Languish.org

Here's a thread for discussing freedom of speech - whether it's arguing with fellow languishites about what their opinion is, whether it's to highlight freedom of speech issues in particular spots, or whether it's to wax philosophical about it.

I'm for it.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 21, 2022, 07:14:27 PMI'm for it.

Including the freedom to tell other people to shut up? Or should that type of speech be curtailed?

Second question: does the concept of freedom of speech refer to government regulation, or should private actors be obliged to tolerate all speech as well (f. ex. should I be able to restrict freedom of speech inside my house?)

Third question: does freedom of speech imply that those with power / capital should be able to capture the market and present biased information while shutting down competing viewpoints? Does it change anything if the presented information is obviously false vs essentially factual but biased? Or does freedom of speech mean commercial interests should be regulated and things like "fairness doctrine" is a positive for free speech? Or are things like "fairness doctrine" detrimental to free speech?

I'm all for it, but think people should accept that some will disagree and after having agued the contrary case have the right to blank/ignore or tell others how they disagree with them.

Of course you should be able to tell people to shut up.

Q2- freedom of speech from government is what is enshrined in constitution. However, people are also free to advocate free speech in other fora.

Q3- That's more a question of antitrust legislation. Nobody should be able to monopolize speech, but media companies shouldn't be obliged to present any particular pov. Though this gets fuzzier when they're monopolizing a wave length.  :hmm:

I think the principal bone of contention is whether controversial speakers on college campuses should be shouted down and/or whined about until they are disinvited.

I oppose this.

I think there are a few issues that a coherent stance for free speech should address:

1) Is it acceptable to use speech to attempt to deplatform other speech? (Bonus question: where should the line be drawn between "this is a platform that people should not be deplatformed from" vs "yeah, we're just not interested in hearing what you're saying.")

2) Does free speech means that capital is allowed to control media, or does it mean that other parties can demand access to platform? Essentially, if someone gains monopoly on media does free speech mean they can say whatever lies they want while restricting access to other points of view? Or does it mean that other voices have a right to present their views in spite of not being part of the monopoly?

3) Given the degree to which speech curation by market leaders and deliberate misinformation strategies can severely affect the public discourse and whip up violence is any sort of regulation of free speech acceptable? Or is any sort of falsehood acceptable? How does free speech intersect with things like national security, bullying/ doxxing, oppression of minorities, calls to violence?

I don't think you've framed #1 correctly.  People who shout down a speaker arent' saying we don't want to hear you, they're saying those other people who do want to hear you are not allowed to.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2022, 07:59:22 PMI don't think you've framed #1 correctly.  People who shout down a speaker arent' saying we don't want to hear you, they're saying those other people who do want to hear you are not allowed to.

Well, presumably those people and the speaker could go to a different venue. I may not be allowed to speak at Yale about how Admiral Yi is a menace to society and should be locked up, but I could always rent a farmer's field and have a free speech festival... or maybe do a podcast, or get a speaking engagement at Prager U or on Fallwell's campus or on Fox or whatever.

Typically people protesting about speech on a campus are concerned about that one event, not about preventing the speaker from reaching any audience whatsoever.

Quote from: Jacob on March 21, 2022, 08:04:45 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2022, 07:59:22 PMI don't think you've framed #1 correctly.  People who shout down a speaker arent' saying we don't want to hear you, they're saying those other people who do want to hear you are not allowed to.

Well, presumably those people and the speaker could go to a different venue. I may not be allowed to speak at Yale about how Admiral Yi is a menace to society and should be locked up, but I could always rent a farmer's field and have a free speech festival... or maybe do a podcast, or get a speaking engagement at Prager U or on Fallwell's campus or on Fox or whatever.

Typically people protesting about speech on a campus are concerned about that one event, not about preventing the speaker from reaching any audience whatsoever.

Right, they're concerned about that speaker reaching the audience that has assembled in that room on campus to hear that speaker.

They're not concerned that they themselves will hear it, otherwise they would just stay out of the room.

I think it's important to clearly draw a distinction between freedom of speech as a constitutional protected right, and freedom of speech as a general concept.

The constitutionally protected right seems to be the easy part.  I think most thinking people would agree that the constitutional freedom of speech constraints the actions of the government, but not private citizens.  I think there is also a general agreement that this kind of freedom of speech should have few limitations, though to be honest I'm not convinced that the modern society can handle weaponized propaganda without a few more limitations on constitutional freedom of speech sprinkled in.

The freedom of speech as a concept is what so many people misunderstand in so many ways.  My thinking is that by law you are allowed to grant as little or as much freedom of speech to others as you want, to the extent of the power you can project, but that doesn't mean that you should.  If you do choose to use your personal power to limits free expression of speech, then don't act like you're a proponent of free speech, just because you're not violating a constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.  Also, if you think that canceling someone is just a marketplace of ideas at work, it would be helpful to remember that the marketplace of goods and services does not in fact tolerate coercion, boycott, or intimidation.  It's actually a crime to engage in that in the real marketplaces.

To summarize my position, as a private citizen, you are legally allowed to shut other people up to the extent that you have the power to do so.  You are also allowed to publicly burn books with heretical ideas.  IMO, both are contemptible behaviors to engage in, regardless of your legal right to do so, and deserve similar judgment.

Guller, what do you mean by boycott?

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 21, 2022, 08:23:36 PMGuller, what do you mean by boycott?

It means companies banding together in order to prevent some other company from being able to compete, such as by agreeing to refuse to deal with them.  Refusing to deal with someone on your own is just your right, but a collective agreement to refuse to deal is a boycott.

Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2022, 08:34:16 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 21, 2022, 08:23:36 PMGuller, what do you mean by boycott?

It means companies banding together in order to prevent some other company from being able to compete, such as by agreeing to refuse to deal with them.  Refusing to deal with someone on your own is just your right, but a collective agreement to refuse to deal is a boycott.

So an individual company is allowed to not deal with another entity, and that isn't a boycott.  If the people that are boycotting got together to form a company to act for them in the same way as they want to that you consider at issue, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2022, 08:10:21 PMRight, they're concerned about that speaker reaching the audience that has assembled in that room on campus to hear that speaker.

They're not concerned that they themselves will hear it, otherwise they would just stay out of the room.

They're concerned about associating the speaker with the reputation of the college in question, I think, because they themselves are associated with that college and because speaking at the college confers a certain amount of prestige.

If you think they're trying to deplatform the person entirely then it's no longer about colleges specifically, no?

Quote from: Jacob on March 21, 2022, 06:51:59 PMHere's a thread for discussing freedom of speech - whether it's arguing with fellow languishites about what their opinion is, whether it's to highlight freedom of speech issues in particular spots, or whether it's to wax philosophical about it.

Freedom of speech should be universal.  Anything can go, so long as they are topics of interest for the left.  Otherwise, we can not discuss it because it is insensitive.

Quote from: Jacob on March 21, 2022, 08:42:47 PMThey're concerned about associating the speaker with the reputation of the college in question, I think, because they themselves are associated with that college and because speaking at the college confers a certain amount of prestige.

If you think they're trying to deplatform the person entirely then it's no longer about colleges specifically, no?

I'm talking specifically about shouting down speakers on campus.

Your counterargument about the school's reputation is a decent one and I admit it's validity.  However in pursuing that goal they are obstructing the ability of the speaker to communicate to the audience that wants to hear them.  I see the ability to communicate unobstructed as a pretty basic right, and it shouldn't depend on your liking of the message.

Quote from: frunk on March 21, 2022, 08:42:33 PMSo an individual company is allowed to not deal with another entity, and that isn't a boycott.  If the people that are boycotting got together to form a company to act for them in the same way as they want to that you consider at issue, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

You're conflating the entities in the analogy of the marketplaces.  In the regular marketplace, the companies are typically the entities doing the competing.  It doesn't have to be companies, but the vast majority of the time it is companies, so that's why I was talking about companies rather than a more tedious term like "market players".  In the marketplace of ideas, it's the people who are the "market players".

Besides, boycott is just one of the prohibited anti-competitive behaviors.  If all the market players do get together and form a single company in order to be able to refuse to deal without it being a boycott, they'll probably steer clear of charges of boycott, but then they'll be guilty of monopolistic practices.  The point is that in the regular marketplaces, laws exist to ensure that products can get a chance to compete, even if they're shitty.

I used to be more of a proponent of absolute freedom of speech than I am now.

What changed is the realization that our societies are under attack by clear enemies who intend to destroy us from within by means of weaponized disinformation, deliberately spread to do us harm.

An absolutist approach to freedom of speech means that the tools to fight that are - targeted refutations, so that the two can compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Unfortunately, I'm no longer sure that this is enough. When under this sort of attack, I would argue, exceptions to absolute freedom of speech should be made. Otherwise, we risk losing that liberal society in which freedom of speech can exist as a concept.

Of course the dilemma is that allowing exceptions can also diminish, and if careless, eliminate freedom of speech as well.

Quote from: Malthus on March 21, 2022, 11:32:16 PMI used to be more of a proponent of absolute freedom of speech than I am now.

What changed is the realization that our societies are under attack by clear enemies who intend to destroy us from within by means of weaponized disinformation, deliberately spread to do us harm.

An absolutist approach to freedom of speech means that the tools to fight that are - targeted refutations, so that the two can compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Unfortunately, I'm no longer sure that this is enough. When under this sort of attack, I would argue, exceptions to absolute freedom of speech should be made. Otherwise, we risk losing that liberal society in which freedom of speech can exist as a concept.

Of course the dilemma is that allowing exceptions can also diminish, and if careless, eliminate freedom of speech as well.

I came around to having exactly the same doubts for the same reasons.  I think propaganda became so effective that we can't just uncritically accept that what used to be the best policy remains the best policy.

Quote from: Malthus on March 21, 2022, 11:32:16 PMAn absolutist approach to freedom of speech means that the tools to fight that are - targeted refutations, so that the two can compete in the marketplace of ideas.

I think part of it is that the marketplace of ideas is a lovely ideal, but that the outcome of the competition is subject to a whole host of forces other than just the quality of the ideas themselves (including monopoly creation, collusion, and various forms of corruption).

Compounding the challenge is perhaps the fact that the means for developing the skill set to critically evaluate competing ideas has increasingly become an arena of political struggle.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2022, 08:54:52 PMI'm talking specifically about shouting down speakers on campus.

Your counterargument about the school's reputation is a decent one and I admit it's validity.  However in pursuing that goal they are obstructing the ability of the speaker to communicate to the audience that wants to hear them.  I see the ability to communicate unobstructed as a pretty basic right, and it shouldn't depend on your liking of the message.

I guess my question is why the audience needs to listen to the speaker on a college campus specifically? If the audience is so keen to listen to the speaker, couldn't they rent a hall / convention centre / church basement somewhere not on campus? And if so, is anything really lost?

I mean - it's possible that many of the protestors would still show up (minus however many are there because they don't want the speaker on their campus), but they'd just be protesting outside. College students and staff would have much less leverage over locations outside of campus and would be unlikely to get the speaker disinvited - and thus their protest would fair game from your POV, right?

Well presumably some or most of the prospective audience for the speaker are students.  Why do any students need to hear speakers on campus?

I think a society where people can voice their opinions without fear is a good thing. Many people do not agree. That's just a matter of different values.

