I really intended to post on “Alas” today, but I got distracted into posting comments on this Family Scholars Blog thread instead. What’s at issue there is the argument that we shouldn’t have marriage equality because that might lead to people being criticized for saying that heterosexual marriage is best.
Aside from the total lapse of logic there (people will be criticized for saying that regardless of if same-sex marriage is legal), I’m struck by what seems to me to be the stunning pettiness of the argument. Who cares if people get criticized? What difference does that make?
A lot of the argument there seems to come down to the mysterious conservative belief that anyone has a right to a life free from criticism, and if they ever are criticized that’s the same as censorship. It’s the ultimate in entitlement politics, I think.
It reminds me of this exchange I had in the “Alas” comments a while back:
Mark O’Reilly: Women in the workforce are given privilege due to political correctness. IF you as much render a HINT of criticism toward a female you get the old and not so true anymore label of “Misogynist.” So that in itself, the denial of Free Speech for men will trump this entire list no matter how long it is constructed.
Ampersand: Just to clarify: are you saying that if a man is criticized for alleged misogyny, that means his Free Speech has been denied?
Mark O’Reilly: Ampersap,Yes, absolutely! When you label someone “misogynist” you attempt to silence that person with intimidation and you try to discredit that person so no other person will listen to that person. It’s done all the time and it’s a tactic used by feminists so that nobody can question their credibility or hold them accountable. It’s like a fascist state.
I wouldn’t worry about this view if it were just one or two crackpots – but I run into variations on this “we conservatives are entitled to not be criticized” argument again and again. Although there were a handful of legitimate complaints having to do with overzelous “hate speech” laws, the majority of the complaints about “PC thought police” a few years back, consisted of conservatives saying it made them uncomfortable to be criticized when other students found their views misogynistic, heterocentrist or racist.
Did no one ever tell them that it’s not “thought police” when someone is criticized or made uncomfortable?
>Who cares if people get criticized? What difference does that make?
Um, if it makes no difference, why do people bother to criticize anyone? Isn’t the point to get them, and others, to behave differently?
first, a bit of silliness:
when I was reading down through this, I saw “filded under ‘antifeminist zaniness, same-sex marriage & queer issues in general'” as a single category.
which made me think “wow, amp’s categories have really widened in scope.”
I’d argue that to make an effective thought police, really all you need is a wide spread conspiracy of dismissal.
sort of a Sista Soulja moment. you say one thing that can be suond bit into something that makes you “horrible” and it can be used to dismiss you no matter what you have to say.
of course, that isn’t what’s going on with right wingers. because someone at some point decided to let them get away with that thought police crack, so now, if you ever actually DO try to marginalize and criticize them for saying something monsterous, they can cry “thought police” and they start in loudly with that “liberals aren’t tolerant” crap again.
and what was that “ampersap” bullshit? are we in fucking grade school, where to refute someone’s arguement, you just have to loudly remind people that their name rhymes with something derogatory?
Speaking of fascism, the more I’ve seen and heard of the “men’s rights movement,” the more it seems like a form of fascism. I mean that quite seriously. The level of organization implied by the advertisers and speakers on the radio program Hugo spoke on was quite astounding, and such conscious organization based upon overt hostility to women is very disturbing. I don’t think appearing as a guest on that show is a good idea.
There isn’t any such thing as “free speech” in the sense of speech without any consequences whatsoever. All speech has some consequences, and one fairly legitimate one is that it can be criticized. That is very different from trying to stifle someone’s speech, in fact, the ability to respond is about the only way that “free speech” doesn’t make others mute.
I’m not sure I understand what the wingnuts are in arms about, actually. As far as I can see they keep trying to silence those who don’t think like they do by calling them names such as feminazis or Islamofascist-lovers etcetera.
Eh. The idiots on my side of the fence are idiots. So are the idiots on your side of the fence. Big whoop.
I wouldn’t characterize my belief as being that criticism is censorship. I would, however, say that there are leftists who do engage in a political tactic of rhetorical intimidation, particularly (in my experience) in academic environments. (There are rightists who do the same thing.) People get sensitized to that. It’s like a kid who gets beat up by his dad every day – if some other authority figure then raises her voice at the kid, he’s going to cringe and expect another beating, even if the non-abusive authority figure was just using volume to cut through ambient noise or to emphasize the importance of what was being said.
