This article showcases nicely why I am suspicious of people who claim to be concerned about "free speech". It starts out well, by talking about Internet blackouts in Ethiopia and Kashmir. Sudan,...
This article showcases nicely why I am suspicious of people who claim to be concerned about "free speech".
It starts out well, by talking about Internet blackouts in Ethiopia and Kashmir. Sudan, Congo, and Chad also joined them in the list of 25 governments that imposed Internet blackouts on their population, to suppress protests or opposition to the current regimes.
It continues by bringing up Trump's trumpery - he is, after all, the one who brought "fake news!" to the masses - and then segues into "the left is doing it, too!"
The notion that certain views should be silenced is popular on the left, too. In Britain and America students shout down speakers they deem racist or transphobic, and Twitter mobs demand the sacking of anyone who violates an expanding list of taboos. Many western radicals contend that if they think something is offensive, no one should be allowed to say it.
"Authoritarians elsewhere agree", it says. "Kazakhstan recently arrested a journalist, 13 journalists were killed in Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia was blatant in its murder of one of its critics."
The article talks about how journalists are imprisoned in Turkey, China, Egypt and Eritrea, and how Pakistan and Russia use intimidation instead.
Maybe that aside about "Twitter mobs" and "students shouting down speakers they deem racist or transphobic" was just carelessly thrown in.
"Twitter mobs" are not comparable to murder, after all, or imprisonment, or to being picked up outside your home by government goons. "Students shouting down speakers" are not comparable to having a government entity move against you, and, in any case, this seems like a strange thing to talk about when discussing the suppression of free speech: are those students not just exercising their own free speech?
Nowhere is this more striking than in universities in the United States.
I would like to point out that, in their own infographic, the situation of free speech in the United States doesn't seem to have worsened over the last decade. Its neighbor, Canada, which concerns a lot of right-thinking people because of Bill C-16, actually went up on whatever scale has been used.
In a Gallup poll published last year, 61% of American students said that their campus climate prevented people from saying what they believe, up from 54% the previous year. Other data from the same poll may explain why. Fully 37% said it was “acceptable” to shout down speakers they disapproved of to prevent them from being heard, and an incredible 10% approved of using violence to silence them.
This seems concerning. A whole person in ten approves of using violence? But against who?
[...] Heather MacDonald [...]
In Portland, Oregon, this weekend, far-right extremists are planning to rally, their “antifa” (anti-fascist) opponents are expected to try to stop them, and both sides are spoiling for a fight.
[...] a conservative journalist, Andy Ngo, was so badly beaten that he was hospitalised with a brain haemorrhage.
“If some students now think it’s OK to punch a fascist or white supremacist, and if anyone who disagrees with them can be labelled a fascist or a white supremacist, well, you can see how this rhetorical move might make people hesitant to voice dissenting views on campus.”
In Britain any discussion of transgender issues is explosive. In September, for example, Leeds City Council barred Woman’s Place UK, a feminist group, from holding a meeting because activists had accused them of “transphobia”
Well, ok.
The author of the article fails to mention that the so-called "feminist" group which has been "accused" of transphobia is a group of TERfs, whose feminism consists of setting up billboards with transphobic dogwhistles, trying to defund trans-supporting organizations, and dogpiling on LGBT+ people and "handmaidens".
I might be more worried about their being silenced, if not for the fact that major UK newspapers are more than happy to publish articles in their support.
I might be more worried about their being silenced without cause, if not for the fact that they have blood on their hands.
I might be more worried about suppression of free speech in developed nations, if not for the fact that the author of the article seems to only be concerned with racists, transphobes, white nationalists, and nazis.
I might be more inclined to believe their "I am worried for free speech", if not for the fact that they put student protests on the same level as blatant government censorship.
As it stands, I don't believe them, and I am not very concerned about conservative thinkers being shown the door.
I am irritated, though, by how they are polluting the discussion with these articles, because actual suppression of speech - actual government overreach - is something we should be worried about. The monopoly that Google, Facebook, Twitter have on the Internet is something we should be worried about.
"Alleged" nazis getting punched, or - heavens forbid! - getting egged or showered in milkshakes? Not so much.
I'm not sure I agree. Yes, conceptually and individually, getting mobbed on twitter is easily avoidable (just get off twitter); whereas assassination/imprisonment/government action etc are much...
"Twitter mobs" are not comparable to murder, after all, or imprisonment, or to being picked up outside your home by government goons.
I'm not sure I agree. Yes, conceptually and individually, getting mobbed on twitter is easily avoidable (just get off twitter); whereas assassination/imprisonment/government action etc are much more … uh … permanent and harder to avoid.
But I don't know if they're not comparable. Mob mentality is dangerous, even online, and there absolutely are comparable chilling effects on both government action and mob action.
I think bringing up "free speech" is a red herring. Hell, the principles on which free speech is important are unrelated to why any of these things are issues. But it doesn't make them non-issues. All in all I agree that entangling the two is irritating; still, the one doesn't dismiss the other IMO.
