How do you square being an advocate of free speech with the idea that criticizing a company or media figure, or their advertisers/business partners, is “chilling” and “part of a larger problem”? The right to criticize is absolutely essential for free speech.
I believe in the 2nd amendment even though I think modern rifles are very dangerous.
I believe in the 1st amendment even though a lot of religious principles are dangerous, a lot of mass media is dangerous and a lot of ideas are dangerous.
I believe in the 5th amendment even though it may hinder certain methods of ascertaining evidence.
I believe in the 10th amendment even though I think the concept of states’ rights can lead to dangerous regionalism.
So just because I support a principle doesn’t mean I advocate every particular application covered by that principle. I don’t think that particular expressions should be banned. Even so-called racial, sexual orientation, gender etc. slurs. Or so-called hate speech. But I do think people should consider the ramifications of their behavior.
The reason why I mention blasphemy, witches, etc is because these are examples of how emotional manipulation of the mob can be used to justify silencing or punishing enemies or convenient targets of the powerful without getting bogged down in a simplistic one dimensional model of American left vs right politics.
Okay. But what about boycotts? How are boycotts “part of a larger problem” or “chilling”?
Are you serious?
The reach and speed of modern mass media makes the threat of boycott very dangerous. What’s the world coming to when you can’t speak freely with your mistress?
I don’t get it. I could threaten a million boycotts and I seriously doubt any of those threats would be “very dangerous”. Mass media just means that information gets out much quicker. If a call for a boycott resonates with consumers, it could be effective (or dangerous for the target), and if it doesn’t, it won’t be. What’s the problem?
That’s fine. Not everybody is going to understand every concept.
You haven’t even tried to explain it. Why not put some effort in? Post #242 didn’t even have the word “boycott” in it. I’m just asking you to back up your assertions that boycotts are “chilling” and “part of a larger problem”. What larger problem?
Hear that this way;
“Why should we be held accountable for the hideously hate filled things we say in private to our friends? We all know that EVERYONE DOES IT. Stop virtue signalling by pretending you’re not as racist as the rest of us. It’s just plain wrong to hold people accountable for their private opinions.”
Which of course means that boycotts and repercussions for their speech are totally out of line and unfair.
Except when you insult Amurika or Conservative Idols. Then you deserve a boycott.
Why is there a rule on these very boards where you cannot call another poster a racist or a liar outside the pit?
Nice strawman.
Uggh. I routinely answer your questions, but you so often don’t offer anything when I put forward questions in good faith, because I don’t understand your position, except for cryptic weirdness.
In my understanding, it’s because the powers that be have decided that debates function most smoothly and productively when personal insults are separated from discussion and debate.
Now can you answer my questions? How are boycotts “chilling”? How are they “part of a larger problem”?
It’s not just general personal insults it’s also specific personal insults. And there is a clear reason. Certain labels are emotionally triggering for the mob.
Why are the threats of boycotts chilling? Because a boycott that has massive participation is damaging to a businesses bottom line. The problem is who knows what call for a specific boycott will resonate with the mob? From a business point of view it’s safer to avoid the risk. Why do universities continue with unconstitutional speech codes? It’s cost effective.
The larger problem is that in the modern age of mass communication messages have too much reach. Spatially and temporally. Wait til data mining and pattern recognition becomes a little more powerful. Every forum you post on will be devoid of anonymity as machine learning finds patterns in posts that can identify the poster. You think that the intolerant and perpetually seeking to be outraged populace are going to have any discretion with that information?
My very first posts on these forums were on the topic of not being quick to judge or to act against people with different points of view or expression. I’ve been consistent on this.
Liberals boycotting Conservatives because of their speech is bad.
Conservatives boycotting Liberals because of their speech is, well, he’s ok with it.
And that’s not true. Where have I said that?
I appreciate the thoughtful and detailed response. I don’t know that we’re going to persuade each other, but I see where you’re coming from and recognize that it’s a legitimate, principled, well-considered position.
You’ve said both sides are bad. And you’re so concerned in spelling this out because you want to make sure that Democrats don’t do what your side is doing. While seemingly having no issues with what your side is doing up until this thread, where your concern about Democrats causes you to bring it up.
Don’t redirect or shift goal posts. Where have I said what you claimed I said? Find one instance.
