Podcasts you like

[Syt]

"freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" camp before, which is frankly downright Orwellian

Elaborate. If I spew misinformation to increase divisions within society or slow down their crisis response, if I call "fire" in a theater, if I call for the extermination of a group based on them being "different" in some way (race, religion, nationality, profession ...) I should be able to do so at all times without consequences or "harsh criticism" as the poll calls it?

I find interesting that in the poll a lot of younger people feel they can speek more freely about race relation - possibly a sign that racial minorities feel safer to speak out about injustices. And the number of women holding back their opinions for fear of consequences at 50+% - would like to know if it's gone up or down.

[Berkut]

"freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" camp before, which is frankly downright Orwellian

Elaborate. If I spew misinformation to increase divisions within society or slow down their crisis response, if I call "fire" in a theater, if I call for the extermination of a group based on them being "different" in some way (race, religion, nationality, profession ...) I should be able to do so at all times without consequences or "harsh criticism" as the poll calls it?

I find interesting that in the poll a lot of younger people feel they can speek more freely about race relation - possibly a sign that racial minorities feel safer to speak out about injustices. And the number of women holding back their opinions for fear of consequences at 50+% - would like to know if it's gone up or down.

The devil, as always, is in the details.

There isn't some binary answer. Or rather, both binary answers lead to unacceptable states for society, and hence there has to be general principles that motivate our evaluation of the specifics of the circumstances.

[Berkut]

It was very kind of BA to provide kind of a mini-microcosm of the basic problem.

He called me a bigot (and I noticed nobody from his side of this debate had the courage to call him out on that, so they either think I am a bigot, or think it is ok to call people bigots who clearly are not as long as it is seen as useful for your tribes argument), not because of any particular bigoted view I have ever expressed, but simply because I thought someone else had arguments worthy of being listened to, and then personally canceled me in order to not have to engage anything I say on the merits of what I say, but simply because I ought to be ignored no matter the merits of my argument. 

This is cancel culture in a nutshell. The idea that the best way to win the social battle for hearts and minds is through fear, rather than reason. Make taking a contrary position so personally dangerous to someone through threats to their livelihood, credibility, or character that you don't have to even engage in the argument to begin with on its merits. It is not different in its basic structure to Putin threatening to put someone in jail for saying there is a war going on, rather then having to go to the trouble of convincing people that his war is justified.

Its just a very nasty ad hominin fallacy.

[Sheilbh]

So the Sinica podcast is always pretty interesting but the recent one on what China's reading was really good.

Worth a listen and going to try to pick up a few in translation. Separate to the books though, the discussion of the dystopian world of Chinese internet fiction was fascinating.

[crazy canuck]

@ GGuller, if freedom of speech does not include the freedom to criticize another's speech, then there is no freedom of speech at all.

The other important bit that is almost always lost in these sorts of discussions is that freedom of speech means freedom from government control of speech.

For some reason freedom of speech gets entirely mixed up with private conversations.  You have no right to compel me or any other private actor to listen to what you have to say, nor do you have any right to stop me or any other  private actor from convincing others to stop listening to what you have to say.  In fact, that is the very essence of freedom of speech.  If the marketplace of ideas cannot weed out the bad ideas, then it ceases to function.  And that is pretty much the state of social medial now. 

[Berkut]

Someone from NYT must've been reading this thread.  Today it published something that I would not expect from New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture-free-speech-poll.html

I particularly welcome the explicit distinction that they point out between First Amendment protections and actual freedom of speech.  My impression was that New York Times was solidly in the "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" camp before, which is frankly downright Orwellian, so it's a good sign that they're waking up the danger.

" People should be able to put forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes, and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through — all without fearing cancellation."

Is there any cultural question right now more validly recognized as something that "society is working through" then how to handle transgendered people? I mean, it is literally a problem that has never existed before in the way technology has made it exist today. Why is anyone surprised that handling it, especially in the corner cases, is going to be hard, and that people can and will take up positions in good faith that deserve honest engagement?

The CNN article on this had some notes about how US Swimming is changing the rules on what would allow trangendered athletes to compete, and doing so in such a way that if the NCAA were to adopt those rules today (they have not) Lia Thomas would not be allowed to compete at that level.

