I’m not a scholar, but I think I’m pretty close to the fringe liberals on “critical race theory”, and nowhere that I see does it call for stifling debate or suppressing speech. Rather, it makes very pointed criticisms of much of the conventional wisdom of both conservatives and liberals, and sometimes that criticism is made very harshly. But CRT doesn’t call for or condone threats or other things that can stifle speech, AFAICT.
I still hold that most of this consternation comes about because so many of the wealthy, powerful, and influential aren’t used to harsh and pointed pushback and criticism. When privilege is what one is used to, parity/equality might feel like oppression, and criticism might feel like attempted suppression.
My neighbor doesn’t share a lot of deep thoughts with me. I doubt he has any. Intellectuals of various stripes share their thoughts and ideas across various media that we all consume, thus giving them their influence/power. We can’t then condemn them for ideas we don’t like and accuse them of wielding their power and fame when we were the ones who elevated them.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that there’s very little actual suppression (probably far less than in the past, in fact, considering how often women and minorities faced actual stifling and suppression), but a lot more harsh and pointed intellectual criticism of wealthy, powerful, and influential opinion makers than there used to be, and those opinion makers are mistaking this harsh and pointed criticism for attempts at suppression.
After looking at was going on what I see is more of the extremists from the right demanding the same respect for their ideas. Forgetting that history tells us a lot about how some ideologies should be countered forcefully. And even Godwin agrees:
“This is in response to a direct-message request: 'Mr. Godwin, pardon the lack of proper introduction, but I believe you to be the man who created the Internet adage now known as “Godwin’s Law”,” he said. "Sir, I implore you to post a statement on FB, giving your views on the recent white nationalist rally in Charlottesville Virginia.
“Your adage is invoked so very often to shut down discussions about politics and social issues as soon as any comparisons to Nazism and 1930’s Germany are made, but now that videos have surfaced showing the Nazi flag being waved in the Charlottesville parade… Sir, would you please make a public statement? I’ve noted before that sometimes sheer irony can pierce to the heart of an argument, to deflate the opposing side.'”
Mike Godwin formulated Godwin’s Law more than 25 years ago. And it has become a foundational rule of the internet in the time since: as a discussion goes on, the likelihood of someone being called a Nazi becomes higher.
Some have added an extra part: as soon as someone is called a Nazi, they are probably wrong.
But Mr Godwin has said that the white nationalists who took over the streets of Charlottesville over the weekend can fairly be compared to Nazis, given that many of them openly voice support for a Nazi ideology.
“By all means, compare these s***heads to the Nazis,” he wrote. “Again and again. I’m with you.”
BTW even extremism from the left such as communism deserves to be countered forcefully, but what I have seen are mostly extremists from the right hijacking ideals that in reality do not apply much to them when their intention in the end is to stop the discussion of ideas that they do not like.
The basic problem here is to assume that even moderate positions = extremist leftists supporters of violence.
But we’re not only talking about criticism of the wealthy and powerful. Everyone who shares those opinions is now afraid to voice them, it’s only the powerful who dare to speak up about it. And we’re not talking about racists or whatever but views that were perfectly unobjectionable 10 years ago are now shouted down by a vocal minority.
AFAICT, this thread, and that Harper’s letter, is almost exclusively (if not totally exclusively) about (or signed by) wealthy, powerful, and/or influential mostly-white people.
The idea that people with “wrong” opinions are afraid to speak up is pretty clearly refuted by the present occupant of the White House and his many enablers in government.
I don’t think that everyone who shares unpopular opinions is afraid to voice them. I saw people marching with confederate flags and nazi symbols within the last month. Little is more unpopular than that.
If knowing that voicing your unpopular opinion may mean that people don’t like you, then good.
What views do you say were perfectly unobjectionable that are being objected to now?
And, if as you say, it is a minority doing the shouting, then you can just ignore them, can’t you?
I’d rather have a world where people are afraid to pose unpopular opinions in the public sphere than a world where people are afraid to criticize them.
Years ago, I remember reading opinions on this message board that it didn’t matter too much whether eg racists had really changed their minds, or were just afraid to speak up. If no one voiced those opinions then they would eventually die out. And I thought maybe you were right.
Recent events have convinced me otherwise. People who don’t speak still vote. All they were waiting for was someone to come along who would voice their forbidden beliefs. If you silence people then you lose the chance to persuade them to your side. You can’t counter arguments that aren’t voiced. And you no longer know the truth of what is happening on the ground, so you don’t know what the majority want or need, or how to appeal to them. That’s how you lose elections.
And honestly, if you’re going to abandon the principle of free exchange of ideas along with other enlightenment values, you deserve to lose. Authoritarian left-wing governments are not better than authoritarian right-wing ones.
If they are not being reinforced, then why would they stick around? I don’t think that anyone ever claimed that it would end racism, but discouraging racism in the public sphere does help prevent it from being legitmaized.
I would say that you took exactly the wrong message from that. When racism becomes acceptable in the public sphere, then racists are encouraged to show off their racism in public.
If all it took was someone to voice their “hidden beliefs” then they were always racist.
I don’t think that anyone of the racists were ever potential allies. We didn’t push them away from voting against racists.
There is not counter argument to racism. If someone is a racist, that’s not a rational position. They did not use logic to get themselves there. Logic and reason will not stop someone from being a racist.
The only one wanting to stop the free exchange of ideas are the ones telling the people that they shouldn’t criticize the powerful and influential.
To be fair, the letter that Rowling et al yammered out didn’t actually have any form of solution, just complaints, so maybe they weren’t actually looking to make any changes to how people respond to them, they were just making a neutral observation.
But, I don’t think that that is the case. I think that they wanted people to change the way that they act. They were using their power and influence to affect the public.
To what ends, in your opinion, were they trying to influence?
I can’t speak to the Harper’s letter, but no, the wealthy and powerful were absolutely not the point of this thread.
At least the way the matter is presented, they also aren’t regarding the letter—the whole ‘wealthy and powerful people complaining about not being given a platform’ thing is just a straw man, as I’ve tried to point out. Nobody’s denying anybody’s right to call for the removal of some public figure; the question is just if that’s actually a productive way to proceed.
It’s as in my SMDB hypothetical: I’m perfectly well allowed to go to ATMB and complain about posters whose opinion I don’t like. In most cases, it’s just not a terribly productive thing to do. But that doesn’t entail I shouldn’t be allowed to do it.
You tell me. Americans’ response to Trump suggests they have stuck around.
That’s my point. You pushed it underground but it didn’t go away.
And yet people have become less racist over time. Once upon a time it would have been unthinkable for America to elect a black president. It obviously is possible to persuade people. Or take the issue of gay rights that I mentioned earlier. We’ve seen a very considerable change of views within my lifetime. And what about less clear cut issues, like immigration, where there may be elements of racism but other things are also involved. If you dismiss all those views as racist it means you’re failing to talk about the other issues.
Again, no one is saying that. Criticise away. But let other opinions be heard. Don’t throw the whole person out because you disagree on one issue. Don’t demand they be fired for a minor offence, don’t assume anyone who disagrees needs to be punished or reeducated. Those are the attitudes we’re seeing. Hell, be glad you live in a country that has free speech written in the constitution and you can’t be fined or sent to jail just for offending someone.
It doesn’t mean that that public figure has to be removed, it doesn’t mean that that public figure should be removed. But without the call for removal, then the question is never even raised.
And I also don’t think that most objections actually call for removal either. Not for the most part, anyway. You are always going to have some fringy who feels that eating fruit loops is cause for pillory, but to concentrate on that person is to engage in nutpicking, which I feel is extremely non-productive.