Podcasts you like

[Eddie Teach]

If the impression I've gotten is correct and it still shows that they've posted something but not the content, it'd take a lot of willpower not to look when it's in direct response to yourself.

[Tamas]

Yeah I love Rest is History but I was not impressed by Rest is Politics' first session (to be fair they are done by different people)
.

It sounded like a couple of guys knowledgeable and critical of politics, but the latter mainly because their own influence on it has diminished. Especially true for Rory.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah and Alastair Campbell is literally the inspiration for Malcolm Tucker in The Thick Of It

So I get that they are knowledgeable in different ways (though I'd quibble on that with Rory Stewart) and critical - but notably not very reflective.

[Berkut]

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

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

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

I disagree completely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree completely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've never advocated or insisted on extending first amendment legal protection to the private sphere. 

Who are you arguing with?

[Habbaku]

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

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

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

I disagree completely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree completely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've never advocated or insisted on extending first amendment legal protection to the private sphere.

Who are you arguing with?

Was it necessary to double quote the whole thing?

[crazy canuck]

Ok Berkut, if you think it is ok for people to criticize others and convince other not to listen, then what is your issue?

[Berkut]

Ok Berkut, if you think it is ok for people to criticize others and convince other not to listen, then what is your issue?

Its funny how you jump back and forth in your constructed strawmen.

You said that I advocated for private restriction, and then when I said I never said that, followed up with "its ok to...convince others not to listen"

Neither of those are my position, or suggested by anyting I have ever said.

I think the cancel culture world is a cultural phenomenon. People do not have to do it - and people (like you) do not have to cheer them on and support it.

I think people should not do it, nor do I think we should cheer them on when they do do it, and in fact I think the left should be champions of free speech and the right and practical power to allow people to say what they want without fear of being cancelled, even if they say something we do not like.

I think the twitter mob and people like you should come out in favor of letting people you don't agree with speak freely, even while you vehemently disagree with them, rather then thinking that the best way to win the culture war is to make sure people with the wrong views are cowed into silence by the mob.

[Savonarola]

I listened to a recent episode of Nómadas a Spanish tourism podcast.  In this episode was about Atlanta and they discussed Coca Cola and the fine dining at La Casa del Gofre.  Sadly they missed the airport; otherwise it would have been just like The Futurama Episode about the lost city of Atlanta.

 

(Okay, they did also mention the civil rights monuments and the hipper neighborhoods as well.)

[crazy canuck]

Ok Berkut, if you think it is ok for people to criticize others and convince other not to listen, then what is your issue?

Its funny how you jump back and forth in your constructed strawmen.

You said that I advocated for private restriction, and then when I said I never said that, followed up with "its ok to...convince others not to listen"

Neither of those are my position, or suggested by anyting I have ever said.

I think the cancel culture world is a cultural phenomenon. People do not have to do it - and people (like you) do not have to cheer them on and support it.

I think people should not do it, nor do I think we should cheer them on when they do do it, and in fact I think the left should be champions of free speech and the right and practical power to allow people to say what they want without fear of being cancelled, even if they say something we do not like.

I think the twitter mob and people like you should come out in favor of letting people you don't agree with speak freely, even while you vehemently disagree with them, rather then thinking that the best way to win the culture war is to make sure people with the wrong views are cowed into silence by the mob.

No need to be snide.  I am genuinely confused as to what your position is.

I do not understand how one can advocate for freedom of speech but say that freedom of speech does not include criticism of others.

Your post above does nothing to illuminate what your position is other than to repeat a bunch of rhetoric I often hear from the likes of Harris about how terrible it is that people are exercising their freedom of speech in a way they don't like.

[Berkut]

I think there is a need to be snide, because you keep stating what are obvious strawmen like "... say that freedom of speech does not include criticism of others." and " how terrible it is that people are exercising their freedom of speech in a way they don't like."

I pretty clearly never said that. So what is the point of discussion, if I have to say over and over and over again that I am not saying what you claim I am saying?

You don't seem to be confused at all about my position - you seem to know it considerably better then I do, in fact.

The entire discussion is just me saying what I think, then you saying I said something else entirely, and asking me to defend it. Then I repeat that I don't think that, explain what I do think, and then you do the exact same thing again.

[crazy canuck]

It is not clear at all to me how one stops the kind of speech you find distressing without interfering with the very freedom you rightfully cherish.  If you do not wish to explain your position, that is fine. 

[Berkut]

I certainly don't wish to continue explaining it to someone who clearly isn't interested in actually understanding it.

Ironic that you could not resist throwing in a strawman (stops the kind of speech you find distressing) into your post about how sad it is I don't want "explain my position".

[crazy canuck]

I have said a few times I do want to understand how you square that circle.  If there is no answer, like I said that is fine.  I can't think of what the answer might be and that is why I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

[Berkut]

I think schools should not cancel people because the twitter mob screams bloody murder. I don't think there should be a law against them refusing to allow someone to speak, I just think they should not do it because that is not a good idea.

And people like you, instead of making excuses, strawmen, and insisting that cancel culture does not exist, should have the courage to demand that people who do agree with you be allowed to speak, rather than demanding for them to be silenced, and then pretending like it never actually happened.

You saying you want to understand, then simply repeating what you know perfectly well is a sequence of strawmen, makes it clear that you do actually understand fine, you would just rather not argue against my argument, but the one you wish I had made instead. There is no circle that needs squaring.

[mongers]

This used to be a useful thread.