bubbles let people self-radicalize, and the reason that happens is because we do not confront them enough.

Let me repeat that; the way through this is not to protect these bubbles of self-radicalization. It is to tear apart the barriers and oblige their arguments and opinions to stand the test of public scrutiny, not just internal "scrutiny" by the already-convinced. To expose these people and all of their flawed rationalization and petty hatemongering for the meritless mutually-masturbatory hate-fuck that it is.

Yes. Let all the speech out in the open. And let everyone express how shitty it is and how shitty they think you are for introducing those ideas. This is not a comfortable path, but it is the only path that leads to a world where this kind of hate and victimization no longer occurs. And it means those who consciously or subconsciously support such harm are going to have a really fuckin' hard time of it, until and unless they change their tunes and apologize (for a start). And we shouldn't care that they will so suffer, because it's a shadow of the harm their words have already caused others.

One final statement; this is all predicated on the idea that just and fair discourse will win out. This is not a given, as we can clearly see in totalitarian regimes in decades past. It's entirely possible that this is a fight that will be lost.

I would agree with the old-schoolers that it's a fight worth fighting. But I'll thank them to stop bitching the first time they get popped in the face. Welcome to the battleground. I have no fucking clue where you got the idea this would be a pleasant garden party.

[Shadowferal]

I would implore you to remember the most important 'culture war' is fiscal policy and economic reform (and dare I say it reforming capitalism). All the civil rights legislation on earth can't save us from billionaires and corporations hoarding wealth, driving inflation while suppressing wages and buying laws that suit them.

Money talks, bullshit walks after all.

Sadly agree.
The two umbrella issues have aleays been social issues and money. And money issues are always larger by a factor of 100.

[Saltysquidoon]

Sadly agree.
The two umbrella issues have aleays been social issues and money. And money issues are always larger by a factor of 100.

I mean wealth pretty directly informs social policy seeing as how lawmakers have this weird quirk of being rich before they're elected or becoming rich after they're elected.

It's such a crazy coincidence.

- - - Updated - - -

I've seen Chomsky (and to a lesser extent Gloria Steinem) get a lot of shit for signing on to this letter with a TERF like Rowling, Bari Weiss (who has a whole set of her own problems), and so on.

Chomsky is from an old school of liberal thought that I was brought up in, that you let all the speech out in the open, you don't hide it, and you defeat it in the arena of public debate. Chomsky once defended a neo-Nazi's right to speak about how Chomsky was an evil Jew, for example. Chomsky (and I, for a long time) believed exactly what MLK said in his Noble Laureate speech, "I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."

If I can be elitist for a second. I think that legal training and practice imparts a sort of enlightenment mindset wherein all ideas are (necessarily) impartially aerated, considered, adjudicated and then laid to rest one way or the other. In such a forum the mere statement or consideration of an idea doesn't directly tie you too or impart some sort of endorsement for the idea, I mean representation of other people's ideas is a fundamental aspect of the practice of law.

By way of example, my considering (or even playing devil's advocate) with respect to public utility privatisation would merely be an exercise in finding a weakness in the argument. I feel that for most university students (I don;t like it when people call them 'college kids' it's mollifying) anything short of complete disavowment and rejection of an idea outright is seen as an endorsement. Which saddens me on a purely philosophical level.

Obviously, in balance that sort of thinking is predicated on both sides acting in good faith which unfortunately presently is rarely the case. So it is at least understandable (although I still don't agree with it) why in certain circumstances that mindset could have value.

Finally, I do understand that deeprooted meaningful change rarely happens without both sides getting at least a little dirty.

[eschatological]

I-snip-

What you're arguing essentially is that the other side is arguing in bad faith and not really sticking to the norms of public discourse. And I agree.

The response isn't to appeal to emotion and populist rhetoric. The response is to relentlessly, tirelessly, and vigilantly pursue and deny them their pseudo-intellectual ground to stand on. It's why I've always been staunchly against the "punch a neo-Nazi" phase in leftist politics. They're still American citizens, and subject to due process, and randomly inflicting violence on them is not only extrajudicial but gives them a somewhat legitimate grievance to make an actual point.

Saying "Your arguments are shit GTFO OFF THE STAGE!" is, again, a response tailored to a social media world, and ultimately useless. Just like the ad hominem attack of classical times, it doesn't do anything but entrench your rhetorical opponent even further in their opinion.

Also, I never said I want to "force" people to associate with opinions they're opposed to. Last I checked, campus speakers A) are invited, and B) not mandatory to attend. My dean was friends with Republicans and once invited John Ashcroft (while he was still AG and promoting torture in Iraq) to be the commencement speaker. I wasn't in that class, but all my friends in that class, even though it was their own graduation, decided to not attend, in protest, after a long protest/symposium on the unilateral decision of the dean to invite such a person. The right of freedom of association is not abridged by having invited speakers on a non-mandatory basis. And I think, in those cases, airing out the shitty opinions of the Shapiros and Harrises are important, if only to strike them down.

In re: employment of Nazis, I have no problem with informing employers of exactly who they employ, and if they then choose to fire that person, I have no problem with that, either.

As for whether civil discourse will win out or not - you have to exhaust that to the utter end. That's the only way forward, imo.

[silveth]

The funny thing about censoring certain views and thoughts that are not illegal is that it will eventually lead to the rise of what you censor. Think about it. 20 years from now all these hateful views are totally censored and not allowed, so people hide them.