Should people be expected to stand up for themselves verbally in a confrontational situation, and not let themselves be intimidated or pushed around? Absolutely. So although I understand their position, I don’t agree with those conservatives – just as I don’t agree with people who complain about women being silenced by men in discussions. Stand up and speak up; it’s your job, not anybody else’s.
Correction: some of the MRAs sound like fascists. Most sound like typical right-wingers, which isn’t nearly as bad.
Examples of why “white wingers” and “left wing loons” percieve censorship and criticism as the same thing in today’s verbal lynch mob society. Larry Summers — getting drummed out of Harvard — he was “criticized” for his statements and Ward Churchill, also “criticized” for his statement. If losing $100,000 – $300,000 per year for something you say does not have the effect of censoring what people will say. . . Someone who thinks that kind of “criticism” does not chill the voice of others must be making enough money every year that they can just piss their job out the window and say whatever they want.
If you are punished for voicing your opinion, that has the effect of censoring others speech. One of the seven main criminal sentencing philosophies is “deterrence”. Vile criticism has the effect of deterrence. Deterring someone from speaking their mind is, for lack of a better term, Censorship.
Oh Amp, you are so right on with this one! The righties are always talking about their precious “feelings” (which is exactly what the accuse the left of… hmm.) They FEEL BAD if you don’t laugh at their racist jokes. They FEEL BAD if they get a dirty look for voicing their opinion. They FEEL BAD that college students see The Vagina Monologues. Oh, get over it already! You don’t have the right to never FEEL BAD!
Of course, when someone loses their job over an opinion, that IS censorship. But others have the freedom of speech to criticize them, most definitely.
Archiebunkerific?
“Larry Summers … getting drummed out of Harvard … he was “criticized”? for his statements”
huh? I thought he just had to face the ritual humilation of a largely meaningless ‘no-confidence’ vote by the faculty?
Oh wait, that counts as criticism.
At first I thought that the ‘ampersap” thing just *had* to be a typo, but the keys are far enough apart to make that really unlikely. Classy. Really classy.
Dan S.
Oh Amp, you are so right on with this one! The righties are always talking about their precious “feelings”? (which is exactly what the accuse the left of… hmm.) They FEEL BAD if you don’t laugh at their racist jokes. They FEEL BAD if they get a dirty look for voicing their opinion. They FEEL BAD that college students see The Vagina Monologues. Oh, get over it already! You don’t have the right to never FEEL BAD!
Lovin’ it, Red :-)
Really, and they accuse Liberals and Progressives of being “sensitive”? No one is that harden emotionally or psychologically, and would never be offended by any kind of remark that purposefully insults (as in it was meant to be derogatory, and the one making it isn’t interested in having an intelligent discussion) and belittles their sociopolitical positions on issues.
However, it would seem as some Conservatives (not all, and even Radical Liberals do this) have issues with individuals in general simply asking questions or being analytical about social constructs or dogmatic propaganda put out there by ideologues, or any organization.
I certainly don’t appreciate the ultra-Conservatives and Radical Right using their own silencing technique of labeling anyone whose pro-LGBT rights, Liberal, pro-women’s-reproductive-rights, pro-feminist, or “progressive” thinking, as an “immoral” person who wants to “destroy” the family, ban Bibles, illegalize opposite-sex marriages, burn down churches, etc. In certain parts of this country, being labeled as “immoral” or simply secular (for example, I’m secular) can be tantamount to being Black Listed.
I believe only the “lunatic fringes” of the Right and the Left use these extremist silencing tactics.
I wasn’t aware that Summers had been forced to leave Harvard.
In any event, there are limits on expression in any workplace that are more stringent than the limits placed on expression by law. That’s not automatically a bad thing.
I have to say, Mark O’Reilly is wrong here, but I don’t think the sentiment is unique to conservatives. I find that often radical feminists often complain similarly of criticism of their views, but instead of phrasing it as a violation of their free speech, they phrase it as a violation of their life experiences and an attack of their credibility as women.
Of course, if radical feminists sometimes act irrationally paranoid about criticism, perhaps it’s a response to their experiences: people like MacKinnon are slandered a lot, with inflammatory, misleading quotes falsely attributed to them (not that some of them don’t have quite a few choice “discrediting” quotes that can be truthfully attributed to them). Some Liberals aren’t above using radical feminism as a strawwoman to show how reasonable they are, and of course to many Conservatives “radical feminist” is an epithet pure and simple: an accusation, not a description.