I don’t believe this is the case. Calling someone “stupid” is banned outside of the Pit, as is calling someone “racist” – they’re both personal insults. However, one can call a specific post or argument “stupid” or “racist” outside of the Pit, since those aren’t personal insults (when directed at a post, not a poster). I’m not aware of any rule that treats insults/descriptors like “racist” any differently than insults/descriptors like “evil”, “stupid”, or “asshole”.
Of course it is. And this is a great thing – businesses have to be careful not to do something that the public thinks is morally reprehensible, or else they will suffer greatly on the business side. This is an immensely powerful tool the public has to limit bad behavior by big companies. Of course it’s true that what is “bad behavior” will change over time, but there’s nothing new here now except better communication and spread of ideas.
Would you prefer that the public and consumers have no recourse if a company is doing something morally reprehensible (say, benefiting from slave labor overseas)? Can you think of any system in which consumers have this freedom, but would be unable to make mistakes and boycott the “wrong target”? I can’t. If consumers have this freedom and this power, then it can be used for good or for ill, and only general societal tendencies and beliefs will determine which boycotts will be successful/harmful.
If they’re unconstitutional, that will be found in court, not by random internet people. As to whether it’s cost effective, that’s probably the driving force behind the vast majority of decisions by large organizations. I think that’s just one of the characteristics of a free society.
This might be a problem, but I don’t see what it has to do with boycotts. I assume you’re worried about something like a small business owner posting something offensive anonymously (so he thinks), and then the “outrage mob” or whatever unites to crush his little hardware store (do I have that close to right?). Yes, something like that could happen. That’s because speech can have consequences. If you say something on a public forum, some people might get angry. And with technology today, you might not be anonymous. IMO that’s no different than someone secretly putting racist flyers up on telephone poles – they might get caught, and they might suffer some social consequences for that. Whether it’s good or bad might depend on the individual circumstances, but that’s just another necessary characteristic of a free society.
That’s fine, and if your only point is “don’t be too quick to judge or act against people with different points of view”, then you’ll find no disagreement from me. We might disagree on what “too quick” means, but I don’t see how, in any universe at any time and for any reason, it’s morally wrong, chilling, or part of a “larger problem” for any person to publicly say “I don’t like Laura Ingraham, and I’m no longer going to support her advertisers”, or even “I don’t like that hardware store guy because he spread antisemitic conspiracy theories, and I’m not going to shop at his store any more” or anything like that.
If you oppose boycotts, you are saying that a commercial enterprise’s political acts can only have positive or neutral results, not negative. Why would we want to argue for such a world? If someone wants to commodify their politics, they might make money or they might lose money. That’s the risk they take.
Good lord, the attempt to keep people from voting with their feet is ridiculous. Which businesses and markets should be protected from the evils of consumers having opinions?
And I should say – since I haven’t! – that I believe your position to be likewise. Whether we’re going to persuade each other… I mean, how often does Great Debates actually do that? 
It’s not valueless, and over the years it’s changed my thinking in some areas and clarified it in others, but I don’t think I’ve actually seen conversions in a single thread all that often, if ever.
Of course consumers should have the right to choose who they patronize. I also believe businesses have the right to refuse service as they wish.
Courts have found that. However, that doesn’t stop universities. They are making the cynical calculation that they won’t be challenged. It’s a bit analogous to civil forfeiture. Even though it’s immoral and crooked the cops know they can get away with and use the proceeds to buy tacticool gear and pretend to be military.
Again, you and many others miss the point that the magnitude of a response made possible by cheap modern mass communications has changed the environment. You currently don’t see it as a problem. You will if you live another 10 years. You’ll be like “hmm. that octopus sure was right about the speed and reach and overall ominpresence of data and weaponized outrage.”
We live in an age where stupid people can shame and politicize the dress a girl wears to a prom. And you don’t see how a populace encouraged and conditioned to seek outrage is not dangerous.
If I were a foreign power I would exploit this property until actual civil unrest occurred. Our current society reminds me of that old Twilight Zone episode “Monsters on Maple Street.”
None. It would be nice if businesses could have a do not serve list of troublesome consumers. See if people would like that symmetry. Wouldn’t be that hard of an app.