More generally: The US left has a serious speech-acceptance issue, which it doesn't acknowledge, and that directly feeds into the right-wing propaganda machine.
Remember that most people on the right aren't "literal nazis", they're often enough people who ended up distrusting the left because they saw unacknowledged issues and finger-pointing. Is it hypocritical in light of the shit the US Right does? Yes. But pointing out the hypocrisy doesn't help, because they'll just see hypocrisy in the other direction as well, therefore just stick to their guns.
I say all this as a european left-leaning centrist, which is like super-extreme-left by US standards at this point.
"Speech-acceptance issue"? What speech is the US left not accepting, and why would it be an issue? Because, from my experience - speaking as an European leftist - we tend to be mostly upset with...
The US left has a serious speech-acceptance issue, which it doesn't acknowledge, and that directly feeds into the right-wing propaganda machine.
"Speech-acceptance issue"? What speech is the US left not accepting, and why would it be an issue?
Because, from my experience - speaking as an European leftist - we tend to be mostly upset with little things like racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia. No-one should accept that. It deserves to be shouted down.
I think bringing up "free speech" is a red herring.
Yes, and that's why I don't trust the people who brings it up. It's never about free speech, it's about a specific brand of speech; a specific brand of speech that has a chilling effect on vulnerable minorities.
Even today, you learn pretty quickly to avoid mentioning certain things - like your gender or sexuality - outside of safe spaces if you don't want to be targeted by random assholes.
Remember that most people on the right aren't "literal nazis", they're often enough people who ended up distrusting the left because they saw unacknowledged issues and finger-pointing.
Ok. And?
They don't need to be literal nazis, they just need to tolerate them.
They don't need to be fascists, they just need to be more concerned with antifa and some broken windows than with the impact of the fascists themselves.
They don't need to be okay with what the right is doing, they just need to say "well, I'm less okay with what the left is doing" and throw their support behind the right. They might just be in it because they want small government and like their guns, but with that they are also supporting opposition to abortion and LGBT+ rights.
Is it hypocritical in light of the shit the US Right does? Yes. But pointing out the hypocrisy doesn't help, because they'll just see hypocrisy in the other direction as well, therefore just stick to their guns.
Ok. And?
I know I don't care much about convincing people that yes, I should be able to exist without submitting to their whims.
"Ok. And?" You're preaching to the choir. I don't think anybody on tildes, myself included, disagrees with that statement. My point is that your strategy is not converting anybody who actually...
I know I don't care much about convincing people that yes, I should be able to exist without submitting to their whims.
"Ok. And?"
You're preaching to the choir. I don't think anybody on tildes, myself included, disagrees with that statement.
My point is that your strategy is not converting anybody who actually disagrees.
My point is that my strategy is not trying to convert anybody who actually disagrees in the first place. I don't see the value in it. The people who make up the group "who actually disagree" tend...
My point is that my strategy is not trying to convert anybody who actually disagrees in the first place.
I don't see the value in it. The people who make up the group "who actually disagree" tend to have very strong opinions, and to live in echo chambers. Some of those strong opinions include things like "the left is supporting degenerates", which makes them disinclined to talk with - not at - someone like me.
Even when they do, it's a lot of effort for very little payoff. I'd rather put my energy into outreach to people who won't just go "but the left is doing X, too!", and I'd rather see people attack their platform rather than their arguments.
Putting aside "nazis don't deserve a platform" - because some things people want to argue about are flat-out nonsensical and dangerous - I don't see much value in explaining the same concept for the thousandth time to one person who might or might not stop spreading misinformation about it.
It's a cost we are forced to pay. I'd rather turn the tables, impose a cost on misinformation and lies - by, say, mocking those who spread it - and reduce the cost to oppose it by not targeting their apparent argument (e.g., in this case "the left does not care about free speech").
If they are willing to learn - if they are not willfully ignorant or malicious - they can do some research by themselves, and/or ask someone in good faith instead of blasting FUD and waiting for someone to correct them. If they are not willing to learn, I wrote them off already.
I'd invite you to read this article: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes This is someone who quite literally put their...
I don't see the value in it. The people who make up the group "who actually disagree" tend to have very strong opinions, and to live in echo chambers.
This is someone who quite literally put their life on the line to convert people who "have very strong opinions" and most certainly live in echo chambers.
Now that's not to say "do this or shut up", but there is a point to converting people and it absolutely is terrifically effective when it does work. People you manage to convince to see past their echo chamber don't fall into the same traps again, and they sometimes convert other people as well. Whereas your approach only leads to people whose opinions you only end up reinforcing. Or worse: People who would be on your side, but who feel put off by how radical your arguments are. And they're right to be, and this is not just theoretical -- Just yesterday I mentioned tildes on a tiny Ask-HN post and someone immediately mentioned this very comment chain as it was their first impression of the site. Understand that your words do have an effect on people.
