The problem with society always determining the justness of any issue is that society is incredibly fickle.
Today it’s your issue on the “right” side of things because you align but oh how you would howl if society ever determines abortions are illegal beyond the first trimester, or in fact ever. Or another such similarly divisive issue.
Using child prostitution is a non genuine way to argue this, because the closer it gets to a 50-50 determination of what society wants vs the other 50 that doesn’t the more apt you’re likely to be on the wrong side from time to time.
And what do you propose to do about the fact that society is made up of individuals who have different opinions that they would like to express?
I see not how your tu quoquo relates to my point. Not in the slightest. If society makes abortion illegal, then I will express my opinion on that, just as you are free to express your opinion that you think it should be.
No, and I do not appreciate your insinuation that I am not debating in good faith. The reason that I bring up child prostitution is specifically because I was under the impression that everyone in this thread would be against it, and wanted to use an example that would not get side railed into a defense of it, as things that are closer to a 50-50 would be.
Nothing that you have put in your post addresses any of my arguments, refutes any of my statements, or challenges my positions. The only argument you have made is that I am not debating in good faith, and you failed horribly at that.
So, since it does not seem as though you have a great interest in actually responding to the points I made, I will give you a chance to be productive in this exchange, and ask you, what is the remedy that you are looking for here?
Whoever disagrees with this letter, I hope you’re cool with it when the pendulum swings the other way. If you don’t think that’s possible, I think you’re mistaken.
If it were only opinion and not negatives actions that occur from people expressing their “opinion” then you’d be all in the good.
When people start getting fired for having opposing viewpoints, then you aren’t in the good any longer.
If only you were as good at being right as you think you are at winning debates on a message board, you could be president.
Of course everyone agrees that child prostitution is bad, how does leave any room to disagree with you? THAT was exactly the point, you used the most 1 sided argumentative point you could think of.
The pendulum’s been the other way before, and we dealt with it then.
It’s only now that the pendulum is swung this way that you aren’t cool with it.
The pendulum may well move back towards condoning racism and condemning tolerance, but I am sure that if your prediction comes about, you won’t be bemoaning the chance to hold civil rights activists to account for disagreeing with your opinion.
Not in this full bore social media age it hasn’t. Sure, there’s been people here and there, but not to this degree, and typically not Joe Shmoe’s (not saying it never happened, but it was rare).
No, I won’t. You have a wrong idea about who I am.
Then we’ve never been in the good. You are MAGAing for a time that never existed.
Is this an argument, a statement, or just an unrelated and pathetic attempt at some sort of put down?
Yes, I did, as an example of something that I thought that we could all agree on. Sometimes, when discussing points of nuance with others, it is useful to find a spot of common ground. That is what I was doing by bringing up something that I thought we could all agree on.
What exactly is your point here, what is your objection? You are just complaining with no direction or reason.
I’m pretty sure by this statement, you have no idea what my point is, what I am arguing, or how I am doing so. Please try rereading my statements before making any more ridiculously fallacious assumptions as to their meaning. Thank you.
I disagree, and you have done a poor job of arguing your point to that effect.
Nothing is new under the sun. This is something that we have dealt with ever since we said that the government couldn’t censor us.
Well, with your “I hope you’re cool with” certainly makes it sound like you will be.
As I said, if somehow, it becomes socially unacceptable to have an opinion of tolerance, and an opinion of intolerance becomes the norm, then I will be in the shouting match, expressing my opinion. I will not be complaining that people have the right to free speech.
It’s always easy to point to the extreme examples, but the controversy is about what happens in between. The perception—rightly or wrongly—is that the middle ground is being eroded, in favor of a ‘you’re either with me or against me’-mentality. The tolerance towards disagreement, the ability to live with a spectrum of views is being lost, and replaced by a simplistic sorting into ready-made categories.
The fact that attempts to point this out are immediately met with ‘Oh, so you want for Hitler to scream his views from the rooftops?’ is exactly symptomatic. Every gray area must immediately be cleaned up to black or white, and, to be on the safe side, it’s easier to condemn than to find common ground. Moral ambiguity can’t be tolerated, everything is either good or bad, right or wrong, and if somebody disagrees, they’re wrong—not merely factually wrong, but morally wicked.
I think that’s the main misunderstanding. The letter is aimed at the stifling of differing opinions through ostracism—i. e. only those expressing the right opinions get to speak. Take the recent call on the Linguist Society of America to sever its ties with Stephen Pinker: this isn’t a constructive contribution to debate; no engagement with Pinker’s views, and whether they merit consideration or condemnation, is fostered thereby. It’s simply: we don’t like what Pinker says, so he must be barred from having a forum.