The weird thing about Conservatives is, they have this mentality of a persecuted minority under vicious attack from all quarters, and one always gets this sinking feeling, like, “but… but you guys have the House, the Senate, the White House, seven out of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans*, and most corporate boardrooms.” For more, see Mark Schmitt. I think that Conservatives actually have a grain of truth to the feeling that they’re fighting a losing battle from their last ditches. While in a freeze-frame snapshot of 2005, Conservatives are triumphant, ruling this society, in a more dynamic look at the situation, conservatives have been in retreat. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights act passed. The 19th amendment passed. And, for all the Conservative backlash, wish perhaps peaked in the mid-1990s, Republicans can’t even touch this. They even must say — most probably sincerely, because they have assimilated so much liberalism despite themselves — that they would have supported the 19th amendment if they were around in 1919, and that they would have supported the Civil Rights movement if they had been around in 1964. I think many Conservatives realize that same-sex marriage will probably be a reality throughout the Union in 2050, say.
I think Conservative defensiveness is rooted in the feeling that, while they may dominate the political battlefield, that battlefield itself is much farther into liberal territory than it was a half-century ago.
*Usually one hears the the Supreme Court into the “conservatives” — Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas — the “liberals” — Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens — and O’Connor, who’s supposed to be the center. Really, though, only Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed by a Democrat: Clinton.
P.S. Either a “preview” button or that continuously updating auto-preview thingy would be nice, Amp.
Look, Conservatives yell about Liberals being “intolerant” or “fascist” because it makes the Liberals wilt. It works for them. While our side is bending over backwards to be fair and reasonable, the real fascists push their agenda that much further. These Neo-Cons ought to feel as if we are ganging up on them because we SHOULD band together against fascism. I don’t give a rat’s ass if Bill Frist’s feelings are hurt, I want my government back!
we shouldn’t have marriage equality because that might lead to people being criticized for saying that heterosexual marriage is best.
Even if “we might be criticized if the law disagreed with us” was a valid argument, it cuts both ways — the status quo would lead to criticism of people who said that same-sex marriage was OK. So we’re right back where we started.
I’ve noticed the same cry about “censorship” on my blog. When people disagree with a right-winger (in particular a fathers’ rights supporter), that person complains that he or she is being “censored,” and wonders why opposing views are not allowed on my blog. I always point out to the person who is complaining that their comments are up on my blog and haven’t been removed. They don’t see the irony in that. Even if I remove someone’s posts, which I rarely do, I am not censoring them. I have removed incredibly nasty flames, including some where a commenter had referred to an anonymous commenter by name without that commenter’s permission. I have also removed comments from people who post articles in an attempt to turn my blog into their own personal platform. If they want their own platform, they can open their own blog. Criticism is not “censorship.” I think right-wingers understand that they are not being censored when someone criticizes them. I believe they yell “censorship” because they have nothing valuable to further add to the debate.
Sometimes I wonder if it would be helpful to respond to these conservative whiners with something like “By criticizing my criticism of you, you are censoring me!” Maybe that would start getting the point across…
Pff, what am I saying? They’re mostly immune to things like logic, durn it…
I have to wonder if there’s some kind of anti-feminist newsletter going around that we don’t know about. A few weeks ago, I bitched on my blog about how men spew condescending, patronizing crap to women and think they’re not being rude. In comments, this one guy (who as far as I know does not read Alas) responds to me by making the EXACT arguments that were made in the civility thread here a while back. I snap back at him and he makes this EXACT same “censorship” argument, well before this post even showed up. Are they really this well organized?
No Larry Summers has not been let go, yet. Neither has Ward Churchill, yet. However, each will think twice about espousing their views in the interests of encouraging thought.
Ward Churchill made his inflammatory statements, which completely engulfed a point worth exploring — it will not get explored because of “chastisement” amounting to censorship. Larry Summers made a statement, which completely engulfed a point worth exploring — it will not get explored because of “chastisement” amounting to censorship.
There are statements made by my clients that are complete bullcrap, but I investigate them anyway to ensure that I do not miss the point. If I told my clients exactly what I think and “criticised” them for their beliefs, they would not open up to me and I would not have so many acquittals.
Frankly, I think that thinking twice is sometimes a good thing. Churchill, for example, should have thought twice before making his asinine “little Eichmanns” comment. I don’t think it’s a bad thing for debate if people stop and think “is what I’m about to say really defensible?” before they speak.