This attitude makes people more vulnerable to the arguments of the right. There's no hard straight line between the US left and right that says "Nazi | Not Nazi". It's an extremely gradual curve, that may start with something like "I'm a US liberal-progressive but I dislike [insert popular representative of a minority] for [some reason that has nothing to do with exclusionism]", then continue to "hey I'm thrown into the same bucket as all these people for no valid reason", quickly devolve into "okay, fuck the US liberal-left if all they do is reject me and call me a nazi", and throughout this process, that person's media diet changes, which means the information they consume changes. And once again, the propaganda machine is strong; don't start thinking your parents, friends, neighbours, even yourself or the people you trust the most are immune to it.
Saying "they can do some research by themselves" ignores the filter bubble effect. If you think people on the right simply haven't done their research, you're fooling yourself. Antivaxxers have done their research. Flat earthers have done their research. They did it wrong, but they don't feel like they haven't. How would they even know, without the tools to know so?
I don't see much value in explaining the same concept for the thousandth time to one person who might or might not stop spreading misinformation about it.
What I'm writing here to you, I wrote a thousand times before to others who simply would dismiss people by the millions for their association with the right. I believe in converting people to show compassion and understanding for the foulest and vilest of people. I'm not telling you to like these people, I'm saying you yourself will be better off if you understand why they act the way they do, rather than simply assume they were born this way.
Likewise I understand where you yourself are coming from. How could you possibly show any understanding towards people who, as you said, would deny your very existence? Only you can answer that.
Yes. That is part of the cost I was talking about. And it's not a cost I think people should pay, even if it's not literally putting one's life on the line but "just" one's mental health. I don't...
This is someone who quite literally put their life on the line to convert people who "have very strong opinions" and most certainly live in echo chambers.
Yes. That is part of the cost I was talking about. And it's not a cost I think people should pay, even if it's not literally putting one's life on the line but "just" one's mental health.
Now that's not to say "do this or shut up", but there is a point to converting people and it absolutely is terrifically effective when it does work.
I don't believe this. I believe that "converting" some people, and bringing them out of their echo chamber, is possible. I don't believe that the cost you have to pay to do it is worth it, not at any sort of scale.
Or worse: People who would be on your side, but who feel put off by how radical your arguments are. And they're right to be, and this is not just theoretical -- Just yesterday I mentioned tildes on a tiny Ask-HN post and someone immediately mentioned this very comment chain as it was their first impression of the site. Understand that your words do have an effect on people.
I know my words have an effect on people. That's exactly why I use them.
And HN is far, far from the best example you could have used. "Psychology is not just fluff" is a "radical opinion" on there, and likewise "y'know, maybe capitalism is kinda shit".
don't start thinking your parents, friends, neighbours, even yourself or the people you trust the most are immune to it.
lmfao
No, they are not immune. Every time I bring the topic of my transition up to my father, he shuts the discussion down by telling me I'll get cancer.
Every time my uncle gets some attention, he starts ranting about how medicine is dangerous, how vaccines make people autistic, and how "they" are pushing them on us only to make money.
Every time my aunt gets that, she brings up some sort of MLM scheme involving "natural" products, and she keeps on telling me that microwaved food is dangerous.
Family friends? Apparently at least one of them thinks we should sink the boats migrants come in on.
That's why I start from "what the fuck is your damage" and progress from there.
I spent years having this sort of debates. I used to take people seriously, and I used to think that people are ultimately rational, that you can sway them if you can show them that you are right, if you take the time to explain things to them. It's not particularly effective online, and it's not effective IRL.
Saying "they can do some research by themselves" ignores the filter bubble effect. If you think people on the right simply haven't done their research, you're fooling yourself. Antivaxxers have done their research. Flat earthers have done their research. They did it wrong, but they don't feel like they haven't. How would they even know, without the tools to know so?
Ok. Wonderful. So they don't belong to the group who is just spouting bullshit without having even bothered to google what they are talking about, and who endlessly demands that other people explain trivial concepts to them, before going "you were rude to me, it just goes to show that feminists/gay people/trans people are all rude".
They just belong to the group who thinks they are right.
Are they open to discussion? If I point out to them that the paper they used to conclude that vaccines are bad is flawed, that all those scary ingredient in vaccines are not actually dangerous, that the complication rate is very low, are they going to fall back to "but it's unnatural, Big Pharma lies"? Will they move the goalposts, or actually listen to what people tell to them?
How many such confrontations will it take to ultimately sway them, if they can even be swayed?
Because until that time, they'll still keep on spouting off "vaccines are dangerous" - reinforcing that belief in those who agree with them, and exposing the fencesitters to it.
Likewise I understand where you yourself are coming from. How could you possibly show any understanding towards people who, as you said, would deny your very existence? Only you can answer that.
I wouldn't. I don't care why they do what they do, nor I care how they got to that point. It just does not matter to me. A rabid dog is arguably innocent, just a carrier for its disease, but it remains dangerous, and most of the people who we are talking about are not "innocent carriers" for their hateful memes.
What I'm writing here to you, I wrote a thousand times before to others who simply would dismiss people by the millions for their association with the right.
For their association with the right? That's a word with a pretty big scope.