If you accept stopping others from speaking or listening, intimidating people to make them stay silent, etc as legitimate tools, then you are essentially reducing societal debate to which side can put the most stormtroopers into the streets, which is very destructive. Destructive in many ways, and one of them (not the most destructive) is that a willingness to use stormtroopers is not evenly distributed among opinions, but tends to be stronger at extremes.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2022, 07:41:14 PMI think the principal bone of contention is whether controversial speakers on college campuses should be shouted down and/or whined about until they are disinvited.

I oppose this.

Isn't that free speech itself though?

I think the constitutional v private distinction is relevant only to the US. In most of Europe, for example, there isn't an absolute right to free speech. It's a right that is balanced against other rights and risks, so the question is normally around whether the balance is right.

I think we are moving too far against free speech (and could do with some enhanced legal protections) in a few ways.

An example is that the EU's sanctions include the broadcast or distribution of RT or Sputnik. This includes by ISPs and social media platforms. The Commission has said this should be interpreted by ISPs and platforms as a duty to stop the spread/broadcast - so they need to monitor content and prevent RT/Sputnik content from being searched or coming up in search results. The Commission acknowledges this is in tension with other bits of European law (generally ISPs/SMPs are not allowed to monitor content, and have to take it down retroactively not prospectively), but there's wider issue of free speech and paternalism around information. I think it's going too far.

Separately in the UK there's the Online Safety Bill which I've posted about in the Brexit thread. But it basically creates a duty of care from platforms to their users. This includes a grab-bag of stuff that isn't really related but is just to address news stories over the last 7 years that it's been drafted (age gating, eating disorder content etc). But it includes a general concept of content that might be "legal but harmful" which would obviously be problematic for platforms who have a duty of care (and "harm" is defined wildly). The European DMA and DSA are doing something similar.

I think my worry with both of these within Europe is that the balance isn't right and that tthe state its abdicating its responsibility to adjudicate that balance. It's handing it over to private companies like Google and Facebook - who will probably take a risk averse, legally conservative position to avoid being caught by either sanctions or that "duty of care" by accident. I'd add that we know from examples like Tumblr that actually the first content that goes tends to be from minority groups.

I've said it before but on the US cancel culture/free speech - I think a huge chunk of it would be solved by proper employment rights and an end to at will employment. At the minute it is very easy to end a bad news day/bit of controversy by firing someone - and because it's easy to get results in that way it's also what people focus on.

Edit: Also re. the European situation - we may be comfortable with these restrictions for those purposes and in this context, but it's setting a precedent and I think we need to be careful. As ever once emergency-ish powers are in the toolbox, lots of things look like emergencies.

Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2022, 11:07:47 PMYou're conflating the entities in the analogy of the marketplaces.  In the regular marketplace, the companies are typically the entities doing the competing.  It doesn't have to be companies, but the vast majority of the time it is companies, so that's why I was talking about companies rather than a more tedious term like "market players".  In the marketplace of ideas, it's the people who are the "market players".

Besides, boycott is just one of the prohibited anti-competitive behaviors.  If all the market players do get together and form a single company in order to be able to refuse to deal without it being a boycott, they'll probably steer clear of charges of boycott, but then they'll be guilty of monopolistic practices.  The point is that in the regular marketplaces, laws exist to ensure that products can get a chance to compete, even if they're shitty.

I'm conflating them because they overlap.  Companies by their nature are designed to allow groups of people to act together for a common purpose, usually but not always to make money.  You have a problem with groups of people acting together to boycott something, but if a company with equivalent market power did the same thing you wouldn't have a problem with it.

None of the boycotts by any group of people in the US has approached the power or organization of, well, even a medium sized company.  That's not even close to monopolistic behavior, and so wouldn't move into that realm.  Just about all the big economic shifts due to social politics have been companies saying they are not doing business in a city or state due to legislation, not groups of individuals boycotting.  Individuals boycotting haven't really moved the needle.  Hobby Lobby and Chik Fil A are both doing fine, despite being targets of boycotts for many years.

Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2022, 08:18:42 PMI think it's important to clearly draw a distinction between freedom of speech as a constitutional protected right, and freedom of speech as a general concept.

The constitutionally protected right seems to be the easy part.  I think most thinking people would agree that the constitutional freedom of speech constraints the actions of the government, but not private citizens.  I think there is also a general agreement that this kind of freedom of speech should have few limitations, though to be honest I'm not convinced that the modern society can handle weaponized propaganda without a few more limitations on constitutional freedom of speech sprinkled in.

The freedom of speech as a concept is what so many people misunderstand in so many ways.  My thinking is that by law you are allowed to grant as little or as much freedom of speech to others as you want, to the extent of the power you can project, but that doesn't mean that you should.  If you do choose to use your personal power to limits free expression of speech, then don't act like you're a proponent of free speech, just because you're not violating a constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.  Also, if you think that canceling someone is just a marketplace of ideas at work, it would be helpful to remember that the marketplace of goods and services does not in fact tolerate coercion, boycott, or intimidation.  It's actually a crime to engage in that in the real marketplaces.

To summarize my position, as a private citizen, you are legally allowed to shut other people up to the extent that you have the power to do so.  You are also allowed to publicly burn books with heretical ideas.  IMO, both are contemptible behaviors to engage in, regardless of your legal right to do so, and deserve similar judgment.

I'm not very certain whether you are for or against speech which is critical of other speech.  Do you shut that down because it might have the effects you don't like?

Do you see the inherent conflict in saying you say everyone should have the ability to express themselves except the circumstances where you don't like the results?

A broader question. For those who believe that freedom of expression extends beyond freedom from government control, what mechanism do you think should be used in the private sphere to regulate conduct you think restricts freedom of expression?

Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2022, 12:25:43 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2022, 08:54:52 PMI'm talking specifically about shouting down speakers on campus.

Your counterargument about the school's reputation is a decent one and I admit it's validity.  However in pursuing that goal they are obstructing the ability of the speaker to communicate to the audience that wants to hear them.  I see the ability to communicate unobstructed as a pretty basic right, and it shouldn't depend on your liking of the message.

I guess my question is why the audience needs to listen to the speaker on a college campus specifically? If the audience is so keen to listen to the speaker, couldn't they rent a hall / convention centre / church basement somewhere not on campus? And if so, is anything really lost?

I mean - it's possible that many of the protestors would still show up (minus however many are there because they don't want the speaker on their campus), but they'd just be protesting outside. College students and staff would have much less leverage over locations outside of campus and would be unlikely to get the speaker disinvited - and thus their protest would fair game from your POV, right?

But there is already a functioning mechanism for deciding who ought to talk on a college campus. You cannot just show up and start chatting in a lecture hall at Yale, there is some kind of process in place that involves some kind of review and evaluation of the speakers credentials and the relevance of their message.

The cancel culture crowd you are so fond of is the mob Jake. It is people who have decided that that process doesn't confer on THEM the power to decide who gets to speak, and they demand that power. I think there are multiple examples where it is clear they are using that power in a incredibly negative manner, not at all based on their supposed concern for the repuational integrity of the school, but simply because the speaker is going to say something they don't like, or has said something they don't like in the past.

Your "reputational integrity" argument is kind of silly. You are pulling that out as a somewhat rational reason why a speaker ought to be not invited, but you know perfectly well that isn't the actual reason the mobs shut down speakers. There are already people at the school whose job it is to decide if a speaker presenting some topic is going to damage the school reputation in a manner that is not acceptable, and it isn't the twitter mob.

Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2022, 12:11:07 AM

Quote from: Malthus on March 21, 2022, 11:32:16 PMAn absolutist approach to freedom of speech means that the tools to fight that are - targeted refutations, so that the two can compete in the marketplace of ideas.

I think part of it is that the marketplace of ideas is a lovely ideal, but that the outcome of the competition is subject to a whole host of forces other than just the quality of the ideas themselves (including monopoly creation, collusion, and various forms of corruption).

Compounding the challenge is perhaps the fact that the means for developing the skill set to critically evaluate competing ideas has increasingly become an arena of political struggle.

THis is very, very true.

The mob is not the answer to the problem. Even when it agrees with us.

An interesting article in The New Republic that's somewhat relevant to the thread. An excerpt below:

QuoteAt stake here is whether American universities can serve democracy, as they should, without turning into places where anything goes and knowledge is determined by those with the most money or the loudest voices. In Democracy, Expertise, and Academic Freedom: A First Amendment Jurisprudence for the Modern State, Yale law professor Robert C. Post distinguishes "democratic legitimation," which is why we have the First Amendment, from "democratic competence," which is why we have universities and academic freedom. As he explained in a 2012 interview, he developed these terms after realizing "that First Amendment protections can function to debase knowledge into mere opinion and thereby to undercut the very political conversation that the First Amendment otherwise fosters." Democratic legitimation, he writes, "requires that the speech of all persons be treated with toleration and equality." Democratic competence, by contrast, "requires that speech be subject to a disciplinary authority that distinguishes good ideas from bad ones." How to reconcile the two? Post concludes that we must understand academic freedom to be based on democratic competence but not on democratic legitimation. Democratic competence—the knowledge and insight made available to society through its universities that are based on study and knowledge and not reducible to mere opinion or viewpoint—can be ensured when academic freedom, not free speech, is the ruling principle: Universities must be "free to evaluate scholarly speech based upon its content."

Universities are thus critical institutions in democratic countries because the work they perform—discriminating between opinion or propaganda on the one hand and reasoned argument on the other—inhibits the development of alternate realities rooted in power and special interests. Why, then, has it been so easy and tempting for everyone to treat academic freedom as a synonym for free speech? For two reasons, we suspect. One, "expertise," some conception of which is integral to academic freedom, is in bad odor these days, for some good and some bad reasons. Two, the idea of "competence" pales next to the triumphant rhetoric of free speech—the idea that everyone has a right to speak their mind. According to Post, while "it is not intelligible to believe that all ideas are equal," Americans gravitate to free speech over the cognitive ideal embedded in academic freedom because "Americans are committed to the equality of persons," and "the deep egalitarian dimension of the First Amendment resonates far more with this ethical value than with any cognitive ideal."

https://newrepublic.com/article/165649/professors-speech-disqualifying

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/scary-future-american-right-national-conservatism-conference/620746/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1gZQgzueOA3p4Zqdons9-Szs02HpLVa3nuS46fVIY_gvd8gneSs_LEeVs

Note that all of you arguing for the supression of speech on the basis of it's the only way to influence institutions of power....well, the other side is making THAT EXACT SAME ARGUMENT.

This is what abandoning principle gets you. If you don't support freedom of expression as a principle that applies to even expression you don't like, then it just becomes a tactical fight over who can suppress the views they don't like more effectively. Maybe the left will actually win that fight, but I suspect that victory won't look nearly as sweet as we imagine.

This shit is fucking terrifying:

QuoteMy old friend Rod Dreher of The American Conservative argued that because the left controls the commanding heights of the culture and the economy, the only institution the right has a shot at influencing is the state. In these circumstances the right has to use state power to promote its values. "We need to quit being satisfied with owning the libs, and save our country," Dreher said. "We need to unapologetically embrace the use of state power."

This is what we are getting from the lefts refusal to allow anyone to speak openly. The right gets to say "See, the left absolutely dominates the colleges! They won't even let someone make an argument for conservative values in those institutions! We have no choice but to use whatever means necessary to take over state power!"