I think that the letter is very explicit in arguing that the desired outcome from sharing an opinion is that opinion being debated, but what happens instead is judgment. Also, I think you’re misjudging the signatories of the letter by painting them as some sort of alt-right reactionaries aiming to stifle progressive voices—but of course, as regards to its content, that’s neither here nor there.
To me, this is a troubling view: it implies that racism is OK as long as society thinks it is (or at least, that societal judgment of racism is what ultimately matters). I don’t believe that’s true; I think that society has objectively bettered itself by moving towards a more accepting place. But I think that, with the recognition that the old categories we used to judge people—race, gender, sexuality—maybe aren’t so great, we’re running a danger of just replacing these categories with new ones—based on agreement with whatever views we hold. In other words, rather than slicing humanity up along lines based on overt characteristics, we’re now slicing it up along party lines, along holding the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ views, whatever they may be.
That’s where this impulse of demanding an organization sever its ties with an individual whose views don’t fit with ours comes from. They’re no longer part of our tribe, so to speak, and thus, should be shunned, cast out.
Again, going right to the extremes is part of the problem. The issue here is that we need to figure out how to handle the middle ground, how to bear disagreements without immediately erecting new border lines.
As for what the remedy could look like, well, the Aztecs had an interesting take on moral philosophy. They likened the aim to lead a moral life to walking on the ‘slippery Earth’: it’s difficult, and occasionally, you fall. Crucially, Aztec ethics were less character-centric, and more social: when somebody slips, others help them up. Slipping, moral failure, then doesn’t entail a direct indictment of another’s character, but rather, an opportunity to reach out and help; walking on the slippery Earth is made easier within a group that mutually supports each other.
What happens these days, or so I understand the point of the letter, is rather the opposite: whoever slips up, isn’t merely not helped, but actively shunned—they’ve become dirty by their fall, and we’re afraid of the dirt rubbing off by association.
So if we see (what we perceive as) moral failure within others, we might treat this less as a failing of character, as an inescapable shadow cast over them, and more like any other error—as something that needs correction, sure, but not condemnation.
There’s a notion I like, of so-called ‘cross-cutting cleavages’. People can be sorted into groups in multiple, orthogonal ways; we’re these days concentrating on which cleavages divide us, but for every two individuals, they’re probably on the same side of lots of divides, as well. Focusing on one as opposed to the other then leads to a society dominated by division—we only see, or only note, what separates us, and fail to take account of what unites us. If we only see the rift between us, we can’t reach out to the other. But if we’re made aware that we’re already on the same side along some other axis, we can reach out to others that are separated from us—can steady them on the slippery Earth, so to speak.
This doesn’t mean we have to give Hitler his space to express his opinions. But the vase majority of people are neither Hitlers nor Gandhis. We all just muddle through in the end, and it’s just not helping anybody to condemn where instead we could’ve connected.
Nope. I’m saying by then, if this letter, and the general sentiment behind it gets ignored, it will be too late.
That’s easy to say when your livelyhood’s not on the line, which right now, it really isn’t, is it? As has been pointed out, we all have freedom of speech. We don’t have freedom from consequences.
Without specifically accusing anyone of being disingenuous, I strongly suspect that many of the people who are OK with society being a minefield are OK because the minefield favors them at this point in history.
How would a society that wasn’t a minefield work? Would it be illegal to advocate for boycotts, or criticize someone on Twitter for something they said? This minefield concept appears to me to be a consequence of freedom of speech - others might criticize you if they don’t like what you say.
There are degrees to it, of course. On one end of the spectrum, there is respectful disagreement. On the other end, there is shrillness, doxxing, trolling, brigading, canceling/trying to get someone fired, etc.
Disagreement is perfectly fine - but the idea is to move things more from the shrill/shrieking end towards the more reasonable end.
I don’t think the people criticizing cancel culture are advocating for any sort of legal framework to protect people from the consequences of their speech - rather, they are imploring the people who make up society to reconsider whether people holding different views really need to be pilloried all the time. I think they are asking the people who lead various organizations to think - is firing someone for having made an ignorant statement really the best course of action? It’s asking society - “why do you feel that the consequences for disagreeable speech should be so severe?” I see it as asking people to think twice about setting a mine, rather than looking to ban minefields via any sort of legal means.
I don’t know that that is what is happening. That you only hear from the most vocal doesn’t mean that there are not many who you don’t hear from.
One of the things that I’ve seen happen in nearly any sort of group discussion is that the most vocal proponents of a position are usually the minority, but they make up the majority of the “noise” made.