In any case, again, it doesn't really matter to me how someone got to the point of saying "gays are deviants and will go to hell". Religion? Radicalization on 4chan, Reddit, or the YouTube comments section? Are they just fucking assholes, or are they using homophobia to cope with the fact that they feel marginalized?
The fact remains that they are still saying it. You might argue that I'm not "treating the disease" by mocking them into silence, and maybe that I'm making things worse.
I would reply with a "yes, and?" to the former, and with a sidelong stare to the latter, because if you don't treat the symptoms of your metaphorical patient and just focus on "treating the root problem", you will mostly end up without a patient to treat.
I don't have enough compassion for the foulest vilest of people. I don't have enough energy for their endless, petty debates. I don't think they deserve it more than people who are not the foulest and vilest, and I will keep on asking people to put their own energy and compassion towards other efforts.
If you try to debate with them it absolutely should, because that's the root of why they believe what they believe. Your question being "Are they open to discussion? [...]" you've clearly tried to...
I don't care why they do what they do, nor I care how they got to that point. It just does not matter to me.
If you try to debate with them it absolutely should, because that's the root of why they believe what they believe.
Your question being "Are they open to discussion? [...]" you've clearly tried to debate with people and you're bewildered when you are met with low-hanging platitudes as replies such as "big pharma lies" etc. Do you understand that when people's beliefs are unreasonable, they're by definition not driven by reason thus unarguable with reason?
If you want to unroot unreasonable beliefs, you need to figure out what is driving those beliefs and address that. You can't go using "scary science words" to an antivaxxer who is most likely that way because they've been taught to distrust science in the first place. Yes, it's hard; science is, among other things, a framework which helps us communicate facts and not being able to use it when arguing with someone makes things tough, but not impossible. Figuring out why those people distrust science is the key.
Look, I'm saying all this from experience. I've successfully won over dozens of people arguing politics, vaccines and similar topics. This works, whereas pushing people away reinforces their beliefs and makes future reasoning with them harder and longer. If you're pissed off your aunt or whatever is hard to argue with, you can blame the people who, much like you, have violently rejected her rather than listen, understand, and argue.
I get you feel like you're out of energy for all this. But I see you fervently arguing for/against these things, this takes energy as well. You can keep being pissed off that nothing works or you can try something that does. Or if you truly are out of energy, you can also ignore it; I wouldn't blame you, and I certainly do that myself often enough when I myself feel that way.
Yes. So did I. It took hundreds of discussions over the span of a few years, but I never said that convincing people that they are wrong is impossible, just not worth the effort. Which makes this...
I've successfully won over dozens of people arguing politics, vaccines and similar topics.
Yes. So did I. It took hundreds of discussions over the span of a few years, but I never said that convincing people that they are wrong is impossible, just not worth the effort.
But I see you fervently arguing for/against these things, this takes energy as well.
Which makes this "gotcha" quite irritating. I have enough energy to argue. I refuse to allocate any more energy towards specific arguments and discussions, and I said as much: in this thread, on Tildes, and on other platforms.
I will still step in and correct people, as I can't really afford not to, but that's not the same thing as debating or arguing with them: I am not trying to sway them, I am trying to show everyone else that they are wrong. If I also happen to convince them, good, but that's not my objective.
Again, I don't care about them or their reasons, and I'm not about to start caring. I am not irritated by their belief, it's irrelevant. I am irritated by the fact that they are spreading dangerous misinformation, and I want to cut that down.
They can keep on believing that vaccines cause autism, provided that they shut up about it. They won't do that, as they think they are right, and that's why I try to make that as costly as possible.
One of the current political debates going on is the semantics of whether the camps on the border are concentration camps or not. Maybe most people on the right aren't literal Nazis, but anyone...
More generally: The US left has a serious speech-acceptance issue, which it doesn't acknowledge, and that directly feeds into the right-wing propaganda machine.
Remember that most people on the right aren't "literal nazis", they're often enough people who ended up distrusting the left because they saw unacknowledged issues and finger-pointing.
One of the current political debates going on is the semantics of whether the camps on the border are concentration camps or not. Maybe most people on the right aren't literal Nazis, but anyone who's ok with the Republican party's overt racism and white nationalism for any reason isn't any better. The right wing doesn't want me as a trans person to exist, and I'm white! I blend in which is something a lot of their other targets can't do. My family can say they support me all they want but if they vote for a guy who doesn't want me to have rights their words mean nothing.
I'm on my phone so unable to elaborate in more depth immediately but I wouldn't assume that everyone on the right is okay with what the right is doing. Or even is aware what the right is doing....
I'm on my phone so unable to elaborate in more depth immediately but I wouldn't assume that everyone on the right is okay with what the right is doing. Or even is aware what the right is doing. You have a powerful propaganda machine all around you; your fellow citizens are more likely to be victims than perpetrators.
Put it this way, I as a European do not assume that everyone in America is okay with what America is doing.
That is indeed the root of the whole mess. It's just 2 clans flinging mud at one another, debate's something of the past, and the few who still try to adhere to basic principles of manners and...