Its bullshit of course. But the idea that the mob has to shout down and de-platform some scientist because they once questioned the 1619 project has consequences, and they are real, and they are almost universally negative.

Quote from: frunk on March 22, 2022, 05:49:10 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2022, 11:07:47 PMYou're conflating the entities in the analogy of the marketplaces.  In the regular marketplace, the companies are typically the entities doing the competing.  It doesn't have to be companies, but the vast majority of the time it is companies, so that's why I was talking about companies rather than a more tedious term like "market players".  In the marketplace of ideas, it's the people who are the "market players".

Besides, boycott is just one of the prohibited anti-competitive behaviors.  If all the market players do get together and form a single company in order to be able to refuse to deal without it being a boycott, they'll probably steer clear of charges of boycott, but then they'll be guilty of monopolistic practices.  The point is that in the regular marketplaces, laws exist to ensure that products can get a chance to compete, even if they're shitty.

I'm conflating them because they overlap.  Companies by their nature are designed to allow groups of people to act together for a common purpose, usually but not always to make money.  You have a problem with groups of people acting together to boycott something, but if a company with equivalent market power did the same thing you wouldn't have a problem with it.

None of the boycotts by any group of people in the US has approached the power or organization of, well, even a medium sized company.  That's not even close to monopolistic behavior, and so wouldn't move into that realm.  Just about all the big economic shifts due to social politics have been companies saying they are not doing business in a city or state due to legislation, not groups of individuals boycotting.  Individuals boycotting haven't really moved the needle.  Hobby Lobby and Chik Fil A are both doing fine, despite being targets of boycotts for many years.

I think you're going too deep and too narrow into the analogy.  For one, it's not just about the boycott, and for that matter it's about more than coercion and intimidation as well, the three words are a shorthand for the concept of anti-competetive behavior.  Anti-competetive behavior is not regarded as a feature of the markets, it's regarded as a bug to be combatted by regulation.

Let me briefly restate the general point I was making:  there is a difference between losing in the marketplace of ideas, and being kept out of the marketplace of ideas altogether.

Here are a few hypotheticals:

You express your opinion, most find it stupid.  You keep expressing it, people keep finding it stupid.  —- You're losing in the marketplace.

You express your opinion, others ask you if your employer knows you hold that opinion.  Other people who share your opinion observe this and think twice about whether they want to deal with that bullshit.  —- People are being coerced/boycotted/intimidated out of the marketplace.

You express your opinion, most find it stupid.  You keep expressing it, and others tell you to STFU already or they'll let your employer know.  —- People are being coerced/boycotted/intimidated out of the marketplace.

In the interest of another Sam Harris favorite, I am going to do my opponents a favor, and imagine how *I* would make their argument. This is called steel-manning.

And it isn't without merit, and is summed up nicely here:

QuoteThey are wrong, too, to think there is a wokeist Anschluss taking over all the institutions of American life. For people who spend so much time railing about the evils of social media, they sure seem to spend an awful lot of their lives on Twitter. Ninety percent of their discourse is about the discourse. Anecdotalism was also rampant at the conference—generalizing from three anecdotes about people who got canceled to conclude that all of American life is a woke hellscape. They need to get out more.

Cancel culture is a problem. But it isn't that big of a problem, and in fact is really just a tactical reaction to the previous reality where the progressive left was itself "cancelled" and the voices of those concerned about systemic racism and inequality where stifled as a matter of course. Not through cancellation, but simply through a systematic and privileged refusal to give them a platform. Now that they have finally gotten a platform, it is inevitable that they will want to dominate what little platform they are given.

Further, much like the right, the left needs to stop playing nice, and get dirty when needed. Cancel culture might be terrible when it comes to anodyne discussions on websites, but in the reality of the culture war, sometimes you have to be willing to get dirty to win the war, and worrying too much about some poor university professor getting canceled is missing the forest for the trees. Omellettes, eggs, etc., etc.

I like how it's always "the left" 's fault, even when you have the dude from the other side literally saying they should use state power politically  :lol:

Quote from: Zoupa on March 22, 2022, 09:25:54 AMI like how it's always "the left" 's fault, even when you have the dude from the other side literally saying they should use state power politically  :lol:

Except nobody it is sayiing it is the lefts fault. 

This isn't about fault, it is about how we should fight this culture war. 

I suspect 100% of the people in this thread agree that most of the actual problem with our fucked up society is the rights fault, if fault were the subject.

But the point is that if you accept that the left ought to be cancelling people, then by definition you cannot complain when the right does the same - then it just becomes a fight between two teams and who can better control the narrative, rather then who has the better ideas.

Personally, I think we have better ideas, and hence should not accept a fight where the quality of the ideas no longer matters.

On balance I agree that collectively the left's ideas trounce the right's ideas on merit, but I do think that this advantage is eroding, in large part due to lack of respect for truly open and frank discussion. 

Even if you start off with the right idea, if you allow only one side to freely express their opinion, you'll eventually ratchet that idea to such an extreme that it would no longer clearly be a right idea.

The problem there is "the right" play lots of games with strawmen and the Overton window.
 They present issues as a debate between a loopy left wing view and a on the surface less loopy but actually very dodgy right wing view and when it's rightly pointed out they're being dishonest and hiding fascy shit behind their claims to be the reasonable ones then it's those left wing crazies who are to blame - that the majority of people on the left don't have these views and dislike extremists of any stripe, though obviously see the right wing ones as more of a threat, must never be mentioned.

It's a favourite fallacy of fascists to pretend that the left is intolerant of anyone with a differing point of view all because their one particular view is beyond the pale. They're always very keen to create an opportunity to push this point.

Quote from: FunkMonk on March 22, 2022, 09:00:17 AMAn interesting article in The New Republic that's somewhat relevant to the thread. An excerpt below:

QuoteAt stake here is whether American universities can serve democracy, as they should, without turning into places where anything goes and knowledge is determined by those with the most money or the loudest voices. In Democracy, Expertise, and Academic Freedom: A First Amendment Jurisprudence for the Modern State, Yale law professor Robert C. Post distinguishes "democratic legitimation," which is why we have the First Amendment, from "democratic competence," which is why we have universities and academic freedom. As he explained in a 2012 interview, he developed these terms after realizing "that First Amendment protections can function to debase knowledge into mere opinion and thereby to undercut the very political conversation that the First Amendment otherwise fosters." Democratic legitimation, he writes, "requires that the speech of all persons be treated with toleration and equality." Democratic competence, by contrast, "requires that speech be subject to a disciplinary authority that distinguishes good ideas from bad ones." How to reconcile the two? Post concludes that we must understand academic freedom to be based on democratic competence but not on democratic legitimation. Democratic competence—the knowledge and insight made available to society through its universities that are based on study and knowledge and not reducible to mere opinion or viewpoint—can be ensured when academic freedom, not free speech, is the ruling principle: Universities must be "free to evaluate scholarly speech based upon its content."

Universities are thus critical institutions in democratic countries because the work they perform—discriminating between opinion or propaganda on the one hand and reasoned argument on the other—inhibits the development of alternate realities rooted in power and special interests. Why, then, has it been so easy and tempting for everyone to treat academic freedom as a synonym for free speech? For two reasons, we suspect. One, "expertise," some conception of which is integral to academic freedom, is in bad odor these days, for some good and some bad reasons. Two, the idea of "competence" pales next to the triumphant rhetoric of free speech—the idea that everyone has a right to speak their mind. According to Post, while "it is not intelligible to believe that all ideas are equal," Americans gravitate to free speech over the cognitive ideal embedded in academic freedom because "Americans are committed to the equality of persons," and "the deep egalitarian dimension of the First Amendment resonates far more with this ethical value than with any cognitive ideal."

https://newrepublic.com/article/165649/professors-speech-disqualifying

Yep, there is a very important difference between the concept of academic freedom within a university and the concept of freedom of expression. 

Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2022, 09:52:18 AMOn balance I agree that collectively the left's ideas trounce the right's ideas on merit, but I do think that this advantage is eroding, in large part due to lack of respect for truly open and frank discussion. 

Even if you start off with the right idea, if you allow only one side to freely express their opinion, you'll eventually ratchet that idea to such an extreme that it would no longer clearly be a right idea.

You also lose out on the market place of ideas within the progressive movement.

Much like it is important to note that most people who Islamic terrorist kill are other Muslims, most of the people the woke left love to cancel and despise (like Sam Harris) are other progressives. 

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 09:17:08 AMThis shit is fucking terrifying:

QuoteMy old friend Rod Dreher of TheAmerican Conservative argued that because the left controls the commanding heights of the culture and the economy, the only institution the right has a shot at influencing is the state. In these circumstances the right has to use state power to promote its values. "We need to quit being satisfied with owning the libs, and save our country," Dreher said. "We need to unapologetically embrace the use of state power."

This is what we are getting from the lefts refusal to allow anyone to speak openly. The right gets to say "See, the left absolutely dominates the colleges! They won't even let someone make an argument for conservative values in those institutions! We have no choice but to use whatever means necessary to take over state power!"

Its bullshit of course. But the idea that the mob has to shout down and de-platform some scientist because they once questioned the 1619 project has consequences, and they are real, and they are almost universally negative.

Utter nonsense.  The right is forced to use the power of the state to curtail freedom of expression?  No, they need to compete within the marketplace of ideas like everyone else. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 10:34:16 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 09:17:08 AMThis shit is fucking terrifying:

QuoteMy old friend Rod Dreher of TheAmerican Conservative argued that because the left controls the commanding heights of the culture and the economy, the only institution the right has a shot at influencing is the state. In these circumstances the right has to use state power to promote its values. "We need to quit being satisfied with owning the libs, and save our country," Dreher said. "We need to unapologetically embrace the use of state power."

This is what we are getting from the lefts refusal to allow anyone to speak openly. The right gets to say "See, the left absolutely dominates the colleges! They won't even let someone make an argument for conservative values in those institutions! We have no choice but to use whatever means necessary to take over state power!"

Its bullshit of course. But the idea that the mob has to shout down and de-platform some scientist because they once questioned the 1619 project has consequences, and they are real, and they are almost universally negative.

Utter nonsense.  The right is forced to use the power of the state to curtail freedom of expression?  No, they need to compete within the marketplace of ideas like everyone else. 

Hence the statement "It's bullshit of course".

Look, arguing about how fucked up the right is has zero usefulness. There isn't anyone here on the "No, they are totally correct!" side.

Of course they need to compete in the market place of ideas like everyone else - which is why we need to make sure to protect their access to that marketplace. What is more, we should be fully confident in our ability to beat them in that marketplace.

But you know who else we should make sure get access to that marketplace? Progressives who are not as progressive as you are, and even the despised moderates and centrists.

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 10:32:59 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2022, 09:52:18 AMOn balance I agree that collectively the left's ideas trounce the right's ideas on merit, but I do think that this advantage is eroding, in large part due to lack of respect for truly open and frank discussion. 

Even if you start off with the right idea, if you allow only one side to freely express their opinion, you'll eventually ratchet that idea to such an extreme that it would no longer clearly be a right idea.

You also lose out on the market place of ideas within the progressive movement.

Much like it is important to note that most people who Islamic terrorist kill are other Muslims, most of the people the woke left love to cancel and despise (like Sam Harris) are other progressives.

Rather than name calling and labelling, lets use a hypothetical to see where you stand.