I don’t see a erosion of tolerance of disagreement, I just see disagreement. The loss of tolerance of disagreement seems to be coming from those who do not want to be criticized for their opinions, not among those who express them.
What you are seeing is an extremely superficial snapshot of the most surface thoughts of society. By concentrating on those tweets, rather than the actual majority of thought, it does become simplistic.
Once again, I’m not seeing this. I think that Hitler should have the right to scream his views from the rooftops, and I think that we should have the right to shout him down.
The public sphere is exactly where and how we find the grays, and how we find common ground. I think that people are being too sensitive if they consider being criticized for their views to be not being tolerated, to being condemned or made to be wicked.
I am also not willing to do what would be needed to shield them from criticism, which would be to severely restrict free speech.
I don’t think that is quite the case. Everyone gets to speak, including those who disagree with the speaker. Sometimes, the speaker feels ostracized because there are a whole bunch of people that disagree with them.
So, some people wrote a letter expressing their opinion. Was Stephen Pinker fired or ostracized? No. His employers listened to the opinions of some people, then made the decision that those opinions were not important enough to take any action over.
Sounds like the system worked. What’s the complaint?
No, I recognize some of those names as fairly prominent liberal members. Just because I agree with some of them on some of their views doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them on all their views, and on this particular case, I disagree with them.
They are not alt-right reactionaries (that I recognize, I didn’t look up any names I didn’t know, so there could be some KKK members in there for all I know or care, and it wouldn’t change my argument in the slightest), they are people who have a very privileged position off of making a living off of sharing their opinions and thoughts with the rest of us. That they want to be able to have that benefit, and not have any obligation to consider the effects of their use of their privilege is what I am disagreeing with.
How do you know that people didn’t debate the opinion, consider it carefully, and disagree? If you put an opinion out there, then all you see is when people disagree with it. If you assume that they rushed to judgement, it is you that is jumping to conclusions, not necessarily them.
Racism was okay with society for most of its history. It took people who were willing to suffer the consequences of expressing unpopular opinions to change that. My point is, if you have an unpopular opinion and you don’t want to be criticized for it, then your remedy is to make that opinion popular, not to prohibit the criticism of it.
Right, instead of dividing society by race, we are dividing society by racist vs non-racist. It’s a competition of ideas, and if racists want to compete, then they can put forth their argument for intolerance.
I don’t demand that an organization sever its ties with an individual who doesn’t fit with mine. However, if an organization supports an individual I find to be abhorrent, then I shouldn’t have to give them my money. If my dollars are important to them, then maybe they will reevaluate their relationship with their employee. If my dollars are not important to them, then they can keep on keeping on.
I don’t support Hobby Lobby or Chikfilet, and I’m under no impression that my non-support will have any affect on their policies. I just don’t want to give them money.
The extremes are how we find boundaries. What you find abhorrent, I may not, and vice versa. We can have other discussions to find middle ground, but this discussion is about what people are allowed to do under what circumstances, and so discussing the circumstances in which expressing an opinion is not only allowed, but should be encouraged is more useful. That’s why I brought up an extreme example that I think that all of us can get behind. Would you order a burger from someone you just saw out on the street advocating for an abhorrent position?
Your Aztecan philosophy sounds fun. Any ideas on how to impose that upon society? I meant as far as remedies that we could actually implement?
Telling everyone to connect rather than divide is great advice, but I see two problems. The first is that I don’t see everyone going for it, and the thing about vocal minorities is that they are vocal. As long as just a few people are on Twitter calling for someone to be fired or otherwise punished for their views, then those who fight “cancel culture” will continue to consider themselves to be persecuted.
The second is that many of those who express noxious opinions are not looking to connect, they are looking to divide. Treating them with the deference and respect for expressing their opinion that you are advocating for does not create a meeting of the minds, it just creates toxicity in the public sphere.
As I said, Hitler should have his space to express his opinions, and we should have the space to disagree.
But it’s already too late. That’s how things have been forever. If you express an opinion that people don’t like, then you may pay a consequence for it. That’s not new.
My livelihood is on the line. I own a business in the middle of Trump country. You don’t think that I don’t hold many of my opinions to myself?
When I see a car pull up with Trump stickers on it, and the client comes out wearing a MAGA hat, what do you think would be the result if I allowed my political opinions to be expressed at that time?
I took a good chance on one client that called my employee a N* to her face when she brought his dog out. I went off on him and told him he was never allowed back. He left a nasty review full of lies in return, which did hurt my business.
I have enough problem just asking people to wear masks around here. I’ve been “canceled” by some clients just for expressing that “opinion”.