That is indeed the root of the whole mess. It's just 2 clans flinging mud at one another, debate's something of the past, and the few who still try to adhere to basic principles of manners and courtesy might as well order clown suits as that's how they're treated anyway.
Complaining about "Campus free speech" issues is a nice and easy. Generally speaking the incidents are rather isolated and by and large campus life is unaffected by them, but of course if you...
Complaining about "Campus free speech" issues is a nice and easy. Generally speaking the incidents are rather isolated and by and large campus life is unaffected by them, but of course if you report all of them together (and they'll almost always report more or less the same ones) the problem can be made to seem much bigger than it actually is.
It's also relatively easy to argue that the people being protested are not actually problematic at all by just playing completely seriously an argument South Park played as a joke years ago.
Separating my comment on the article from the outline link so the two don't get needlessly entangled. The first 2/3s of this article is spot on in decrying the seemingly escalating assault on...
Separating my comment on the article from the outline link so the two don't get needlessly entangled.
The first 2/3s of this article is spot on in decrying the seemingly escalating assault on freedom of the press by authoritarians around the world, which is undeniably troubling and highly problematic... However, the final few paragraphs really go off track IMO. Them trying to compare all the previous issues to the fight against hate speech, discrimination and bigotry muddies the waters and is frankly disgusting to me. Their cherry picking of a handful of incidents where a few obnoxious protestors went overboard was incredibly misleading and reads like an alt-right talking point, and their describing A Woman’s Place UK as merely a "feminist group" falsely accused of being transphobic while attempting to frame the city council barring them from holding a meeting as somehow unfair and unwarranted, when they are in fact an openly discriminatory, trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) group, is dishonest as hell. See: https://womansplaceuk.org/sex-matters/ https://womansplaceuk.org/our-5-demands/
I think the unfortunate reality is that a lot of people have slowly realised that it's pretty easy to include their own personal grievances within the context of larger societal struggles and...
I think the unfortunate reality is that a lot of people have slowly realised that it's pretty easy to include their own personal grievances within the context of larger societal struggles and equivocate them in a way that only makes sense if you only consider the most surface level elements. For people who equivocate government censorship and social activism this means they get to trick themselves into thinking that people showing them their own prejudices and biases is actually them being part of some heroic struggle, and not just them falling prey to their own fallible humanity.
It's more or less the intellectual equivalent of a person going "Starvation in developing countries? Why yes, I understand completely how that must feel: it is one in the afternoon and I still haven't had lunch yet!"
What baffles me as a relative outsider is how adults can have the nerve to shamelessly display their recalcitrant toddler behaviour. Shouting down speakers... really..? Or the other kind, the good...
What baffles me as a relative outsider is how adults can have the nerve to shamelessly display their recalcitrant toddler behaviour. Shouting down speakers... really..? Or the other kind, the good burghers pointing out people with unfashionable opinions. "That's a baaad word..!" Truly cringeworthy. Meddlers, busybodies, do-gooders, etc. seem to want an applesauce-fed populace in rubber rooms. The endresult is only that the next generation is finding it rather hard to respect their elders and/or take anything they say in a socio-political context as serious.
This article showcases nicely why I am suspicious of people who claim to be concerned about "free speech".
It starts out well, by talking about Internet blackouts in Ethiopia and Kashmir. Sudan, Congo, and Chad also joined them in the list of 25 governments that imposed Internet blackouts on their population, to suppress protests or opposition to the current regimes.
It continues by bringing up Trump's trumpery - he is, after all, the one who brought "fake news!" to the masses - and then segues into "the left is doing it, too!"
"Authoritarians elsewhere agree", it says. "Kazakhstan recently arrested a journalist, 13 journalists were killed in Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia was blatant in its murder of one of its critics."
The article talks about how journalists are imprisoned in Turkey, China, Egypt and Eritrea, and how Pakistan and Russia use intimidation instead.
Maybe that aside about "Twitter mobs" and "students shouting down speakers they deem racist or transphobic" was just carelessly thrown in.
"Twitter mobs" are not comparable to murder, after all, or imprisonment, or to being picked up outside your home by government goons. "Students shouting down speakers" are not comparable to having a government entity move against you, and, in any case, this seems like a strange thing to talk about when discussing the suppression of free speech: are those students not just exercising their own free speech?
I would like to point out that, in their own infographic, the situation of free speech in the United States doesn't seem to have worsened over the last decade. Its neighbor, Canada, which concerns a lot of right-thinking people because of Bill C-16, actually went up on whatever scale has been used.
This seems concerning. A whole person in ten approves of using violence? But against who?
Well, ok.
The author of the article fails to mention that the so-called "feminist" group which has been "accused" of transphobia is a group of TERfs, whose feminism consists of setting up billboards with transphobic dogwhistles, trying to defund trans-supporting organizations, and dogpiling on LGBT+ people and "handmaidens".
I might be more worried about their being silenced, if not for the fact that major UK newspapers are more than happy to publish articles in their support.
I might be more worried about their being silenced without cause, if not for the fact that they have blood on their hands.
I might be more worried about suppression of free speech in developed nations, if not for the fact that the author of the article seems to only be concerned with racists, transphobes, white nationalists, and nazis.