You are a university administrator.  You learn a student group named "Tucker fan club" is hosting a speaker who will argue that the Western Media is lying when it says that the Russians are attacking civilian targets and that in fact the Russians are liberating Ukraine from Nazis.

You also learn that another student group named "survivors of Russian aggression" who have members who were injured by Russian attacks on civilian targets plan a demonstration in which they wish to inform everyone that is attending the speaker's session that it is the speaker who is lying and that their talk should be avoided.

Lets also assume that the university you administer is a private institution and so no constitutional rules apply.  This is strictly within the private sphere.

Do you restrict the first speaker from speaking on campus?  I think you and I would agree that answer to that is no.  The more difficult question on which I think you and I differ is what do to do with the second group.  I think the answer is obvious.  You certainly allow the second group to also express their views.  But you seem to be suggesting otherwise. 

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 08:20:38 AM

Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2022, 12:25:43 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2022, 08:54:52 PMI'm talking specifically about shouting down speakers on campus.

Your counterargument about the school's reputation is a decent one and I admit it's validity.  However in pursuing that goal they are obstructing the ability of the speaker to communicate to the audience that wants to hear them.  I see the ability to communicate unobstructed as a pretty basic right, and it shouldn't depend on your liking of the message.

I guess my question is why the audience needs to listen to the speaker on a college campus specifically? If the audience is so keen to listen to the speaker, couldn't they rent a hall / convention centre / church basement somewhere not on campus? And if so, is anything really lost?

I mean - it's possible that many of the protestors would still show up (minus however many are there because they don't want the speaker on their campus), but they'd just be protesting outside. College students and staff would have much less leverage over locations outside of campus and would be unlikely to get the speaker disinvited - and thus their protest would fair game from your POV, right?

But there is already a functioning mechanism for deciding who ought to talk on a college campus. You cannot just show up and start chatting in a lecture hall at Yale, there is some kind of process in place that involves some kind of review and evaluation of the speakers credentials and the relevance of their message.

The cancel culture crowd you are so fond of is the mob Jake. It is people who have decided that that process doesn't confer on THEM the power to decide who gets to speak, and they demand that power. I think there are multiple examples where it is clear they are using that power in a incredibly negative manner, not at all based on their supposed concern for the repuational integrity of the school, but simply because the speaker is going to say something they don't like, or has said something they don't like in the past.

Your "reputational integrity" argument is kind of silly. You are pulling that out as a somewhat rational reason why a speaker ought to be not invited, but you know perfectly well that isn't the actual reason the mobs shut down speakers. There are already people at the school whose job it is to decide if a speaker presenting some topic is going to damage the school reputation in a manner that is not acceptable, and it isn't the twitter mob.

I think I see the problem.  There is a misunderstanding.  Not all speech on campus occurs in a lecture hall. Quite to the contrary there is lively discussion outside those settings.  That is after all the very purpose of a university.

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 10:36:15 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 10:34:16 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 09:17:08 AMThis shit is fucking terrifying:

QuoteMy old friend Rod Dreher of TheAmerican Conservative argued that because the left controls the commanding heights of the culture and the economy, the only institution the right has a shot at influencing is the state. In these circumstances the right has to use state power to promote its values. "We need to quit being satisfied with owning the libs, and save our country," Dreher said. "We need to unapologetically embrace the use of state power."

This is what we are getting from the lefts refusal to allow anyone to speak openly. The right gets to say "See, the left absolutely dominates the colleges! They won't even let someone make an argument for conservative values in those institutions! We have no choice but to use whatever means necessary to take over state power!"

Its bullshit of course. But the idea that the mob has to shout down and de-platform some scientist because they once questioned the 1619 project has consequences, and they are real, and they are almost universally negative.

Utter nonsense.  The right is forced to use the power of the state to curtail freedom of expression?  No, they need to compete within the marketplace of ideas like everyone else. 

Hence the statement "It's bullshit of course".

Look, arguing about how fucked up the right is has zero usefulness. There isn't anyone here on the "No, they are totally correct!" side.

Of course they need to compete in the market place of ideas like everyone else - which is why we need to make sure to protect their access to that marketplace. What is more, we should be fully confident in our ability to beat them in that marketplace.

But you know who else we should make sure get access to that marketplace? Progressives who are not as progressive as you are, and even the despised moderates and centrists.

I don't understand your position.  It is too wrapped in self referential name calling.  Rather than me try to figure out what you mean by a progressive who is not progressive, it would be more useful if you responded to my hypothetical fact pattern so I can understand you reasoning in a concrete way.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 10:42:36 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 10:32:59 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2022, 09:52:18 AMOn balance I agree that collectively the left's ideas trounce the right's ideas on merit, but I do think that this advantage is eroding, in large part due to lack of respect for truly open and frank discussion. 

Even if you start off with the right idea, if you allow only one side to freely express their opinion, you'll eventually ratchet that idea to such an extreme that it would no longer clearly be a right idea.

You also lose out on the market place of ideas within the progressive movement.

Much like it is important to note that most people who Islamic terrorist kill are other Muslims, most of the people the woke left love to cancel and despise (like Sam Harris) are other progressives.

Rather than name calling and labelling, lets use a hypothetical to see where you stand.


You are a university administrator.  You learn a student group named "Tucker fan club" is hosting a speaker who will argue that the Western Media is lying when it says that the Russians are attacking civilian targets and that in fact the Russians are liberating Ukraine from Nazis.

You also learn that another student group named "survivors of Russian aggression" who have members who were injured by Russian attacks on civilian targets plan a demonstration in which they wish to inform everyone that is attending the speaker's session that it is the speaker who is lying and that their talk should be avoided.

Lets also assume that the university you administer is a private institution and so no constitutional rules apply.  This is strictly within the private sphere.

Do you restrict the first speaker from speaking on campus?  I think you and I would agree that answer to that is no.  The more difficult question on which I think you and I differ is what do to do with the second group.  I think the answer is obvious.  You certainly allow the second group to also express their views.  But you seem to be suggesting otherwise.

As a school admin, I would probably not allow the first group to speak. I am fine with exercising my discretion as a administrator to decide who I provide a platform to, and am fine with them finding some other platform.

This is not at all the issue I am talking about.

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 10:52:39 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 10:42:36 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 10:32:59 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2022, 09:52:18 AMOn balance I agree that collectively the left's ideas trounce the right's ideas on merit, but I do think that this advantage is eroding, in large part due to lack of respect for truly open and frank discussion. 

Even if you start off with the right idea, if you allow only one side to freely express their opinion, you'll eventually ratchet that idea to such an extreme that it would no longer clearly be a right idea.

You also lose out on the market place of ideas within the progressive movement.

Much like it is important to note that most people who Islamic terrorist kill are other Muslims, most of the people the woke left love to cancel and despise (like Sam Harris) are other progressives.

Rather than name calling and labelling, lets use a hypothetical to see where you stand.


You are a university administrator.  You learn a student group named "Tucker fan club" is hosting a speaker who will argue that the Western Media is lying when it says that the Russians are attacking civilian targets and that in fact the Russians are liberating Ukraine from Nazis.

You also learn that another student group named "survivors of Russian aggression" who have members who were injured by Russian attacks on civilian targets plan a demonstration in which they wish to inform everyone that is attending the speaker's session that it is the speaker who is lying and that their talk should be avoided.

Lets also assume that the university you administer is a private institution and so no constitutional rules apply.  This is strictly within the private sphere.

Do you restrict the first speaker from speaking on campus?  I think you and I would agree that answer to that is no.  The more difficult question on which I think you and I differ is what do to do with the second group.  I think the answer is obvious.  You certainly allow the second group to also express their views.  But you seem to be suggesting otherwise.

As a school admin, I would probably not allow the first group to speak. I am fine with exercising my discretion as a administrator to decide who I provide a platform to, and am fine with them finding some other platform.

This is not at all the issue I am talking about.

Ok that is not what I expected. How do you reconcile a commitment to freedom of expression with the notion that you as an administrator can decide what should and should not be said on campus?

On free speech:

I feel like we (on both left and right) have lost the ability to distinguish between attacking the argument someone has made, and attacking the person who made the argument.

Attacking the argument should be straightforward.  This is your idea, this is why your idea is bad.

Attacking the person who made the argument - has long been done using good ole ad hominem attacks.  This is your idea, but you're a bad person, therefore your idea is bad.

But now it's morphed into something even worse.  This is your idea, your idea is bad (without ever engaging in it), and therefore you need to lose your job / be de-platformed.

A common response is that "well freedom of speech only applies to the government!  Private actors can act as they wish".  Which is true, but unfortunate.  We need to somehow promote a culture of free speech in the West.  Culture is just as important in life as out governments are, and if we accept that private citizens can be completely intolerant then we really do have a cancel culture.

Now as the term cancel culture has grown, it too has become abused.  Remember "This is your idea, this is why your idea is bad."?  Well now some have taken to applying any criticism, no matter how valid, as constituting "cancel culture".

So I don't know what the answer to any of this is - other than people of all political stripes need to speak out in favour of the idea of free speech, both in law and in culture.


Finally, there are limits.  Some ideas are so odious that they need not be tolerated.  Typical exceptions are for direct calls to incite violence, or direct calls to incite hatred.  But these need to be narrowly drawn.  "Trans people need to be raped and murdered" has no place in any kind of public discourse.  But I think "Trans women are actually men" is not in the same category.

You are constructing hypotheticals that are not interesting, because there isn't any contention within the groups around that issue.

I don't need to construct a fact pattern - my objection is to things that have actually happened. Not hypotheticals.

Like university professors having their invitation to speak about a matter they are experts on shouted down because they are not left enough on completely unrelated matters.

Or the left wing media absolutely just lying about what Sam Harris says (and being parroted here I might add) about transgenders, because he is willing to actually discuss difficult issues. 

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 10:58:25 AMYou are constructing hypotheticals that are not interesting, because there isn't any contention within the groups around that issue.

I don't need to construct a fact pattern - my objection is to things that have actually happened. Not hypotheticals.

Like university professors having their invitation to speak about a matter they are experts on shouted down because they are not left enough on completely unrelated matters.

Or the left wing media absolutely just lying about what Sam Harris says (and being parroted here I might add) about transgenders, because he is willing to actually discuss difficult issues.

I have constructed a hypothetical that is similar to the sorts of issues that often confront university administrators.  The very situations you have attacked as a mob screaming bloody murder or other such hyperbolic characterizations you have made in the past.

If you do not wish to explain the inherent contradictions in your positions regarding freedom of expression then I will never understand them.

It is not helpful for you to simply revert to self referential name calling and labelling.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 10:54:05 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 10:52:39 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 10:42:36 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 10:32:59 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2022, 09:52:18 AMOn balance I agree that collectively the left's ideas trounce the right's ideas on merit, but I do think that this advantage is eroding, in large part due to lack of respect for truly open and frank discussion. 

Even if you start off with the right idea, if you allow only one side to freely express their opinion, you'll eventually ratchet that idea to such an extreme that it would no longer clearly be a right idea.

You also lose out on the market place of ideas within the progressive movement.

Much like it is important to note that most people who Islamic terrorist kill are other Muslims, most of the people the woke left love to cancel and despise (like Sam Harris) are other progressives.

Rather than name calling and labelling, lets use a hypothetical to see where you stand.


You are a university administrator.  You learn a student group named "Tucker fan club" is hosting a speaker who will argue that the Western Media is lying when it says that the Russians are attacking civilian targets and that in fact the Russians are liberating Ukraine from Nazis.