Is that not something worthy of discussion? How would they even figure out those rules if even suggesting that there is in fact a actual difference between women and trans-gendered women is evidence that you are a bigot? Every single person involved in figuring out the solution would, under this criteria that saw Sam Harris being labeled trans-hating and negative and non-inclusive, would have to be similarly labeled. The very people who would have to be the ones to figure out the best way for us to handle this.

Harris pointed this out - if this is the criteria, then the only possible other way to handle this issue is to literally say that anyone showing up to any competition has to be allowed to compete in it as long as they simply state that they are whatever gender that competition restricts itself to is their gender. The moment you make a single rule that says "...and you have to have some means of evidencing that you are in fact that gender" you have to think about how to do so fairly and reasonably. That can only happen through discussion, science, understanding the reality of what is going on, and its impacts on that particular sport and at that particular level. The answers are going to, should be expected to be, different.

Maybe it makes no difference at all for high  school ping pong players. Maybe it make a little difference for college swimmers. Maybe it makes a hell of a lot of difference for professional MMA fighters. There is not going to be one neat answer.

This is the position that got Sam Harris labeled a transgender hating non-inclusive bigot.

[Berkut]

@ GGuller, if freedom of speech does not include the freedom to criticize another's speech, then there is no freedom of speech at all.

The other important bit that is almost always lost in these sorts of discussions is that freedom of speech means freedom from government control of speech.

For some reason freedom of speech gets entirely mixed up with private conversations.  You have no right to compel me or any other private actor to listen to what you have to say, nor do you have any right to stop me or any other  private actor from convincing others to stop listening to what you have to say.  In fact, that is the very essence of freedom of speech.  If the marketplace of ideas cannot weed out the bad ideas, then it ceases to function.  And that is pretty much the state of social medial now.

I disagree completely.

Cancel culture is not about weeding out bad ideas, it is about identifying unacceptable positions and then making sure they don't get to see a debate at all.

Having someone with a position the crowd doesn't like get refused to be allowed to present a paper to a university arguing for that position is not a "marketplace of ideas" it is "communism of ideas", where you control the presentation of ideas before there is ever an argument to begin with - it is done when you feel like maybe you might not win on the merits of the argument, so lets not let them have it to begin with.

And that doesn't even get into denying someone the ability to present their ideas on something that isn't even actually related to the objectionable position that got them on the cancel crowds hitlist to begin with, and making sure they are not heard on even an unrelated subject! Now we are REALLY getting into the mob making it clear that you will be punished for your thoughtcrime!

None of this has much of anything to do with the government restricting speech. That we have figured out is so bad, nearly all of the time, that we basically just outright say they can't do it ever under most circumstances at all.

The First Amendment protects against a particular instance of undesired curtailing of the free marketplace of ideas - it hardly encompasses the entirety of the problem.

[DGuller]

"freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" camp before, which is frankly downright Orwellian

Elaborate. If I spew misinformation to increase divisions within society or slow down their crisis response, if I call "fire" in a theater, if I call for the extermination of a group based on them being "different" in some way (race, religion, nationality, profession ...) I should be able to do so at all times without consequences or "harsh criticism" as the poll calls it?

I think both of these are bad examples, because neither is protected by the First Amendment (or its interpretation).  I don't believe that freedom of speech should be absolute, but I do believe that restrictions on that freedom should be explicitly specified.  Freedom by definition is lack of prohibitive consequences, so this saying really means "freedom doesn't mean freedom".  You're actually not free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

[crazy canuck]

@ GGuller, if freedom of speech does not include the freedom to criticize another's speech, then there is no freedom of speech at all.

The other important bit that is almost always lost in these sorts of discussions is that freedom of speech means freedom from government control of speech.

For some reason freedom of speech gets entirely mixed up with private conversations.  You have no right to compel me or any other private actor to listen to what you have to say, nor do you have any right to stop me or any other  private actor from convincing others to stop listening to what you have to say.  In fact, that is the very essence of freedom of speech.  If the marketplace of ideas cannot weed out the bad ideas, then it ceases to function.  And that is pretty much the state of social medial now.

I disagree completely.

Cancel culture is not about weeding out bad ideas, it is about identifying unacceptable positions and then making sure they don't get to see a debate at all.

Having someone with a position the crowd doesn't like get refused to be allowed to present a paper to a university arguing for that position is not a "marketplace of ideas" it is "communism of ideas", where you control the presentation of ideas before there is ever an argument to begin with - it is done when you feel like maybe you might not win on the merits of the argument, so lets not let them have it to begin with.