I might be more inclined to believe their "I am worried for free speech", if not for the fact that they put student protests on the same level as blatant government censorship.
As it stands, I don't believe them, and I am not very concerned about conservative thinkers being shown the door.
I am irritated, though, by how they are polluting the discussion with these articles, because actual suppression of speech - actual government overreach - is something we should be worried about. The monopoly that Google, Facebook, Twitter have on the Internet is something we should be worried about.
"Alleged" nazis getting punched, or - heavens forbid! - getting egged or showered in milkshakes? Not so much.
I'm not sure I agree. Yes, conceptually and individually, getting mobbed on twitter is easily avoidable (just get off twitter); whereas assassination/imprisonment/government action etc are much more … uh … permanent and harder to avoid.
But I don't know if they're not comparable. Mob mentality is dangerous, even online, and there absolutely are comparable chilling effects on both government action and mob action.
I think bringing up "free speech" is a red herring. Hell, the principles on which free speech is important are unrelated to why any of these things are issues. But it doesn't make them non-issues. All in all I agree that entangling the two is irritating; still, the one doesn't dismiss the other IMO.
More generally: The US left has a serious speech-acceptance issue, which it doesn't acknowledge, and that directly feeds into the right-wing propaganda machine.
Remember that most people on the right aren't "literal nazis", they're often enough people who ended up distrusting the left because they saw unacknowledged issues and finger-pointing. Is it hypocritical in light of the shit the US Right does? Yes. But pointing out the hypocrisy doesn't help, because they'll just see hypocrisy in the other direction as well, therefore just stick to their guns.
I say all this as a european left-leaning centrist, which is like super-extreme-left by US standards at this point.
"Speech-acceptance issue"? What speech is the US left not accepting, and why would it be an issue?
Because, from my experience - speaking as an European leftist - we tend to be mostly upset with little things like racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia. No-one should accept that. It deserves to be shouted down.
Yes, and that's why I don't trust the people who brings it up. It's never about free speech, it's about a specific brand of speech; a specific brand of speech that has a chilling effect on vulnerable minorities.
Even today, you learn pretty quickly to avoid mentioning certain things - like your gender or sexuality - outside of safe spaces if you don't want to be targeted by random assholes.
Ok. And?
They don't need to be literal nazis, they just need to tolerate them.
They don't need to be fascists, they just need to be more concerned with antifa and some broken windows than with the impact of the fascists themselves.
They don't need to be okay with what the right is doing, they just need to say "well, I'm less okay with what the left is doing" and throw their support behind the right. They might just be in it because they want small government and like their guns, but with that they are also supporting opposition to abortion and LGBT+ rights.
Ok. And?
I know I don't care much about convincing people that yes, I should be able to exist without submitting to their whims.
"Ok. And?"
You're preaching to the choir. I don't think anybody on tildes, myself included, disagrees with that statement.
My point is that your strategy is not converting anybody who actually disagrees.
My point is that my strategy is not trying to convert anybody who actually disagrees in the first place.
I don't see the value in it. The people who make up the group "who actually disagree" tend to have very strong opinions, and to live in echo chambers. Some of those strong opinions include things like "the left is supporting degenerates", which makes them disinclined to talk with - not at - someone like me.
Even when they do, it's a lot of effort for very little payoff. I'd rather put my energy into outreach to people who won't just go "but the left is doing X, too!", and I'd rather see people attack their platform rather than their arguments.
Putting aside "nazis don't deserve a platform" - because some things people want to argue about are flat-out nonsensical and dangerous - I don't see much value in explaining the same concept for the thousandth time to one person who might or might not stop spreading misinformation about it.
It's a cost we are forced to pay. I'd rather turn the tables, impose a cost on misinformation and lies - by, say, mocking those who spread it - and reduce the cost to oppose it by not targeting their apparent argument (e.g., in this case "the left does not care about free speech").
If they are willing to learn - if they are not willfully ignorant or malicious - they can do some research by themselves, and/or ask someone in good faith instead of blasting FUD and waiting for someone to correct them. If they are not willing to learn, I wrote them off already.
I'd invite you to read this article: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes
This is someone who quite literally put their life on the line to convert people who "have very strong opinions" and most certainly live in echo chambers.
Now that's not to say "do this or shut up", but there is a point to converting people and it absolutely is terrifically effective when it does work. People you manage to convince to see past their echo chamber don't fall into the same traps again, and they sometimes convert other people as well. Whereas your approach only leads to people whose opinions you only end up reinforcing. Or worse: People who would be on your side, but who feel put off by how radical your arguments are. And they're right to be, and this is not just theoretical -- Just yesterday I mentioned tildes on a tiny Ask-HN post and someone immediately mentioned this very comment chain as it was their first impression of the site. Understand that your words do have an effect on people.