You also learn that another student group named "survivors of Russian aggression" who have members who were injured by Russian attacks on civilian targets plan a demonstration in which they wish to inform everyone that is attending the speaker's session that it is the speaker who is lying and that their talk should be avoided.

Lets also assume that the university you administer is a private institution and so no constitutional rules apply.  This is strictly within the private sphere.

Do you restrict the first speaker from speaking on campus?  I think you and I would agree that answer to that is no.  The more difficult question on which I think you and I differ is what do to do with the second group.  I think the answer is obvious.  You certainly allow the second group to also express their views.  But you seem to be suggesting otherwise.

As a school admin, I would probably not allow the first group to speak. I am fine with exercising my discretion as a administrator to decide who I provide a platform to, and am fine with them finding some other platform.

This is not at all the issue I am talking about.

Ok that is not what I expected. How do you reconcile a commitment to freedom of expression with the notion that you as an administrator can decide what should and should not be said on campus?

Because a campus is a limited resource, so someone has to allocate that resource in a useful way.

That seems to me to be the very definition of the job of being a university administrator.

This is a more useful scenario, that illustrates my position. I am the guy at Yale who gets to decide who speaks on campus about various topics.

Scientists Joe Bob is a recognized expert in his field of pulsars in extra-galactic interstellar space and how that can be used to measure the heat death of the universe in a expanding universe model. He has done some ground breaking work in his field, and some of my own academics invite him to speak at the upcoming conference on inster-galactic space thingies. 

I due my due diligence, knowing nothing about intergalactic space thingies, and note that he is an up and coming expert, and the rest of my professors would really like to hear him speak, and in fact other schools are interested in attending the conference in order to hear the latest.

So an invitation is duly extended, and he agrees to speak.

Now, the local group of Students For Justice note that six months ago, while he was chatting with some friends in the faculty lounge, he once said that he didn't think the American Revolution was really all about slavery, and those 1619 Project folks were kind of nuts. And they are now demanding loudly that the racist SOB not be allowed to speak at our fine university, due to his being a clear racist.

I am going to ignore them. And if they plan on trying to get into the conference and shout him down when he present his paper on intergalactic heat death measurement using pulsars, I am going to do my best to stop them from doing so.

Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2022, 10:55:35 AMI feel like we (on both left and right) have lost the ability to distinguish between attacking the argument someone has made, and attacking the person who made the argument.

...

Finally, there are limits.  Some ideas are so odious that they need not be tolerated.  Typical exceptions are for direct calls to incite violence, or direct calls to incite hatred.  But these need to be narrowly drawn.  "Trans people need to be raped and murdered" has no place in any kind of public discourse....

I generally agree with your analysis. The challenge is that the place where that line is drawn - and who decides where it is drawn - is hotly contested.

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 11:06:37 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 10:54:05 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 10:52:39 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 10:42:36 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 10:32:59 AM

Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2022, 09:52:18 AMOn balance I agree that collectively the left's ideas trounce the right's ideas on merit, but I do think that this advantage is eroding, in large part due to lack of respect for truly open and frank discussion. 

Even if you start off with the right idea, if you allow only one side to freely express their opinion, you'll eventually ratchet that idea to such an extreme that it would no longer clearly be a right idea.

You also lose out on the market place of ideas within the progressive movement.

Much like it is important to note that most people who Islamic terrorist kill are other Muslims, most of the people the woke left love to cancel and despise (like Sam Harris) are other progressives.

Rather than name calling and labelling, lets use a hypothetical to see where you stand.


You are a university administrator.  You learn a student group named "Tucker fan club" is hosting a speaker who will argue that the Western Media is lying when it says that the Russians are attacking civilian targets and that in fact the Russians are liberating Ukraine from Nazis.

You also learn that another student group named "survivors of Russian aggression" who have members who were injured by Russian attacks on civilian targets plan a demonstration in which they wish to inform everyone that is attending the speaker's session that it is the speaker who is lying and that their talk should be avoided.

Lets also assume that the university you administer is a private institution and so no constitutional rules apply.  This is strictly within the private sphere.

Do you restrict the first speaker from speaking on campus?  I think you and I would agree that answer to that is no.  The more difficult question on which I think you and I differ is what do to do with the second group.  I think the answer is obvious.  You certainly allow the second group to also express their views.  But you seem to be suggesting otherwise.

As a school admin, I would probably not allow the first group to speak. I am fine with exercising my discretion as a administrator to decide who I provide a platform to, and am fine with them finding some other platform.

This is not at all the issue I am talking about.

Ok that is not what I expected. How do you reconcile a commitment to freedom of expression with the notion that you as an administrator can decide what should and should not be said on campus?

Because a campus is a limited resource, so someone has to allocate that resource in a useful way.

That seems to me to be the very definition of the job of being a university administrator.

This is a more useful scenario, that illustrates my position. I am the guy at Yale who gets to decide who speaks on campus about various topics.

Scientists Joe Bob is a recognized expert in his field of pulsars in extra-galactic interstellar space and how that can be used to measure the heat death of the universe in a expanding universe model. He has done some ground breaking work in his field, and some of my own academics invite him to speak at the upcoming conference on inster-galactic space thingies.

I due my due diligence, knowing nothing about intergalactic space thingies, and note that he is an up and coming expert, and the rest of my professors would really like to hear him speak, and in fact other schools are interested in attending the conference in order to hear the latest.

So an invitation is duly extended, and he agrees to speak.

Now, the local group of Students For Justice note that six months ago, while he was chatting with some friends in the faculty lounge, he once said that he didn't think the American Revolution was really all about slavery, and those 1619 Project folks were kind of nuts. And they are now demanding loudly that the racist SOB not be allowed to speak at our fine university, due to his being a clear racist.

I am going to ignore them. And if they plan on trying to get into the conference and shout him down when he present his paper on intergalactic heat death measurement using pulsars, I am going to do my best to stop them from doing so.

Ok I really did not expect that answer - freedom of expression depends on the resources at hand?  So in wealthy universities there can be more freedom of expression?  Isn't that where you analysis of the limits of freedom of expression end up?

You did not expect that answer because you don't listen to what I say, only what you imagine the closed minded asshole you've constructed in your head would say.

Everything depends on the resources at hand, and expression doesn't get a pass.

There are only so many slots for speakers, so of course someone has to decide who gets to speak at some finite place like a University. How is this a surprise?

 I away your analysis of what I DID say, rather then your shock that I didn't line up with the 4,567 strawmen you constructed for me :)

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 11:13:38 AMYou did not expect that answer because you don't listen to what I say, only what you imagine the closed minded asshole you've constructed in your head would say.

Everything depends on the resources at hand, and expression doesn't get a pass.

There are only so many slots for speakers, so of course someone has to decide who gets to speak at some finite place like a University. How is this a surprise?

 I away your analysis of what I DID say, rather then your shock that I didn't line up with the 4,567 strawmen you constructed for me :)

You did say you would make the decision based on resources.  Rather than continuing to name call, try to explain your position.

Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2022, 11:06:44 AM

Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2022, 10:55:35 AMI feel like we (on both left and right) have lost the ability to distinguish between attacking the argument someone has made, and attacking the person who made the argument.

...

Finally, there are limits.  Some ideas are so odious that they need not be tolerated.  Typical exceptions are for direct calls to incite violence, or direct calls to incite hatred.  But these need to be narrowly drawn.  "Trans people need to be raped and murdered" has no place in any kind of public discourse....

I generally agree with your analysis. The challenge is that the place where that line is drawn - and who decides where it is drawn - is hotly contested.

I think that is too simplistic.  At least in Canadian law  there are clear legal boundaries in both our criminal and human right laws which would prevent that kind of speech.

The more interesting question is what we are discussing in this thread.  Does freedom of expression include protection from consequences of that speech in the private sphere.  And the related issue of whether protests against certain speech should occur on university campuses.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 11:26:23 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 11:13:38 AMYou did not expect that answer because you don't listen to what I say, only what you imagine the closed minded asshole you've constructed in your head would say.

Everything depends on the resources at hand, and expression doesn't get a pass.

There are only so many slots for speakers, so of course someone has to decide who gets to speak at some finite place like a University. How is this a surprise?

 I away your analysis of what I DID say, rather then your shock that I didn't line up with the 4,567 strawmen you constructed for me :)

You did say you would make the decision based on resources.  Rather than continuing to name call, try to explain your position.

No I said that because resources are limited, someone HAS to make decisions on how to allocate those resources.

That is simply true - it is not a "position".

Nor did I say I would make a decision based on resources - I clearly laid out exactly how I would make my decision, and you fucking ignored it, and instead, constructed yet another fucking strawman that I would "make the decision based on resources".

Finite resources mean a decision MUST be made. It says nothing about how you will make that decision. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 11:29:33 AM

Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2022, 11:06:44 AM

Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2022, 10:55:35 AMI feel like we (on both left and right) have lost the ability to distinguish between attacking the argument someone has made, and attacking the person who made the argument.

...

Finally, there are limits.  Some ideas are so odious that they need not be tolerated.  Typical exceptions are for direct calls to incite violence, or direct calls to incite hatred.  But these need to be narrowly drawn.  "Trans people need to be raped and murdered" has no place in any kind of public discourse....

I generally agree with your analysis. The challenge is that the place where that line is drawn - and who decides where it is drawn - is hotly contested.

I think that is too simplistic.  At least in Canadian law  there are clear legal boundaries in both our criminal and human right laws which would prevent that kind of speech.

The more interesting question is what we are discussing in this thread.  Does freedom of expression include protection from consequences of that speech in the private sphere.  And the related issue of whether protests against certain speech should occur on university campuses.

Another strawman. Nobody in this or any other thread on Languish that I can recall has argued that "freedom of expression includes protection from the consequences of that speech in the private sphere".

Could you just review in your head what you type and think "I am saying what other people think - is there anyone who would agree with my characterization of their position" before you post it?

Free speech is an important principle that should apply broadly, not just involving government.

However, the parameters should obviously vary situationally.

Due to its monopoly on police power, its influence over basic civil freedoms and democratic government, the government's ability to curtail speech should be extremely narrowly limited to very specific extreme situations (i.e. imminent call to violence, riot incitement, fire in a crowded theater), civil offenses like defamation/libel/slander should be very narrowly constructed (i.e. American model, not the bad British model.)

I also believe institutions like schools, whether public or private, should try to allow as much free speech as is possible without it being a disruption to the process of basic education. I broadly think this should be a guiding principle even of fully private schools, albeit I don't think the government should intervene to force it to be so without some compelling hook (i.e. using the leverage of potential government funding that might accrue to a private school.)

Obviously various proceedings you cannot have untrammeled free speech--a court during court proceedings for example has to be able to keep order and quiet, as do legislative bodies and etc.

I even more broadly think that even private companies and private organizations (like private message boards like this one), should try to allow a reasonable amount of free speech. This is a lot squishier than dealing with government, but I think there are few organizations that are improved by having extreme restrictions on speech, and while this is outside of government purview, it should be a guiding principle that you generally let people speak their mind without some compelling reason to restrict it.

I also think certain special case private companies--like the operators of very large and pervasive social media networks, should potentially be looked at as "common carriers" and subject to much greater government scrutiny of how they regulate content.

