Exactly; it’s about how this reaction occurs, and whether that’s actually a productive way to react—for either side.
Say that I, rather than engaging you in debate, were to take matters to ATMB, and call for your banning, because I didn’t like the opinion you expressed. Say further that the mods agreed, and you’re summarily banned.
Clearly, both I and the mods would be well within our respective rights to act this way—I’ve freely expressed an opinion, and they’ve made use of their house rights. Neither of us should, in a free society, be prohibited from reacting to you in this way.
But suppose that this becomes the dominant style of reaction. Whenever somebody posts something not in accordance with the predominant rules of the board, someone calls for their removal, which perhaps more often than not will be enacted. Indeed, at some point, to avoid the kerfluffle, people posting problematic opinions are summarily removed, in anticipation of complaint.
Do you really think that this is just as fine as the present culture of debate? Don’t you think this place would loose something due to such exclusionary measures? I’m not even talking about those whose views are removed; nobody’s entitled to be given a platform for their views, on this board or elsewhere. But the board itself, and those toeing the party line enough to still post here, would be deprived of a plurality of opinion that I think is essential to an open society, and indeed, would be prohibited from evolving for lack of exposure to novel stimuli.
Now suppose I were to argue the above—that such an exclusionary policy is ultimately harmful to the board. I’m not thereby calling for a silencing of those going to ATMB to call for the removal of outside voices—I’m not trying to infringe on anybody’s freedom to do so, I’m calling into question whether this sort of action is always a good idea. Everybody’s allowed to go to ATMB and complain bitterly about whatever they think is worth complaining about, and in some cases, this is clearly the right course of action—the boundary cases, as it were. But that doesn’t mean that it should be the first and only course of action, and it doesn’t mean that it can’t be actively harmful if it is. There’s—again—middle ground here.
That’s what the letter claims is happening, or is in danger of happening, with society at large. Dissenting viewpoints, rather than being engaged in productive debate, are silenced, in whatever way. Arguing this isn’t calling for freedom from consequences for stating one’s opinion, it’s calling into question whether the consequences that are being drawn actually fit the case. It’s also not saying that there aren’t cases where it’s perfectly valid to call for certain opinions not being given a platform. These are both just missing the mark as criticisms of the letter, which I think is due to undue focus on the boundary cases—those were going to ATMB and calling for a ban is actually a good idea, so to speak.
(Somewhat ironically, the new board software is presently trying to lecture me on the need for diversity in debate, because I’ve replied to you too many times:
You’ve replied 3 times to @k9bfriender in this particular topic!
A great discussion involves many voices and perspectives. Can you get anybody else involved?
)
Again, no, it’s not. It’s calling into question whether this should be the first, last, and only line of reply, and arguing that we lose something if it is. Just as this board would lose something if every thread not falling within some narrow confines of opinion is met with a banning. Still, people are perfectly within their rights to act this way, and nobody’s claiming otherwise; but not every course of action within one’s rights is always wise.
Why, though? Why can’t you just withstand the difference in opinion? Besides, it’s not like everybody whose voice is heard has that ‘power’ just by divine fiat. They’ve found a market for their views, which you’re free to try and find for yours, as well. Furthermore, among other things, this tells you that there’s some portion of the population that shares them. That’s something I would want to know, especially in cases of repugnant views like Hannity’s.
As a personal anecdote, I was honestly unaware of the level of support populist and outright racist views still have in Germany—‘thanks’ to the rise of the AfD, now I know. It doesn’t make me happy to know this, but I prefer this knowledge to my earlier naivety.
Which then means that society was wrong about racism, and the attendant shouting down unjustified. Which then means that what’s shouted down by society isn’t a reliable means of establishing what’s right and what’s wrong. Which then means that we can do without the shouting—indeed, should perhaps strive to, trying to find more reliable means of deciding between opposing opinions.
But the mere fact that you’d be shouted down doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing that you’d be shouted down, that things ought to be this way. (Recall, you can’t derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’!) But if things ought not be this way, and perhaps need not, then why not try to change?
And by saying it’s ‘them’ that makes is ‘us vs. them’, you’re essentially granting them that power. The problem is that, in most cases—they’re us, whether we like it or not.
I took the cheeseburger to stand for something like a professed opinion, which is after all what this thread is about. Hence, you wouldn’t accept the notion that vegetarianism is good from a Nazi, while you might from another. It’s this sort of relevance of the origin of an opinion, as opposed to the opinion’s justification, that I was addressing.
Alright, so are you actually saying that if you didn’t have such strategies, you wouldn’t be permitted to point to the fact that Global Warming is problematic, since in that case, it would just be a complaint, or am I misunderstanding you there?
Again, I think you’re completely misunderstanding the intent of the letter (not that I claim any special insight into the intentions of those who wrote it, mind). It’s as in my board example above: what’s being criticized is people calling for a banning, so to speak, of opposing voices, and thus, precisely not engaging with them in a meaningful way.
That might well be the case, I don’t know. I do think it’d be sort of curious to get 150 high-profile individuals, noted intellectuals in some cases, to sign off on a letter that’s published simultaneously in four different widely circulated periodicals in four different countries, translated into the respective languages, with the entirety of the complaint just being a great big nothingburger—and if that’s indeed what happened, then I think it’d still be worthwhile to try and find out what actually is the reason for this shared misperception.
As things are, I think the simplest explanation of a great number of people telling the same story is that there’s actually something to the story, and the onus of proof is on those who think otherwise. But then
again, I’ve explored that line of argument rather exhaustively back in November.