This attitude makes people more vulnerable to the arguments of the right. There's no hard straight line between the US left and right that says "Nazi | Not Nazi". It's an extremely gradual curve, that may start with something like "I'm a US liberal-progressive but I dislike [insert popular representative of a minority] for [some reason that has nothing to do with exclusionism]", then continue to "hey I'm thrown into the same bucket as all these people for no valid reason", quickly devolve into "okay, fuck the US liberal-left if all they do is reject me and call me a nazi", and throughout this process, that person's media diet changes, which means the information they consume changes. And once again, the propaganda machine is strong; don't start thinking your parents, friends, neighbours, even yourself or the people you trust the most are immune to it.
Saying "they can do some research by themselves" ignores the filter bubble effect. If you think people on the right simply haven't done their research, you're fooling yourself. Antivaxxers have done their research. Flat earthers have done their research. They did it wrong, but they don't feel like they haven't. How would they even know, without the tools to know so?
What I'm writing here to you, I wrote a thousand times before to others who simply would dismiss people by the millions for their association with the right. I believe in converting people to show compassion and understanding for the foulest and vilest of people. I'm not telling you to like these people, I'm saying you yourself will be better off if you understand why they act the way they do, rather than simply assume they were born this way.
Likewise I understand where you yourself are coming from. How could you possibly show any understanding towards people who, as you said, would deny your very existence? Only you can answer that.
Yes. That is part of the cost I was talking about. And it's not a cost I think people should pay, even if it's not literally putting one's life on the line but "just" one's mental health.
I don't believe this. I believe that "converting" some people, and bringing them out of their echo chamber, is possible. I don't believe that the cost you have to pay to do it is worth it, not at any sort of scale.
I know my words have an effect on people. That's exactly why I use them.
And HN is far, far from the best example you could have used. "Psychology is not just fluff" is a "radical opinion" on there, and likewise "y'know, maybe capitalism is kinda shit".
lmfao
No, they are not immune. Every time I bring the topic of my transition up to my father, he shuts the discussion down by telling me I'll get cancer.
Every time my uncle gets some attention, he starts ranting about how medicine is dangerous, how vaccines make people autistic, and how "they" are pushing them on us only to make money.
Every time my aunt gets that, she brings up some sort of MLM scheme involving "natural" products, and she keeps on telling me that microwaved food is dangerous.
Family friends? Apparently at least one of them thinks we should sink the boats migrants come in on.
That's why I start from "what the fuck is your damage" and progress from there.
I spent years having this sort of debates. I used to take people seriously, and I used to think that people are ultimately rational, that you can sway them if you can show them that you are right, if you take the time to explain things to them. It's not particularly effective online, and it's not effective IRL.
Ok. Wonderful. So they don't belong to the group who is just spouting bullshit without having even bothered to google what they are talking about, and who endlessly demands that other people explain trivial concepts to them, before going "you were rude to me, it just goes to show that feminists/gay people/trans people are all rude".
They just belong to the group who thinks they are right.
Are they open to discussion? If I point out to them that the paper they used to conclude that vaccines are bad is flawed, that all those scary ingredient in vaccines are not actually dangerous, that the complication rate is very low, are they going to fall back to "but it's unnatural, Big Pharma lies"? Will they move the goalposts, or actually listen to what people tell to them?
How many such confrontations will it take to ultimately sway them, if they can even be swayed?
Because until that time, they'll still keep on spouting off "vaccines are dangerous" - reinforcing that belief in those who agree with them, and exposing the fencesitters to it.
I wouldn't. I don't care why they do what they do, nor I care how they got to that point. It just does not matter to me. A rabid dog is arguably innocent, just a carrier for its disease, but it remains dangerous, and most of the people who we are talking about are not "innocent carriers" for their hateful memes.
For their association with the right? That's a word with a pretty big scope.
In any case, again, it doesn't really matter to me how someone got to the point of saying "gays are deviants and will go to hell". Religion? Radicalization on 4chan, Reddit, or the YouTube comments section? Are they just fucking assholes, or are they using homophobia to cope with the fact that they feel marginalized?
The fact remains that they are still saying it. You might argue that I'm not "treating the disease" by mocking them into silence, and maybe that I'm making things worse.
I would reply with a "yes, and?" to the former, and with a sidelong stare to the latter, because if you don't treat the symptoms of your metaphorical patient and just focus on "treating the root problem", you will mostly end up without a patient to treat.
I don't have enough compassion for the foulest vilest of people. I don't have enough energy for their endless, petty debates. I don't think they deserve it more than people who are not the foulest and vilest, and I will keep on asking people to put their own energy and compassion towards other efforts.
If you try to debate with them it absolutely should, because that's the root of why they believe what they believe.
Your question being "Are they open to discussion? [...]" you've clearly tried to debate with people and you're bewildered when you are met with low-hanging platitudes as replies such as "big pharma lies" etc. Do you understand that when people's beliefs are unreasonable, they're by definition not driven by reason thus unarguable with reason?
If you want to unroot unreasonable beliefs, you need to figure out what is driving those beliefs and address that. You can't go using "scary science words" to an antivaxxer who is most likely that way because they've been taught to distrust science in the first place. Yes, it's hard; science is, among other things, a framework which helps us communicate facts and not being able to use it when arguing with someone makes things tough, but not impossible. Figuring out why those people distrust science is the key.