Whenever the issue of cancel culture in the university setting arises, my question is always how prevalent is this problem and how serious?  There seems to be lots of argument by anecdote, and using isolated anecdotes to draw broad conclusions.  One case often mentioned is Gordon Klein - the UCLA lecturer (not a professor despite news reports to the contrary) who was suspended after rejecting an email request to grade black students with leniency in the wake of the George Floyd protests.  However, my sense was that Klein got himself in hot water not because he didn't give lenient grading treatment but because he wrote a snarky and condescending email that prompted an angry response from his students. When the furore died down, he was reinstated.  The Trial of Socrates this was not.

There is an advocacy group out there tracking academic "cancellation" incidents - they claim over 200 incidents going back 12 years.

https://www.nas.org/storage/app/media/New%20Documents/academic-cancellations-updated-february-18-2021.pdf

 That's not entirely insignificant, but given the size of US higher education it's not a screaming crisis either.  And the details on many are questionable.  Any incident where students send a petition or complain is deemed a "cancellation" even if there is no consequence that follows.  Also included on the list was DePaul's denial of tenure of Norman Finkelstein, which elides over the very serious issues raised about Finkelstein's scholarship.  Another example of a true cancellation was Florida Altantic's termination of James Tracy, a professor of communications and media studies who claimed that Sandy Hook was a hoax.  While this incident arguably fits the definition of a cancellation, in that case I can see the university's position.  A number of other incidents involve advocacy or defense of sexual relationships between adults and children, which is not what I think most people think about when attacking "cancel culture" and also raise obvious issues of concern for university administrators.

Bottom line is that measured by tangible negative consequences, cancellation does not seem to be a major problem at US universities.  The potentially bigger concern is whether the fear or threat of reaction is chilling speech on campuses.  This is often discussed and argued about, but hard to measure.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2022, 11:55:10 AMWhenever the issue of cancel culture in the university setting arises, my question is always how prevalent is this problem and how serious?  There seems to be lots of argument by anecdote, and using isolated anecdotes to draw broad conclusions.  One case often mentioned is Gordon Klein - the UCLA lecturer (not a professor despite news reports to the contrary) who was suspended after rejecting an email request to grade black students with leniency in the wake of the George Floyd protests.  However, my sense was that Klein got himself in hot water not because he didn't give lenient grading treatment but because he wrote a snarky and condescending email that prompted an angry response from his students. When the furore died down, he was reinstated.  The Trial of Socrates this was not.

There is an advocacy group out there tracking academic "cancellation" incidents - they claim over 200 incidents going back 12 years.

https://www.nas.org/storage/app/media/New%20Documents/academic-cancellations-updated-february-18-2021.pdf

 That's not entirely insignificant, but given the size of US higher education it's not a screaming crisis either.  And the details on many are questionable.  Any incident where students send a petition or complain is deemed a "cancellation" even if there is no consequence that follows.  Also included on the list was DePaul's denial of tenure of Norman Finkelstein, which elides over the very serious issues raised about Finkelstein's scholarship.  Another example of a true cancellation was Florida Altantic's termination of James Tracy, a professor of communications and media studies who claimed that Sandy Hook was a hoax.  While this incident arguably fits the definition of a cancellation, in that case I can see the university's position.  A number of other incidents involve advocacy or defense of sexual relationships between adults and children, which is not what I think most people think about when attacking "cancel culture" and also raise obvious issues of concern for university administrators.

Bottom line is that measured by tangible negative consequences, cancellation does not seem to be a major problem at US universities.  The potentially bigger concern is whether the fear or threat of reaction is chilling speech on campuses.  This is often discussed and argued about, but hard to measure.

I think the knock on effect is much more relevant then the specifics of universities cancelling anyone.

The universities, to me, are more a canary in the coal mine, since they should be the *last* place we should tolerate the mob influencing speech.

As I mentioned in my "Steelman" post, I think there is an important argument to be made about how significant a problem this actually is, even outside of the particulars of the university cases.

It's hard to have that discussion however when the people you need to discuss it with just absolutely deny that there is any such thing as cancel culture to begin with, and accuse those who want to talk about it of being closed minded bigots. It's kind of amusing and ironic though...

I'm not nearly as concerned with the actual content of left/right culture war stuff, as with the malevolent enemies in places like Russia and China who are deliberately stirring the culture war pot (and many others) to create division within our societies.

Freedom of expression is indeed a valuable thing. Can anything be done about malevolent state actors targeting us with disinformation and outrage trolling,  without endangering freedom of expression too much?

There are 20 million students enrolled in nearly 6000 institutions in the US.  So of cours there are always going to be incidents and conflicts of every kind and nature.

I'm not denying the possibility of a "woke chill" but it's hard to speak intelligently about it absent any ability to meaningfully qualify or quantify the extent of the phenomenon.

FWIW there is no way I would take part in the public debate. Being branded untouchable for opinions I hold or have expressed would be bad enough, but being so for opinions that are the complete opposite of the ones I hold or have expressed would be too unpleasant. Since people who like mob justice aren't exactly the sharpest minds they often get things completely wrong. Me not making my voice heard in society may or may not be considered a negative, but mob justice is certainly silencing voices far from the world of academia.

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 11:36:58 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 11:26:23 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 11:13:38 AMYou did not expect that answer because you don't listen to what I say, only what you imagine the closed minded asshole you've constructed in your head would say.

Everything depends on the resources at hand, and expression doesn't get a pass.

There are only so many slots for speakers, so of course someone has to decide who gets to speak at some finite place like a University. How is this a surprise?

 I away your analysis of what I DID say, rather then your shock that I didn't line up with the 4,567 strawmen you constructed for me :)

You did say you would make the decision based on resources.  Rather than continuing to name call, try to explain your position.

No I said that because resources are limited, someone HAS to make decisions on how to allocate those resources.

That is simply true - it is not a "position".

Nor did I say I would make a decision based on resources - I clearly laid out exactly how I would make my decision, and you fucking ignored it, and instead, constructed yet another fucking strawman that I would "make the decision based on resources".

Finite resources mean a decision MUST be made. It says nothing about how you will make that decision.

I don't understand the distinction you are making.  How do you reconcile a commitment to freedom of expression with a decision to stop a student group from holding hosting a speaker based on principle of limited resource allocation?  What resources are you thinking about here?  It is the student group hosting the speaker, not the university.

Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2022, 11:39:37 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 11:29:33 AM

Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2022, 11:06:44 AM

Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2022, 10:55:35 AMI feel like we (on both left and right) have lost the ability to distinguish between attacking the argument someone has made, and attacking the person who made the argument.

...

Finally, there are limits.  Some ideas are so odious that they need not be tolerated.  Typical exceptions are for direct calls to incite violence, or direct calls to incite hatred.  But these need to be narrowly drawn.  "Trans people need to be raped and murdered" has no place in any kind of public discourse....

I generally agree with your analysis. The challenge is that the place where that line is drawn - and who decides where it is drawn - is hotly contested.

I think that is too simplistic.  At least in Canadian law  there are clear legal boundaries in both our criminal and human right laws which would prevent that kind of speech.

The more interesting question is what we are discussing in this thread.  Does freedom of expression include protection from consequences of that speech in the private sphere.  And the related issue of whether protests against certain speech should occur on university campuses.

Another strawman. Nobody in this or any other thread on Languish that I can recall has argued that "freedom of expression includes protection from the consequences of that speech in the private sphere".

Could you just review in your head what you type and think "I am saying what other people think - is there anyone who would agree with my characterization of their position" before you post it?

Berkut, you have argued strenuously against cancelling someone - is that not a consequence of what people have said.  I don't understand the distinction you are attempting to make.

Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2022, 12:04:49 PMI'm not nearly as concerned with the actual content of left/right culture war stuff, as with the malevolent enemies in places like Russia and China who are deliberately stirring the culture war pot (and many others) to create division within our societies.

Freedom of expression is indeed a valuable thing. Can anything be done about malevolent state actors targeting us with disinformation and outrage trolling,  without endangering freedom of expression too much?

Its a good question.  I have wondered about the Liberal Democratic commitment to Freedom of Expression given what happens on social media platforms.  But I keep coming back to the importance of openly criticizing those ideas and driving them out. That is how it is supposed to work.  One of the problems we have is freedom expression has come to be understood in some circles as the right to say whatever one wishes and not suffer consequences of expressing those ideas.  That is where I think we have gone wrong and what needs to be fixed in order to vigorously address the issue you have identified.

There is nobody arguing that "  the right to say whatever one wishes and not suffer consequences of expressing those ideas. "

Nobody. You can tell because nobody has said that, and everytime you repeat it, nobody says "Yep, that is definitely what I think"

I'm probably among the more conservative posters on these boards, and frankly I think cancel culture does not meaningfully exist. It describes a very uncommon phenomenon whose entire existence has been memed into culture primarily by right wing media, but also by some of the weird "libertarian" types like Bill Maher and Joe Rogan, who have both cried about "political correctness" for decades. It just isn't a significant thing in real life. It is, unfortunately, a significant "topic" because it affects our politics, and it affects our politics because a right wing propaganda effort causes it to do so.

I see no obvious good answer to that--if you engage with the propaganda as valid, you're already ceding ground since the propaganda is designed to hurt one side of the political aisle. If you reject it as propaganda, you also cede ground because to people that don't understand it is propaganda, it just seems like you're refusing to engage in the issue.

The reality is there is probably no good answer other than to promote Democratic party propaganda and ignore Republican propaganda, and let the dice fall where they may--as it is now the GOP has a very professional propaganda arm backed by many individual billionaires. The left's efforts are extremely weak on this front by comparison, and probably needs to be improved and the Dem leadership should be working with left leaning billionaires to build up partisan "information" outlets to counteract things like Breitbart, GatewayPundit, DailyCaller etc. Note that traditional news media cannot fight these battles.

Incidentally on this area around disinformation concerns this piece is worth a read:
https://harpers.org/archive/2021/09/bad-news-selling-the-story-of-disinformation/

I work in a slighty adjacent area and one of the biggest things you notice working in that area, is the number of people whoquery whether adtech or behavioural targeting or whatever else works at all, to what extent and what are the bits that work. A lot of it is really difficult to actually quantify and breakdown. So much of it sits within the walled gardens of Google and Facebook doing what they want - but with little to no independent verification. Publishers aren't really sure they're getting a good deal, ad agencies aren't really convinced they're getting value for money - and no-one is even sure that it really does its job of matching advertising to individuals (I think we've all experieinced the weirdness of some adverts targeted at us).

In Europe the business model is on the way to collapse because of regulations but Google and Facebook are doing everything they can to keep the entire market in their walled garden - and in the industry, from speaking to people, there is a reasonable degree of scepticism that actually the emerging alternatives might work better. Separately it is slightly mind-blowing to me that a huge chunk of two of the biggest companies in the world are fundamentally about selling advertising inventory.

In the disinformation world it's a bit like the Cambridge Analytica thing - they definitely broke the law and were wildly misusing people's personal data. There is very deep doubt over whether any of it actually worked. The reports about them are based on their marketing and sales pitches to prospective clients, but everyone who looks at what they're actually doing with data is very dubious if there's anything particularly special or effective about it as opposed to a generic adtech agency posing as master manipulators.