I can see it now.

I read about a guys who has a bunch or thoughts and views on things. He believes and wants universal healthcare(free) for people, universal higher education(free) for people, large social safety nets, more taken from the rich to help the poor, safe spaces for people of a group to be together with out worrying about others intruding on their safe space.

Here is the problem with censoring the legal but hateful views.

He is a full on racist. He is a white supremacist. What lack of debate and and the over censoring of his horrible thoughts would do, is cause him to hide it.

So then as he rises up and maybe goes into politics and rises through the government gathers power and then implements his racist ideas and people would have brought it on themselves. Why? Because they forced people like him to hide their hateful views.

When views you find hateful are just censored or removed from the dialog, you lose 2 things.

The first is the ability to debate and prove that the view is wrong and maybe change their mind to something better. Maybe even reach others that think the same.

The second is that you simply lose the ability to even know that the person has those hateful ideas. That is even worse because then you won't even know he is opposite you until its to late.

[tehealadin]

Instead, you have neo-Nazi racists shouting "KILL ALL JEWS", and everyone else saying "FUCK OFF NAZI SCUM". That's free speech. And when people say "for the love of christ, I'm not employing a fucking Nazi", and fire you, that's freedom of association. The status quo today is what freedom looks like. People telling you that your ideas are bad and you're awful and you should shove it up your ass, that's what you get in a free speech venue.

I think your point would be more potent if it was simply a case of Nazis wanting to take down the Jews, or racists wanting to call people the n word, and that is what the signatories are known for/demonstrably arguing for. However suggesting that biological sex is real isn't the same as being a Nazi, that it is classed as being in the same area beyond the pale is utterly insane and deranging. Suggesting that being extremely overweight is bad for your health isn't the same as being like "DEPORT THEM ALL!". It utterly ignores some of the deranged mobs that form on social media, as if it is a small side issue that doesn't really happen, and is mostly in the minds of Nazis, this form of gaslighting is also deranging.

I grant you that there are still plenty of angry frothing bigots out there using social media to spread "hate" (I put that in quotes as I don't know what that word means and its meaning seems to change depending on who is doing it), some clearly in the sphere of what most would consider hate, and just want to tell you why black people are bad, I also accept that not all ideas are equal, that ideas can be dangerous, most people (there will always be a minority who don't) can agree on certain things that are beyond the pale (racial extermination etc), however there is clearly a very gray area as to what is beyond the pale, and simply letting far left zealots and twitter mobs decide on this is a very bad idea, which is what you clearly advocate for.

There are some very potent mobs out there that cannot and will not see nuance, the world is monochrome to them, and rights issues are weapons for crushing people. I know I can't change your mind on that point, you are in deep and are a true believer, but to suggest that this is simply people wanting to be "bigots" (as defined by radical far left extremists, which puts it on shaky ground), jumping straight to Nazism (and largely sticking to that example) as if that is what most of those people are known for, or placing their beliefs in the same ball park, I mean if you are seriously suggesting that Salman Rushdie writing a novel that offended Muslims/JK Rowling stating the fact that biological sex is real and that there are issues surrounding trans women and spaces that need to be discussed (and biological women shouldn't be simply sidelined and told to shut up) is the same as trying to start a campaign of genocide and racial purity then you are in deeper than I thought, and that is what you seem to be doing by dismissing them and jumping straight to Nazis, as if that is what these people are/akin to.

Treating everything that doesn't fit in with your own world view as Nazism, calling everything Nazism, then using coercion and even fear/threats/actual action to silence people who blaspheme (and in the process deny people the ability to listen and decide for themselves, you might be cool with it but plenty of people are not ok with radical far left zealots deciding what they can hear/see/read/consume. I don't especially agree with him on much, but Ben Shapiro is clearly not a fucking Nazi, Dave Rubin is clearly not a fucking Nazi, arguing that shutting down events they take part in is akin to fighting Nazism is, well I am not sure what to call it, many things, none of them good) and even harm their associates. I see Jodie Comer is now in danger of being cancelled now because she is dating a Trump supporter (I suspect she will have to capitulate), threatening peoples ability to earn a living because they share different views/associate with people who have different views (don't dare go back to using Nazism as an example, we aren't talking about Nazis or anyone on that level of extremism), this is not in the spirit of free speech, this is so dishonest to argue that this is what we are seeing here with these mobs, and just deciding that having different views==Nazism is just insane, I wish you could see that, the world of ideas is bigger than your views/Nazism, no in between.

Ending by talking about totalitarianism, fucking whoosh man. There is such a thing as far left totalitarianism. I know it is Wikipedia, and some of these might be debatable (either by presence or absence), but you might notice that a particular wing of the political divide is better represented than others when it comes to totalitarian regimes (and don't bother coming back with a No True Scotsman).

So I absolutely do not trust radical far left zealots (many of whom are revolutionaries) to decide what is beyond the pale. I do not endorse their tactic of labeling anything they don't agree with as Nazism, or "hate", or by dismissing concerns about their actions as Nazism (like how your reliance on using the Nazi example as if that is honestly what the signatories are trying to prop up/something of the same magnitude of evil), I do not endorse the tactic of using extreme pressure (not simply boycott, but spreading of lies and false labeling, threat of direct action and violence, don't kid yourself, this mob isn't exclusively on social media) to control what people can express/who they can associate with. And to suggest that this is necessary in order to stop the spread of Nazism is just insane.