It’s not true that the question that Larry Summers brought up is not being explored. It is explored often, and at length, often far more thoughtfully and with a greater degree of knowledge than Summers demonstrated (and I’m not just referring to people who agree with me). I think law prof Ann Althouse has the right take on this:
As for Churchill, I do agree that some questions he brings up (or at least alludes to) should be discussed, and aren’t. But that’s a separate question from Churchill’s problems, which stem not only from his asking uncomfortable questions, but from his asking uncomfortable questions in an exceptionally derogatory, insensitive and offensive fashion. Churchill is basically being subjected to a (metaphorical) public whipping because he acted like an insensitive ass; and I think that’s fully deserved.
Jstevenson, what you describe is just the market system at work– this time being the marketplace of ideas. When your ideas are unpopular, few will buy them. In fact, many will reject them. That happens all the time with feminism, and we expect it. But we still keep putting our product out there. We aren’t “censored” unless force is used, or there are no alternative outlets for our speech, or something extreme happens (such as losing a job).
Let’s say I’m interviewing for a job. I know not to put all my college activities on my resume, INCLUDING feminist activism. Why? Because some employers won’t like my ideas. They might be scared to hire me. Is that censorship? Not really.
Let’s say I get hired and I have feminist conversations with co-workers over lunch. My boss fires me for it. My co-workers then fear that they will be fired, so they stop having feminist conversations themselves. THAT is censorship.
But let’s say I don’t get fired. Let’s say my co-workers and I talk feminism at lunch and some conservative peers overhear it. They are offended and decide not to like us anymore. They give us dirty looks and criticize our ideas. That is NOT censorship. Even if we lose every friend at our workplace, it’s still not censorship. They have the right to criticize us and not like us.
Free speech for me, not so much for thee.
That’s what it boils down to. This style of debate was pretty much limited to the John Birch Society before Rush hit the airwaves–and I can even remember Rush having some moments of sanity and reason as late as 1995. But now the framing of the debate has crept around so that the issue under discussion is almost meaningless; the whole point now is the rhetorical crushing of your opponent.
Small wonder that torture is being legalized. If rhetorical crushing feels so good, how much better will the real thing be?
Also, if heavy criticism is wrong, what should we do about it? Should we “censor” the critics?
True, criticism may have a chilling effect on speech. But that’s to be expected when the majority disagrees with you, isn’t it? Isn’t there a cost to being “different”? I’m saying this as someone with very unpopular ideas herself. As a libertarian and a feminist, I piss off both sides. My skin is thick enough and my convictions are strong enough that I still keep talkin’.
This seems to be a good place to Spread The Meme.
Julien wrote:
Done!
I stuck in the live preview because it was quick and easy; I may look into replacing it with a “preview” button, though, because I know some folks’ computers slow down when they hit the “live preview” javascript.
the issue at family scholars wasn’t that people might get criticized. I think there were two issues. One was that people won’t say what they want to say because they might get criticized. That’s one reason people criticize people, to get them to shut up. Of course that is censorship by intimidation.
The other reason people criticize people is to reeducate them, and that brings up the main point at family scholars, which is that this reeducation process will make the thought that people need a mom and a dad unthinkable. After all the hammering is done on the new society, people won’t even consider that maybe kids need their own mom and dad, or that moms and dads should stick together.
But is all criticism the same?
Ad hominem remarks do little to promote understanding, and much to discourage participation. Questions about a writer’s motive often have a similar consequence. If someone is ill-intentioned but right, do her intentions matter? Conversely, if someone is well-intentioned but wrong, does the purity of his intentions absolve the error? The fault that lies in a writer’s heart is only relevant to the extent that it is reflected in her ideas. Thus it is the ideas, not the heart, that should be the focus of the comments.
The principle consequence of ad hominem remarks and questions of motive seem to be to silence rather than to illuminate. They look a lot like efforts at censorship to me.
>the majority of the complaints about “PC thought police”? a few years back, consisted of conservatives saying it made them uncomfortable to be criticized when other students found their views misogynistic, heterocentrist or racist.
>When you label someone “misogynist”? you attempt to silence that person with intimidation and you try to discredit that person so no other person will listen to that person.
What is the purpose of calling someone a misogynist, heterocentrist, or racist? Is it an ad hominem attack intended to discredit someone without resorting to reason? Is it an effort to scrutinize the speaker’s motives?