There is a bit of me - as the article points out - that thinks there's a bit of an echo with the Cold War era brainwashing scare. You had Madison Avenue, sociology, psychology, fear of Communism all swilling together and creating a discourse that produced The Manchurian Candidate or The Ipcress File - and prompted Western experiments with it that had very real and troubling effects. Basically I wonder if disinformation itself is disinformation - because the big beneficiaries are the platforms who sell advertising space. I mean what's a better pitch than we're so good at advertising we can even destabilise entire societies? :lol:

Proving Cambridge analytica worked is a difficult task but given half the stuff you saw people beleiving around the ref it seems very likely. And when the margins are so wafer thin it made all the difference.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2022, 12:22:11 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2022, 12:04:49 PMI'm not nearly as concerned with the actual content of left/right culture war stuff, as with the malevolent enemies in places like Russia and China who are deliberately stirring the culture war pot (and many others) to create division within our societies.

Freedom of expression is indeed a valuable thing. Can anything be done about malevolent state actors targeting us with disinformation and outrage trolling,  without endangering freedom of expression too much?

Its a good question.  I have wondered about the Liberal Democratic commitment to Freedom of Expression given what happens on social media platforms.  But I keep coming back to the importance of openly criticizing those ideas and driving them out. That is how it is supposed to work.  One of the problems we have is freedom expression has come to be understood in some circles as the right to say whatever one wishes and not suffer consequences of expressing those ideas.  That is where I think we have gone wrong and what needs to be fixed in order to vigorously address the issue you have identified.

I agree that this is how it is supposed to work. In the free marketplace of ideas, bad ideas should be driven out by good ideas.

What happens, though, when a state actor pays employees to flood the marketplace of ideas with bad ideas? What if people become convinced that the marketplace of ideas is just a clearinghouse for various types of lies - to the point where they cease to care about the truth (or even to believe that anything can be an approximation of the truth?).

I was firmly in the camp of 'given time, the marketplace of ideas is self-cleansing'. That truth will win over lies. However, the events of the past few years have made me question that conclusion, and wonder if it is more an article of faith than an inevitability. Perhaps it is true in the long run, I don't know, but in the short run liars can and do win - the whole Trump saga for example - and they can inflict enormous damage on us.

Our societies have their flaws to be sure, but there are still things worth fighting for - the rule of law and freedom of expression - and there are enemies out there who clearly want to use these things against us. To an extent, they have been successful, though Putin for example has undone much of his own work in this respect recently.

The paradox is that in order to save the system that makes freedom of expression possible, it may be necessary to put some sort of controls on expression - assuming the marketplace of ideas is not truly self-correcting when under state-sponsored assault.

I agree, and I wonder if the solution is regulating social media to standards similar to broadcasters. 

Both the "fascists" and the "far left" pretend that any Drazi not wearing their colors has opinions that are beyond the pale.  You can tell who they are by their unironical use of words like "fascist" or "woke" to describe those not wearing their colors.

Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2022, 10:32:30 PMBoth the "fascists" and the "far left" pretend that any Drazi not wearing their colors has opinions that are beyond the pale.  You can tell who they are by their unironical use of words like "fascist" or "woke" to describe those not wearing their colors.

What descriptor would you prefer for far left other than woke? I notice that the left puts in a lot of rhetorical effort to defy classification.

As said "you just call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist" is a fallacy I see fascists throwing about far more than I see them actually being called out for being fascists. They're often eager to go there before the word is even uttered.
It seems to be their go to technique that they believe instantly shields their shit. It helps them a lot that it gets taken up beyond their circle.

Far left people just calling anyone from the right-right a fascist ala Bush-Hitler just isn't something I see much these days. It helps of course that many powerful figures are flirting with actual fascism these days.
More typically when the far left are moaning about the wrong sort of socialist and that sort of thing the insults are usually liberal or centrist or stuff in that vein.

You're calling "them" out right now.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 25, 2022, 01:44:49 AMYou're calling "them" out right now.

The far left doesn't just call everyone a fascist != fascists don't exist.

Squeeze, where do you gather your data on the frequency of people being called fascists and fascists claiming people call everyone they disagree with a fascist?

I wouldn't know where to start looking for this information.

Quote from: chipwich on March 24, 2022, 10:14:28 PMWhat descriptor would you prefer for far left other than woke? I notice that the left puts in a lot of rhetorical effort to defy classification. 

By the original (US) definition of "woke" I am definitely one who considers himself woke.  I am not at all far left, though.  Woke is a shitty term to describe a person.

Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2022, 11:17:00 PM

Quote from: chipwich on March 24, 2022, 10:14:28 PMWhat descriptor would you prefer for far left other than woke? I notice that the left puts in a lot of rhetorical effort to defy classification. 

By the original (US) definition of "woke" I am definitely one who considers himself woke.  I am not at all far left, though.  Woke is a shitty term to describe a person.

You totally ignored my question and my rationale and asking it.

I use progressive left.

Progressive is a loaded term and not one their enemies would use.

You didn't ask what their enemies would use.  I told you my preferred term.

Yes, it's loaded, but IMO it's the least bad descriptor.  Moderately neutral.

Progressive is pretty ambiguous. How do you define progress?

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 27, 2022, 02:47:26 AMProgressive is pretty ambiguous. How do you define progress?

Merriam Webster says progressive: one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action

Are you going to consult the dictionary to determine what are social improvements next?

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 27, 2022, 07:23:08 AMAre you going to consult the dictionary to determine what are social improvements next?

No, I don't need to do anymore homework for you.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2022, 02:12:34 AMSqueeze, where do you gather your data on the frequency of people being called fascists and fascists claiming people call everyone they disagree with a fascist?

I wouldn't know where to start looking for this information.

More valid would be if you provide evidence for the claim the left just call everyone they don't like fascists.

Quote from: chipwich on March 27, 2022, 12:41:45 AMProgressive is a loaded term and not one their enemies would use.

I think it's normally better to use the terms the group themselves use - not least because I think that self-professed political identity helps shape and structure the way they think about and approach new issues. But of course it's loaded politics, in a democratic society at least, is about convincing people so unless part of your politics is shock then you'll try and choose a persuasive brand/identity. They are all fundamentally relatively meaningless in themselves, the meaning is entirely derived from context and what the supporters mean by it which varies from place to place.

Whether their opponents use it or not is less relevant. It is equally loaded as it's normally trying to brand their opponents and shape the debate in that way. Again that's just part of persuasion that on the one hand you try to persuade people to support you and also that the other side are beyond the pale. But I don't think the label from the other side impacts how people think about issues or act in the same way that their own view of their ideology does.

Progressive is a great example because from what I've seen it basically seems to have been used in the US as a replacement for "liberal" when "liberal" became a bit of a dirty word. So the Clintons seem to have been comfortable identifying their politics as "progressive" but so do people further on the left. All of course very different from the progressive era progressives. Similarly in the UK the politician I most associate with saying they're "progressive" is Blair - and he means it literally in the sense that you identify the forces of progress and embrace them. He's a little bit Marxist in his very strong view on technology driving things but also that there are social forces that are progressing society which politics cannot stop, they can resist (and be crushed by them) or embrace them.

I would say that there is a major confusion about "progressives". That is: is this merely a new term for "liberal"? Some use it that way, but I think it is not.

In the US at least, there are some major fault lines between liberal and progressive. In general, liberals view the status quo as something that requires reform - while progressives are more of the opinion that the status quo is fundamentally broken and requires a more radical restructuring.

In this, they are more alike to the current bunch on the right - both of them think the status quo is irretrievably broken. Only their solutions to that problem are completely different. Both view those who merely want reform as tools of the system, compromised and corrupt.

Quote from: Malthus on March 27, 2022, 10:22:19 AMI would say that there is a major confusion about "progressives". That is: is this merely a new term for "liberal"? Some use it that way, but I think it is not.

In the US at least, there are some major fault lines between liberal and progressive. In general, liberals view the status quo as something that requires reform - while progressives are more of the opinion that the status quo is fundamentally broken and requires a more radical restructuring.

In this, they are more alike to the current bunch on the right - both of them think the status quo is irretrievably broken. Only their solutions to that problem are completely different. Both view those who merely want reform as tools of the system, compromised and corrupt.

I think this is where the enemies point that chip makes comes in - because I think there is in part a generational angle to this. I think for politicians on the centre-left socialised in the Reagan years, "liberal" is a bit dodgy. They came up when Ted Kennedy was the most prominent "liberal", there was all the talk about "San Francisco liberals" etc. So for them "progressive" was a more politically decontaminated word - it was an indicator of the centre-left that was forward looking in the 90s and 00s v the "liberals" who were left and backward looking to the perceived glory of the Roosevelt-Kennedy days.

I think for more recent generations that's shifted because the attack on "liberals" is coming from the left. They are critical of the 90s but not for its radicalism (as it had been from Gingrich etc) but for its failures. In particular they'd point out that the welfare reform, crime laws and embrace of the globalisation in full during the 90s is huge part of where we are now and also the left side of the "neo-liberal" turn from 79 to the mid-2010s. That attack is coming from "progressives" and, also noteworthy, is that you have people identifying as "liberals" again.

As I say these words are fundamentally meaningless like almost all other political identifiers. What defines them entirely is their context.

I've been using the term "fascist" much more since that march in Charlottesville.

Quote from: chipwich on March 27, 2022, 12:16:18 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2022, 11:17:00 PM

Quote from: chipwich on March 24, 2022, 10:14:28 PMWhat descriptor would you prefer for far left other than woke? I notice that the left puts in a lot of rhetorical effort to defy classification. 

By the original (US) definition of "woke" I am definitely one who considers himself woke.  I am not at all far left, though.  Woke is a shitty term to describe a person.

You totally ignored my question and my rationale and asking it.

I use the term "far left" when describing the far left.

To me, a liberal is to the left of a progressive.  TR proudly called himself a progressive, but he was not a liberal.

Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2022, 12:33:59 PM

Quote from: chipwich on March 27, 2022, 12:16:18 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2022, 11:17:00 PM

Quote from: chipwich on March 24, 2022, 10:14:28 PMWhat descriptor would you prefer for far left other than woke? I notice that the left puts in a lot of rhetorical effort to defy classification. 

By the original (US) definition of "woke" I am definitely one who considers himself woke.  I am not at all far left, though.  Woke is a shitty term to describe a person.

You totally ignored my question and my rationale and asking it.

I use the term "far left" when describing the far left.

I think woke describes something a bit different then just far left.

Bernie Sanders is far left, but I don't think he would be described as woke.

Woke is the far left, identity politics faction. I would call it radical left. 

They are the left wing opposite to Trumpers screeching about critical race theory in schools.

It's all emotion, no actual rationality or practical thought.

Shielbh, the left critique of "liberal" (in the American sense) is older than the 90s. See for example Phil Ochs "Love me, I'm a liberal" from 1966.

And of course the contintental European meaning of "liberal" (aka US "classical liberal) has been critiqued from the left for a long time as well.

Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2022, 01:16:15 PMShielbh, the left critique of "liberal" (in the American sense) is older than the 90s. See for example Phil Ochs "Love me, I'm a liberal" from 1966.

For sure - I just don't think it was dominant for politicians who came up in the 80s and 90s. For them they're scarred by attacks on "liberals" from the right which is why I think they used other terms to describe their politics like "progressive" and "third way".

