Again, you’re making the entitlement to a platform argument. Not them.
They are talking about an inhospitable or “hostile” work environment. They are not complaining that nobody wants to have lunch with them.
This is a pointless comment, you could say the same thing whenever any illiberal ideology (including many that you would certainly disfavor) predominates in a society. The issue that we’re discussing is the whether the philosophy and value system of the coworkers who rejected them and denied them a platform is a good one or a bad one.
I did that (writing back with criticism), at least with Sullivan, for many years. Until I got sick of his bullshit and stopped reading him. Why should I be sorry to see him go?
Considering Weiss’s massive hypocrisy, and Sullivan’s massive blind spots, I’m very skeptical that they’re accurately describing the situation. But even if they are, I’m not sure why I should care.
Why are you making this personal? How you feel about him is not relevant. We’re talking about the expression of ideas and whether social pressure from the left, or right for that matter, should have an undue influence on how people expressing those ideas are being treated in their work environment and profession in general.
It always has and always will. All I worry about this ubiquitous process is whether it’s used for good or evil (or meh, in this case, on the off chance Sullivan and Weiss aren’t making this shit up).
My dude. You’re a better poster than this.
So tell me where I’m going wrong.
‘…on the off chance that they are lying’…
I doubt you would accept this kind of argument and subsequent treatment of writers/ideas if the shoe were on the other foot.
You mean if it were a writer I admired? Of course I wouldn’t like it. Just like how I think boycotts are an entirely legitimate tactic, but I’d still be upset if someone tried to boycott my favorite restaurant because it’s run by immigrants.
If their accounts are accurate, Weiss and Sullivan might not have been treated well by their coworkers and employers. But so what? Good writers and good people should be treated well. I’m not particularly concerned if hypocritical assholes with massive blind spots aren’t treated well at work.
Social consequences like violent assault, being illegally expelled from a public university, or having your property vandalized?
I have to say, it’s never really been about ‘free speech’ to me. Rather, the issue is that I’m afraid that the diversity of opinion, and hence, the necessary breeding ground for open debate, gets eroded. The article claims that the view of those opposing what they see as opinion-policing do so out of some form of conservativism:
Social justice advocates think the bands of acceptable opinion and arguments shouldn’t be narrowed, precisely, but rather pushed to the left — shifted to include formerly excluded voices from oppressed communities and to sideline voices that seek to continue their exclusion. Their critics think the traditional bands of debate are, broadly speaking, correct, and that we’d all be worse off if the social justice advocates succeed in moving speech norms in their direction.
That isn’t my view, however. I don’t think that the ‘bands of acceptable opinion’ are just fine and dandy the way they are, but rather, that they ought to be shifted further to the left; but I don’t think that what’s happening right now is an effective means at achieving this outcome—worse, I fear it may threaten it, emboldening a conservative/alt-right segment that can now shelter behind the fig leaf of legitimate grievance.
Over in this thread, somebody linked to an NY Times article on how those that feel themselves ‘canceled’ (whether legitimately or not) have started to (even if loosely) organize and mutually reinforce each other.
To me, the problem also isn’t that the discourse, using the simplistic ‘spectrum’ model from the Vox article, becomes more narrow, but rather, that it becomes fractionalized—splitting up into distinct bands, with those within one band continually striving to enforce localized standards of acceptable opinion (which ties back to the OP of this thread, and the identity model outlined). It’s a sort of ‘active’ counterpart of the filter bubble phenomenon: rather than merely censoring the information that is presented to me, the spectrum of opinion from which legitimate viewpoints can be drawn is constantly redefined.
Nobody’s really being denied their free speech in this scenario. I’m (for example) merely exercising my own right to free speech to advocate against those whose opinions I don’t wish to tolerate being given a platform—which I am (and should be!) perfectly free to do; then, those who have authority over the given platform may decide to agree with me, or not—again, something they’re free to do.