And that doesn't even get into denying someone the ability to present their ideas on something that isn't even actually related to the objectionable position that got them on the cancel crowds hitlist to begin with, and making sure they are not heard on even an unrelated subject! Now we are REALLY getting into the mob making it clear that you will be punished for your thoughtcrime!

None of this has much of anything to do with the government restricting speech. That we have figured out is so bad, nearly all of the time, that we basically just outright say they can't do it ever under most circumstances at all.

The First Amendment protects against a particular instance of undesired curtailing of the free marketplace of ideas - it hardly encompasses the entirety of the problem.

I recognize that you fundamentally disagree.  However, I do not know how you both recognize legal freedom of speech rights do not extend to the private sphere, but then insist on some variant of that extending to the private sphere.  The whole purpose of freedom of expression is to prevent government from curtailing criticism - but here you are advocating for some kind of private restriction on that very thing.

[crazy canuck]

"freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" camp before, which is frankly downright Orwellian

Elaborate. If I spew misinformation to increase divisions within society or slow down their crisis response, if I call "fire" in a theater, if I call for the extermination of a group based on them being "different" in some way (race, religion, nationality, profession ...) I should be able to do so at all times without consequences or "harsh criticism" as the poll calls it?

I think both of these are bad examples, because neither is protected by the First Amendment (or its interpretation).  I don't believe that freedom of speech should be absolute, but I do believe that restrictions on that freedom should be explicitly specified.  Freedom by definition is lack of prohibitive consequences, so this saying really means "freedom doesn't mean freedom".  You're actually not free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

So answer the question, am I not free to criticize someone if that critique results in them no longer being listened to because I have convinced others their ideas are foolish and should not be given the dignity of a platform?

[Barrister]

Since we're talking about cancel culture, and trans issues came up...

One of the podcasts I listen to is Blocked and Reported.  They describe their beat as "internet bullshit", which basically means that as two left-of-centre journalists they do stories on the worst excesses of left-wing twitter.

They often come back to trans issues, where the one host Jesse Singal gained online notoriety for a piece on trans issues he did for the Atlantic several years back on detransitioners - people who stopped being trans.  This has earned him the enmity of trans activists.  Despite Singal having what would seem to be pretty progressive views on trans people (people should be called what they want to be called, should get access to hormones / medical interventions, use people's preferred pronouns), he has questioned how quick we are to put kids who say they are trans on hormones.

Anyways if you're interested in such topics it's an interesting listen.

[crazy canuck]

Thanks, I will give it a listen.

[PRC]

For those of you missing the Talking Politics pod... Helen Thompson will be on an upcoming episode of Dominic Sandbrook & Tom Holland's "Rest is History" podcast.  Probably out next week. 

They also have a "Rest is Politics" sister podcast with Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart. It's relatively new but has been interesting so far.

[Sheilbh]

They also have a "Rest is Politics" sister podcast with Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart. It's relatively new but has been interesting so far.

I've listened to their podcast and there are interesting points in it (I loved someone's Stewart = Schwarzenegger comparison recently), mainly when they talk about their personal experience. But ultimately Alastair Campbell was the spin doctor for New Labour which has been repeatedly described as profoundly changing British politics especially around spin/honesty in politics (and which I quite liked so I am sympathetic to - and I quite like Campbell generally) and Rory Stewart was an ambitious Tory MP who voted for every single cut and all of the policies of the coalition through May governments.

I get that they really dislike where we are now but there are times when I hear them talk about it where I just think of this meme


They had a recent semi-clash because Campbell is pretty fierce on education (and I totally agree with him) and Rory is an old Etonian who, reading between the lines, was basically saying he'd like to send his sons to Eton too - and I think they did hold off each other and let things slide.

[grumbler]

Time to try out that new "mute user" feature! 
edit: Niiice!

That is so perfectly aligned with exactly what I was talking about - thanks!

I find you to be almost fully detrimental to my enjoyment of this community and will not miss your posts in the slightest. Enjoy your arrogance, your bigotry, and your general douchebaggery, I'll channel Depeche Mode and enjoy the silence. 

Ignoring for the moment the whole ad hom attack here, you are not buying much credibility by responding to a poster you claim to have put on your ignore list.