But that's flipped for younger generations who are criticisng Democratic politicians who would never have described themselves as liberals for being liberals. The label many politicians of that era ran away with to avoid Republican attacks is now one they're getting from attacks on the left :lol:

Quote from: Josquius on March 27, 2022, 09:11:10 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2022, 02:12:34 AMSqueeze, where do you gather your data on the frequency of people being called fascists and fascists claiming people call everyone they disagree with a fascist?

I wouldn't know where to start looking for this information.

More valid would be if you provide evidence for the claim the left just call everyone they don't like fascists.

More valid than what?  You just quoted me saying I don't know where to look for this data.

Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2022, 10:32:30 PMBoth the "fascists" and the "far left" pretend that any Drazi not wearing their colors has opinions that are beyond the pale.  You can tell who they are by their unironical use of words like "fascist" or "woke" to describe those not wearing their colors.

Both are equally bad, but outside the US, the far left is far more damaging due to its mainstream presence.

When I hear educated people saying such & such subject should not be discussed or investigated because it will prove divisive, I am dumbounded, even angry at such silly talks.  It's the same arguments used by the GOP to avoid discussing any race issues.

Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2022, 01:16:15 PMShielbh, the left critique of "liberal" (in the American sense) is older than the 90s. See for example Phil Ochs "Love me, I'm a liberal" from 1966.

And of course the contintental European meaning of "liberal" (aka US "classical liberal) has been critiqued from the left for a long time as well.

Americans have really screwed up political terminology. I have no idea what the term liberal means in the US context. The term woke has become a term of derision and the right has been very successful in making it mean something it never did mean. People on the right can claim to be progressive in the US but in the same breath condemn progressives. It's no wonder that the right wing in the US can create a compelling narrative. They do a very good job of mixing everybody up about what those who oppose them stand for.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 28, 2022, 08:46:53 AMI have no idea what the term liberal means in the US context.

It means any number of things, but the common denominator is that it is a term of abuse, typically used by people promoting unreasonable positions, whether left, right, or otherwise, to attack those who don't accept their argument.

A common thread?  Liberal, PC, woke.  Once championed and then abandoned in the face of mockery.

Do leftists lack confidence?  Easily intimidated?  :hmm:

I have no problem describing myself as liberal or progressive 

I just think words are defined by how they're used which means if they're used a lot as a term of abuse that'll be how people understand them. Especially in politics where generally people dip in and out at best.

And there's no need being precious about that - move on, define yourself and your own politics (but know that'll get used as a cudgel before long).

Quote from: Sheilbh on March 28, 2022, 05:17:59 PMI just think words are defined by how they're used which means if they're used a lot as a term of abuse that'll be how people understand them. Especially in politics where generally people dip in and out at best.

And there's no need being precious about that - move on, define yourself and your own politics (but know that'll get used as a cudgel before long).

I don't think it's that generalized.  Plenty of people use "capitalist" or "free marketer" as an insult but you don't see people running away from those terms.  Similarly with neoliberal, especially in Latin America.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2022, 05:13:49 PMA common thread?  Liberal, PC, woke.  Once championed and then abandoned in the face of mockery.

Do leftists lack confidence?  Easily intimidated?  :hmm:

It's an interesting question as to whether the left so readily abandons labels because of mocking attacks from the right or because of mocking attacks from others on the left.  Conservatives generally don't mock others on the right for being more or less conservative than them, but the left seems to attempt regular purges.

Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2022, 06:04:27 PMConservatives generally don't mock others on the right for being more or less conservative than them, but the left seems to attempt regular purges.

Are you making an argument that the left should be more tribal?  :hmm: 

Quote from: DGuller on March 28, 2022, 06:19:56 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2022, 06:04:27 PMConservatives generally don't mock others on the right for being more or less conservative than them, but the left seems to attempt regular purges.

Are you making an argument that the left should be more tribal?  :hmm: 

I'm making an observation, not an argument.

If I were to make an argument about the perceived phenomenon, it would be that the left is made up of more intelligent and thus independent-minded people, who cannot be as easily carried by a few bumper stickers that say what they want to hear.

Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2022, 06:04:27 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2022, 05:13:49 PMA common thread?  Liberal, PC, woke.  Once championed and then abandoned in the face of mockery.

Do leftists lack confidence?  Easily intimidated?  :hmm:

It's an interesting question as to whether the left so readily abandons labels because of mocking attacks from the right or because of mocking attacks from others on the left.  Conservatives generally don't mock others on the right for being more or less conservative than them, but the left seems to attempt regular purges.

A prof of mine once joked that the left is a lot like Protestants, when they disagree with eachother they go off and start new church/movement.

The scene in Life of Brian was a favourite prop to use.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2022, 05:13:49 PMA common thread?  Liberal, PC, woke.  Once championed and then abandoned in the face of mockery.

Do leftists lack confidence?  Easily intimidated?  :hmm:

Fox News and fellow travellers have weaponized vocabulary churn because their favoured values lack merit.

If I had to attribute euphemism treadmill to one side, it would definitely not be the right wing one.

Quote from: DGuller on March 28, 2022, 07:10:25 PMIf I had to attribute euphemism treadmill to one side, it would definitely not be the right wing one.

I think the left wing IS far ahead by volume, but I think the right wing is doing better on intensity. However, in both cases the targets are primarily on the left.

Perhaps it's the left-wing obsession with messaging and the right wing habit of vitriolic abuse.

Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2022, 06:59:18 PMFox News and fellow travellers have weaponized vocabulary churn because their favoured values lack merit.

There's something to be said for that.  It seems that people are leftists because they are for things, and rightists because they are against things.

It's hard to be for lots of mutually exclusive things, but easy to be against many mutually exclusive things.

Hmmm.

I am not sure I agree that the right doesn't attack their own. I think they do that all the time.

RINO is still a common attack strategy, and we saw the last several decades where the right waged a war on moderates in their party, with sane Republicans attacked and destroyed from someone further to the right, and then those newly minted RINOs attacked by someone even further.

In fact, I would say that the difference between the left and the right around this is that the crazy rightists (the former Tea Party radical right, now the Trumpers) have won their internal war(only the whackjobs survived on the right, or those who became whackjobs), where the left wing radical crowd is still trying to win theirs, but have not yet. They are making progress though.

In the Canadian context the Reformers destroyed the big tent PCs by attacking "Red Tories".

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2022, 05:36:41 PMI don't think it's that generalized.  Plenty of people use "capitalist" or "free marketer" as an insult but you don't see people running away from those terms.  Similarly with neoliberal, especially in Latin America.

Maybe - very few people would self-identify as a "neo-liberal" though or even as a "capitalist" (not least because that imples, to me at least, investor in some way). I'd definitely have "neo-liberal" on a list of terms only used by people who don't agree with them :lol:

Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2022, 08:48:09 AMHmmm.

I am not sure I agree that the right doesn't attack their own. I think they do that all the time.

RINO is still a common attack strategy, and we saw the last several decades where the right waged a war on moderates in their party, with sane Republicans attacked and destroyed from someone further to the right, and then those newly minted RINOs attacked by someone even further.

In fact, I would say that the difference between the left and the right around this is that the crazy rightists (the former Tea Party radical right, now the Trumpers) have won their internal war(only the whackjobs survived on the right, or those who became whackjobs), where the left wing radical crowd is still trying to win theirs, but have not yet. They are making progress though.

I think the right do attack their own, it's just that they often do it so successfully that the attacks take a short amount of time, and end with total success, leaving only a few mavericks behind to keep up the fight.  On the other hand, the intra-left disagreements tend to be a trench warfare that doesn't go anywhere.

Quote from: DGuller on March 29, 2022, 08:57:27 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2022, 08:48:09 AMHmmm.

I am not sure I agree that the right doesn't attack their own. I think they do that all the time.

RINO is still a common attack strategy, and we saw the last several decades where the right waged a war on moderates in their party, with sane Republicans attacked and destroyed from someone further to the right, and then those newly minted RINOs attacked by someone even further.

In fact, I would say that the difference between the left and the right around this is that the crazy rightists (the former Tea Party radical right, now the Trumpers) have won their internal war(only the whackjobs survived on the right, or those who became whackjobs), where the left wing radical crowd is still trying to win theirs, but have not yet. They are making progress though.

I think the right do attack their own, it's just that they often do it so successfully that the attacks take a short amount of time, and end with total success, leaving only a few mavericks behind to keep up the fight.  On the other hand, the intra-left disagreements tend to be a trench warfare that doesn't go anywhere.

Indeed. Although I would not say it doesn't go anywhere - political polarization is higher in the US then at any time in recent history. That is mostly due to the radicalization of the right, but not solely. 

There is some crazy shit out there that the crazy lefties have managed to move the overton window on successfully. Some of that is good (health care, public costs for higher education for example), but plenty of it is pretty bonkers and damaging. 

We have a thread to actually discuss whether or not a society that ought to value free expression is a good thing, after all. I am kind of stunned that is even something that the left has to have a discussion about.

It's interesting that the far right knows they are toxic and must pretend to be moderates to get anywhere. You do occasionally get centre right people smeared as being communists or whatever but this is transparent nonsense.

The far left on the other hand doesn't get the whole fabian approach. Even centrist is a dirty word to them. They're too honest about what they want and usually more concerned with proving their left is the real left than actually doing anything useful.

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 29, 2022, 08:51:02 AMIn the Canadian context the Reformers destroyed the big tent PCs by attacking "Red Tories".

Jean Charest, former Quebec Liberal Party Leader will likely be their next leader.  So...

Quote from: viper37 on March 30, 2022, 07:49:28 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 29, 2022, 08:51:02 AMIn the Canadian context the Reformers destroyed the big tent PCs by attacking "Red Tories".

Jean Charest, former Quebec Liberal Party Leader will likely be their next leader.  So...

Is the point you are making that history will repeat itself?

Why do you think he will win, P seems to have the majority support including the far right in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

By the way, speaking of Trumpists, did you see the conservative MP standing in parliament yesterday calling Trudeau a dictator?

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 30, 2022, 08:10:44 AM

Quote from: viper37 on March 30, 2022, 07:49:28 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 29, 2022, 08:51:02 AMIn the Canadian context the Reformers destroyed the big tent PCs by attacking "Red Tories".

Jean Charest, former Quebec Liberal Party Leader will likely be their next leader.  So...

Is the point you are making that history will repeat itself?

Why do you think he will win, P seems to have the majority support including the far right in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

By the way, speaking of Trumpists, did you see the conservative MP standing in parliament yesterday calling Trudeau a dictator?

The point is that he's the one, imho, likely to become party leader after, the campaign is completed.  What polls say right now is pretty much irrelevant as he is just beginning. There's plenty of time to make deals, candidate abandoning and rallying to his side. it is but an opinion.  Charest has won against odds in the past, the only loss he suffered was against Lucien Bouchard, when he was freshly arrived and didn't have time to solidify his party's machine and his opponent was at the highest point in his popularity.

I have seen the silly comment, and it is way overblown.  We hear such silly comments all the time in all chambers.  The National Assembly has had to explicitly ban such words from use so that MNAs would stop.  We've had English Canadian journalists comparing our former Prime Minister to Adolf Hitler.  Way, way before Trumpist was a term.

For Brits - worth having a look at the Mary Whitehouse documentary on iPlayer. Interesting take on an old front in the culture wars/freedom of speech issues. The best criticism of it I've seen is that it underplays her political skills and experience and that she was basically a low Church Arthur Scargill, which may be a fair point.

Also trying to find a good balanced-ish article on the NUS/Lowkey controversy.