But just because me and everyone else is just exercising their freedoms in this scenario, doesn’t mean that doing so is also necessarily a good idea. In the other thread, I tried to illustrate it like this:
(‘Predominant rules’ in the above should’ve been ‘predominant opinion’.)
So ‘free speech’, while it’s a convenient motto to latch on to, is a bit of a red herring in this debate for me. It’s not the freedom of speech I feel is being threatened, but the grounds for forming a well-founded opinion—in the extreme, if you either get with the program of your own social circle, or risk being ousted, you can’t legitimately be said to have any opinion at all; you’re at best parroting phrases.
So to me, there needs to be a tolerance of error, of mistake, and of legitimate disagreement, without thereby being branded an enemy, or not an ally, of social progress. One thing I’ve noticed, also in the recent discussions on here, is a complete disregard of the principle of charity—rather than trying to give another’s opinion the best possible interpretation, it’s often the most malicious interpretation that’s taken for granted (‘Oh, so you think we should give a fair hearing to Hitler?’).
The problem with this isn’t that it’s an unkind thing to do (well, not just), but that it weakens one’s own point: if we don’t react to the strongest possible argument another could’ve intended, we risk that our counterargument is insufficient, or attacks the wrong target altogether, which creates a gap that can be exploited by an opponent. We’re not doing ourselves any favors in painting another’s argument in the worst possible light—of bigotry, oppressiveness, or hatred, for instance. We should—for our sake, and that of our views—allow for disagreement, for plurality of opinion, for differing views that nonetheless may come from intentions as good as ours, and even for honest mistake or a failure to fully appreciate the scope of a debate. Somebody not educated in the latest vernacular—and I think one must admit that the sheer pace these things develop makes it hard to keep up—may make a honest gaffe that can be easily construed as offensive; that doesn’t immediately make them the enemy. We can strive to educate, rather than ostracize, and only if that proves fruitless, move on. But that requires allowing the other to have as good (and ‘pure’) a reason for their views than we do, and I think that’s not always a given assumption in current debate.
Nope.
Fair enough. Maybe this is a reasonable concern. But what could be done about it? ISTM that this is all happening organically - people come to opinions about things and speak up, and sometimes businesses or universities or other organizations take action in response.
What could (should?) be done about it is that responsible professional media outlets, academic institutions and businesses become active guardians of free speech and expression of ideas, including speech they don’t like or that does not align with their socio-political views. This won’t the perfect solution either. They too will get it wrong. But I would prefer they err on the side of exposing bad ideas than banning all ideas that the often loud minority of scolds disagrees with. The goal is not to minimize or avoid criticism. The goal is to put controversial ideas to the test of considered thought and argument. They will stand or fail on their own merit.
WTF are you ever talking about?
I think this is what is mostly going on. Sullivan and Weiss weren’t fired, even with their shitty writing.
It’s the opposite of, “what is mostly going on”. Your opinion of their writing abilities aside, while they were not fired, the editor of the NYT was put in a position where he had to resign for publishing an unpopular (even shitty) opinion. Which is, I believe, the article you posted is alluding to. That there is now undue pressure to shut down voices that express unpopular opinions, including on those who provide a forum for their expression.
It’s disingenuous to say that Sullivan (for example) is free to go write a blog and there will be no one to sensor his freedom of expression. We both know that’s a bullshit way of censoring him from the bulk of his readership in major publications.
If that’s about the Tom Cotton thing, then that wasn’t just a shitty piece, it was garbage. Garbage on the facts and garbage in every other way. The NYT shouldn’t be publishing utter drivel like that just because it comes from a Senator. I think it’s fine to ask for a Senator to write a piece, but if they submit garbage like that, they should send it back covered in red ink with a note that it doesn’t come close to meeting their standards for factual accuracy and writing quality.
He left of his own volition.
Have you ever worked in an environment where you were not fired but had to leave because it was toxic? If so, perhaps you can relate.