However, IDEAS can be criticized without attacking a person. I can respond to someone by saying “While your proposal may solve all the problems that Ward and June are ever likely to encounter, it fails to address the problems faced by Adam and Steve….”? Alternatively, I can say “YOU’RE A FUCKING HOMOPHOBE.”? Both remarks might fairly be characterized as “criticism,”? and may even be accurate. But one response is less likely to encourage a free exchange of ideas than the other.
>if you ever actually DO try to marginalize and criticize them for saying something monsterous, they can cry “thought police”? and they start in loudly with that “liberals aren’t tolerant”? crap again.
What is the purpose of trying to marginalize someone? I understand this to mean “push someone to the margins,”? or discredit someone’s point of view without resorting to reason. Why should we want to evaluate ideas on any basis other than reason? And if liberals are unwilling to tolerate the expression of ideas they think are “monsterous,”? why shouldn’t people conclude that liberals aren’t tolerant?
I rarely encounter ideas that I regard to be so dangerous that they cannot be discussed. Generally an idea’s weaknesses can be exposed through reason. But often I read people who disparage, ridicule, embarrass, browbeat, or otherwise punish those with whom they disagree. I sense that this is because discussions are not always painless. Mom was wrong; words CAN hurt me. I sense people sometimes respond aggressively because they feel pain from a misogynist, heterocentrist, or racist remark, and would like to respond in kind.
This is perfectly understandable. And it tends to discourage participation without providing illumination. Whether or not this conduct is motivated by the goal of censoring, it seems likely to have that result.
Tell ya what–when these tender-hearted neocons practice what they preach, I’ll start to take them seriously.
I mean, come on. I’ve been called anti-American, a baby-killer, dyke, whore, fugly bitch, misandrist, ad nauseum since I can remember. Telling someone that he’s being sexist isn’t censoring him; nor is someone calling me a dyke or a whore censoring me.
You put something out there, expect it to be criticized. Expect people to criticize you. Expect it to be pissy. You’re allowed to whine, but if you call it censorship, I’ll call bullshit. It’s not censorship, and the people who insist it is should actually encounter the real thing before getting histrionic.
What this boils down to is respecting other people’s feelings is just touchy-feely PC oppressiveness–unless it’s the feelings of conservatives we must respect.
Sorry, but I’m not going to stifle myself in the name of free speech. If people can’t see the irony of such logic, then they lack the capacity for any sort of debate, anyway.
nobody.really, I understand what you’re saying, but we’re living in reality here! We can’t *force* someone else to be reasonable. Do you propose that we censor the other alleged censors? (Did that make sense?)
The fact is that others will resort to personal attacks, and there isn’t much we can do about it. An enlightened society will see through their lack of reason and not buy their arguments. But our rather un-enlightened society tends to REWARD these people. Again, what can we do? Legislate their tastes?
>Again, what can we do?
Alas asks why (certain) people might regard (certain types of) criticism as censorship. I simply noted that certain types of criticism may have the effect of censorship, and may even have the purpose of censorship (although I keep reminding myself not to focus on intentions).
What can you do? Whatever you like. If you like free exchange of ideas, then speak in a way that invites it. If you don’t, then don’t. Different circumstances warrant different responses. And different people have different talents. Perhaps I prefer the free exchange of ideas because I’m not very good at pithy put-downs. Who knows?
But the fact that some people use ad hominem remarks toward you does not mean you must respond in kind. You may, but you needn’t. You don’t control them, it’s true; but likewise, they don’t control you.
Exactly, they don’t control anyone except themselves. I think that’s the point Amp is trying to make. Also, I don’t think I suggested that we must respond to ad hominem remarks with more ad hominem remarks.
Keep in mind, though, that sometimes we DO need to lighten up and laugh at ourselves. I’ve been called a redneck, and I was offended at first. Now I think it’s part of my charm. (Plus, I can’t really deny that I once lived in a trailer.)
But now that I think about it… when you said,
>>And if liberals are unwilling to tolerate the expression of ideas they think are “monsterous,”? why shouldn’t people conclude that liberals aren’t tolerant?”
Um, the last post got cut off. Here’s the rest.
But now that I think about it… when you said,
>>And if liberals are unwilling to tolerate the expression of ideas they think are “monsterous,”? why shouldn’t people conclude that liberals aren’t tolerant?”
Hey, cut off again!
Well, responding with “liberals are intolerant” is another personal attack! Because I doubt anyone has met EVERY single liberal in the world. It may be true that *some* are intolerant, but hey, *some* conservatives are bigots. But I would never assume that they all are.