Look, I'm saying all this from experience. I've successfully won over dozens of people arguing politics, vaccines and similar topics. This works, whereas pushing people away reinforces their beliefs and makes future reasoning with them harder and longer. If you're pissed off your aunt or whatever is hard to argue with, you can blame the people who, much like you, have violently rejected her rather than listen, understand, and argue.
I get you feel like you're out of energy for all this. But I see you fervently arguing for/against these things, this takes energy as well. You can keep being pissed off that nothing works or you can try something that does. Or if you truly are out of energy, you can also ignore it; I wouldn't blame you, and I certainly do that myself often enough when I myself feel that way.
Yes. So did I. It took hundreds of discussions over the span of a few years, but I never said that convincing people that they are wrong is impossible, just not worth the effort.
Which makes this "gotcha" quite irritating. I have enough energy to argue. I refuse to allocate any more energy towards specific arguments and discussions, and I said as much: in this thread, on Tildes, and on other platforms.
I will still step in and correct people, as I can't really afford not to, but that's not the same thing as debating or arguing with them: I am not trying to sway them, I am trying to show everyone else that they are wrong. If I also happen to convince them, good, but that's not my objective.
Again, I don't care about them or their reasons, and I'm not about to start caring. I am not irritated by their belief, it's irrelevant. I am irritated by the fact that they are spreading dangerous misinformation, and I want to cut that down.
They can keep on believing that vaccines cause autism, provided that they shut up about it. They won't do that, as they think they are right, and that's why I try to make that as costly as possible.
One of the current political debates going on is the semantics of whether the camps on the border are concentration camps or not. Maybe most people on the right aren't literal Nazis, but anyone who's ok with the Republican party's overt racism and white nationalism for any reason isn't any better. The right wing doesn't want me as a trans person to exist, and I'm white! I blend in which is something a lot of their other targets can't do. My family can say they support me all they want but if they vote for a guy who doesn't want me to have rights their words mean nothing.
I'm on my phone so unable to elaborate in more depth immediately but I wouldn't assume that everyone on the right is okay with what the right is doing. Or even is aware what the right is doing. You have a powerful propaganda machine all around you; your fellow citizens are more likely to be victims than perpetrators.
Put it this way, I as a European do not assume that everyone in America is okay with what America is doing.
That is indeed the root of the whole mess. It's just 2 clans flinging mud at one another, debate's something of the past, and the few who still try to adhere to basic principles of manners and courtesy might as well order clown suits as that's how they're treated anyway.
Complaining about "Campus free speech" issues is a nice and easy. Generally speaking the incidents are rather isolated and by and large campus life is unaffected by them, but of course if you report all of them together (and they'll almost always report more or less the same ones) the problem can be made to seem much bigger than it actually is.
It's also relatively easy to argue that the people being protested are not actually problematic at all by just playing completely seriously an argument South Park played as a joke years ago.
Separating my comment on the article from the outline link so the two don't get needlessly entangled.
The first 2/3s of this article is spot on in decrying the seemingly escalating assault on freedom of the press by authoritarians around the world, which is undeniably troubling and highly problematic... However, the final few paragraphs really go off track IMO. Them trying to compare all the previous issues to the fight against hate speech, discrimination and bigotry muddies the waters and is frankly disgusting to me. Their cherry picking of a handful of incidents where a few obnoxious protestors went overboard was incredibly misleading and reads like an alt-right talking point, and their describing A Woman’s Place UK as merely a "feminist group" falsely accused of being transphobic while attempting to frame the city council barring them from holding a meeting as somehow unfair and unwarranted, when they are in fact an openly discriminatory, trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) group, is dishonest as hell. See:
https://womansplaceuk.org/sex-matters/
https://womansplaceuk.org/our-5-demands/
I think the unfortunate reality is that a lot of people have slowly realised that it's pretty easy to include their own personal grievances within the context of larger societal struggles and equivocate them in a way that only makes sense if you only consider the most surface level elements. For people who equivocate government censorship and social activism this means they get to trick themselves into thinking that people showing them their own prejudices and biases is actually them being part of some heroic struggle, and not just them falling prey to their own fallible humanity.
It's more or less the intellectual equivalent of a person going "Starvation in developing countries? Why yes, I understand completely how that must feel: it is one in the afternoon and I still haven't had lunch yet!"
What baffles me as a relative outsider is how adults can have the nerve to shamelessly display their recalcitrant toddler behaviour. Shouting down speakers... really..? Or the other kind, the good burghers pointing out people with unfashionable opinions. "That's a baaad word..!" Truly cringeworthy. Meddlers, busybodies, do-gooders, etc. seem to want an applesauce-fed populace in rubber rooms. The endresult is only that the next generation is finding it rather hard to respect their elders and/or take anything they say in a socio-political context as serious.
Don't go overboard and cut our pensions please!
For anyone interested, this is the Freedom House work cited in the article:
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-media/freedom-media-2019
https://outline.com/gsWe7H