Redneck Feminist, and everyone else, do you have any ideas on how the “Wah, liberals are sometimes intolerant!” thing? I am amused that sometimes people are all “OMG liberals say they’re tolerant but you’re not accepting every crazy idea ever! You’re a hypocrite!” but I have yet to come up with a good counterargument.
Say “I’m NOT intolerant, and I’ll cut the next filthy swine who says otherwise” while waving a knife in the air and taking hits from a nitrous oxide tank.
That will do the job.
Nitrous oxide is illegal for recreational use!
I find smiling pleasantly and saying “But I’m not a liberal” usually flummoxes them. They go off on a tangent about why I MUST be a liberal, giving me more opportunities to be unmutual to them.
Nitrous oxide is illegal for recreational use!
Is it really?
How would they know? (Aside from seeing the people giggling on the floor with whip-it canisters everywhere.)
The canisters are a give-away. Anyway, isn’t pot more traditional for liberals? That, or Chardonnay.
Anne, I would respond by telling them that tolerance of an idea is different from supporting it. Let them know that you fully support their right to express a different viewpoint– but you don’t have to agree with it.
As far as being “tolerant” of hate groups like the KKK… you could argue that you are not tolerant of the fact that they want to take away personal liberty from other people. They have the right to their opinions, but they don’t have the right to interfere with someone else’s rights.
Tolerance has its limits. We can’t tolerate violent crimes, for example, unless we want to become a lawless society.
RF, I’m glad you brought that up. It’s why I can’t treat freedom of speech or freedom of assembly as absolutes. When possible, KKK rallies and the like should be shut down through the direct intervention of counterprotesters. It’s necessary to do so because, if they’re allowed to openly organize, they will do the very things they say they will do: brutalize and murder the objects of their hatred and bigotry.
I prefer this be done by counterprotesters, rather than state action — there’s a wee bit too much overlap in membership between police forces and reactionary groups like the KKK, among other considerations.
Shutting down a protest through mob counteraction? Haven’t we seen that tactic from the bad guys in the past?
If the KKK is discussing hate through a public forum, anyone has the right to protest. If it’s on private property, then we don’t have that right. But rallies tend to be public, so in that case I fully support a non-violent counterprotest. I mean, there was a peaceful anti-choice counterprotest at the March for Women’s Lives, and I fully support their right to do that.
Groups do not, however, have the right to use their speech to “incite violence”…. whatever that means.
Ampersand says: Churchill is basically being subjected to a (metaphorical) public whipping because he acted like an insensitive ass; and I think that’s fully deserved.
so, death threats, threats of job termination & a national smear campaign directed against you is a metaphorical public whipping?
be careful about nosebleeds up there…
Jam, you’re right, that was a stupid thing of me to say. Of course, death threads – or any threat of violence – are completely unjustified. So are threats of job termination; academics must be free to say what they want without losing their academic posts (being president of a university is not the same thing). I didn’t mean to imply that I think those things are okay, and I should have made that clear in my earlier comment.
On the other hand, a national smear campaign seems to mean “he’s been very harshly criticized nationwide.” I can’t say I feel that’s horribly undeserved, although it is rather unlucky for him that what would have ordinarily been an obscure comment has gotten so much notice. (And I say that as someone who has admired some of Ward Churchill’s writings.)
Just as there is a distinction between “this fails to solve the problems of Adam and Steve” and “you’re a fuckin’ homophobe” and there certainly is, nobody.really, there is a distinction between statements that might have provoked either comment. If someone tells me that Barb & Bob feel that their marriage’s Christian sanctity is threatened by the marriage of Adam & Steve, and she makes an argument (even one I believe to be poor) that the former concern should trump the latter, I will argue politely that the latter should trump the former. And yes, I’d make the same sort of concession to Larry Sommers. If, however, that person made the statement “the Bible says that Adam and Steve will burn in Hell,” we’re in a different situation, one where our worldviews are unalterably opposed. By the way, “homophobe” would be a compliment here. My rule is that in public/academic speech, one is obliged to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who has not proven beyond a doubt that she is hateful. Then, should hate be proven, a similar obligation to take the gloves off–there is no shame in fighting back in like terms when war has been declared.
My standard is perhaps foolishly high, but I view it as a fair price: people who are unwilling to engage in argument usually prove it rather quickly, and I think there’s more value in backing the Sommers’ and the Churchills down than in demonizing them. So yes, it’s a utilitarian argument at heart. The notion, though, that either form of criticism is “censorship” leaves us in a world where rational discourse is impossible. To say, “he failed to engage in it, when he should have” is one thing; to say I am somehow morally barred from calling Sommers a mysoginist, Churchill an asshole, or David Horowitz a bald-faced liar is censorship of me. For the record, I’d only do the last, as only there does the evidence speak for itself.
I haven’t thought of a clear rule, other than “fascists are a special case,” which will do as a rule of thumb, but not very well as a general ethical principle. The thing with fascists is, they don’t just meet and have abstract discussions. They tend to meet and make plans to beat people to death.
I was trying to find a good example of what I meant. I was most thinking of the counterprotests against the KKK in Cicero, Illinois in 1998, and in Skokie in 2000. There’s some good stuff on organizing against Le Pen’s FN in France in this article, especially if you skip down to the section “The lessons of the anti-nazi movement.”
Thanks, Brian. Kind of what I thought I was talking about, but I think we can actually make a rule. That’s why I included Horowitz, who I don’t think is a fascist (yes, I wonder, but I don’t think it’s open-and-shut–I’m careful here). When people openly reject rational discourse, that’s the standard. Now, as I said, in certain types of talking, we give them every chance to come back into the fold, i.e., “what you said could be interpreted as racist. Did you mean to say that black people are inherently inferior, or as I assume, that black people are operating under a disadvantage? If the latter, how would you ameliorate this, or why do you think this musn’t be ameliorated? And if you think we have no duty here, where the FLYING FUCK do we have a duty?”
And if they think there’s no duty, no reason, yeah, they’re fucking facists, and calling them anything but is just being a pussy. And a dishonest pussy at that. It’s what a fascist is. Right-wing fucks: dare me on this. Please. The rest of you: open, as always, for argument. But please, calling me a “liberal” is not an argument. Nor is it an insult. It’s a description, and I can kick your redneck ass. And I will.
As long as we’re being honest… Have you considered that using “pussy” as an insult is sexist language? It would be better if you found some non-sexist way of stating the same thought.
* * *
As for the rest, I agree with what many folks here have said. I’d also add that it’s important to be able to say “this is a homophobic policy” or “this is a racist policy” – or, for that matter, “this is sexist language” – without people getting ridiculously defensive.
if you need help thinking of non-sexist insults, I’m sure everyone here would gladly help you come up with some.
me? I’m partial to “shitbag” but that’s just me.
I’d like to comment on Amp’s response in earnest, though, in that someone (I think it was nobody.special) seems to be arguing that “this is a homophobic policy” and “this is sexist language” is the ONLY means of expression that are fair and viable criticisms, and that calling something a fucking shitbag fascist, or a cousin-fucking racist fucktard is never appropriate.
as from your previous writings, I’m fairly sure your actual position is “call a spade a spade” but I want to be sure everyone’s clear on your position is “there’s a place for both ‘you’re ACTING like a jerk, Larry’ and ‘you’re a goddamn tool, Larry'”
you know, unless I’m misreading you, in which case, obviously I need correcting
Back in the USSR, if you said something you got arrested and put in a gulag. Why? Because your speech was going to be effective. And, historically, it was effective. They didn’t have the right to free speech, but their goverment was affraid of them, so that fear imparted power to the speakers.
In the US you can walk out on any street and say what you will, but nobody will notice. So there is your freedom of speech. Anything is permitted as long as its ineffective speech.
Why censor it when you can ignore it?
The only people who buy their “we are under attach” argument are their own believers. The only people who believe their labeling are their own believers.
The right is a religion. Maybe we should challenge it on the basis of the establishment clause. They have taken over all aspects of our goverment up and down the scales. They do legislate from belief rather than facts. They have threatened the civil servant into duplicity and deceit. They are pushing a religion, their own ideology.
When people openly reject rational discourse, that’s the standard.
I’d add to that, when people keep the veneer of rational discourse, but resort to dishonest rhetoric or a simple refusal to acknowledge evidence or logic. You know, the people who keep repeating themselves, who say “Gostaks distim the doshes” and then insist they only meant some gostaks, and so on.
I read of an interesting study that found people’s educational level was highly negatively correlated with their willingness to change their minds. One possible conclusion is that highly-educated people are more careful in choosing their positions, argue logically, and so on. Another is that part of education is learning to refuse to admit to being wrong.
I’ll try to be living proof of my own position and not get defensive. I am truly sorry if my language (“pussy”) offended anyone. It’s certainly probable that I made it difficult for some rational people to take me seriously. Thank you for the suggestion, karpad, but “shitbag” doesn’t do the trick I needed. “Wimp” has objectionable homophobic roots, and is too mild. Maybe our language has such deep sexist/racist/homophobic undertones/ubertones (particularly where cursing is concerned) to make one-word strong putdowns impossible for some shades of meaning. I know I can’t think of one here, so I’ll go with the oh-so-academic equivalent. Not to call someone out, in the strongest language one can imagine, on what one has genuinely determined to be hate speech is cowardly and morally intolerable. I have been beaten up for doing so, and would do so again anyway. One should do it, though I don’t think one is obligated to if s/he perceives physical danger. Needless to say, one’s ability to do this is not in the least gender-based, which observation is neither to discount extra dangers misogynists place on women.
And Amp & karpad: I think you interpreted me correctly, and that we are in agreement. I don’t think “fucking homophobe shitbag” should be our first rhetorical recourse, but I sure defend our right to it. Sometimes, if not often, it’s the only honest discourse that remains to us. I hope I’ve cleared myself up here.
So true, Rob. Right wingers are hardly the ones with the reputation of turning the other cheek. Leftists are the ones with the reputation for being “weenies” and not fighting back. Forget what I said earlier. Now I say, when someone else refuses to discuss rationally, you crush him! (Not literally, but you know what I mean.)
I’m not a leftist, but a libertarian. The big-brother state of the Republican party has turned many libertarians against them. So I can say with some right-wing experience that they are not expecting you to be tough. They expect you to roll over and be a victim to their rhetoric. More importantly, they expect you to be POLITICALLY CORRECT. When you aren’t PC, they get all offended and cry censorship. Smell hypocrisy?
This is just one reason why I have been crushing the IWF on my blog. They can dish it out, but they sure can’t take it! (Btw, thanks for linking to that, Amp.)
What do you mean by “hate speech”?? And what do you mean by “calling out”??
I am not acquainted with a duty to “call out”? people. More generally, I don’t know of any duty to announce that I agree or disagree with someone. To the contrary, I generally try to refrain from such behavior. I try to provide reasons for my conclusions. If the reasons that persuade me also persuade you, that’s great; if not, that’s fine, too. But my respect for my reader (or my knowledge of myself) if sufficiently great to keep me from wanting to guide other people’s beliefs simply based on my endorsement.
As I noted before, however, different circumstances may warrant different conduct. Some circumstances are not designed for critical analysis. My wife started telling me about the lousy day she had at work. Was she looking for me to offer a dispassionate critical analysis of her position? I kinda doubt it. I knew who was supposed to be the hero of her story, and I looked for ways of affirming that view.
Similarly, people selling soap or religion or public policy often start with the conclusion, and reason to the premise that will support the conclusion. If I challenge the premise, I merely get a new premise supporting the same conclusion. Here reason is of no benefit to the commentor, but may yet benefit the spectators.
In any event, I wonder who is persuaded by brow-beating or “calling out.”? I doubt the brow-beaten person is. Perhaps clever verbal reparte can cause some people to admire you, or to demonize your opponent, and to adopt your point of view on that basis. But I have to wonder that others aren’t filled with sympathy for the victims of such brow-beating, however justified you may find it, just as we see people defending Larry Sommers. Why is it not sufficient to respond to Larry Sommers by pointing out the errors of his statements? What added benefit is achieved by demonizing him as well?
In short, I think we deceive ourselves to imagine that we advance a cause by browbeating people who disagree with us. Rather, I suspect that we browbeat people for our OWN gratification – and often at the expense of our cause.
So if you encounter people who are not susceptible to reason, then you needn’t waste your time by reasoning with them. But you might consider it, at least for the benefit of your audience. And you shouldn’t fool yourself that verbally attacking another person is actually doing good.
Do you need a counter-argument? Maybe consider the possibility that you’re not as tolerant, or as PC, or as feminist, or as whatever, as you believe. And if not, there should be little shame – and perhaps much good – in acknowledging the fact. “Ha! Now that you mention it, while I value tolerance, I must admit that I have a visceral reaction to any mention of the KKK. The damage done by that organization is so great, and the benefits so small, that I can’t see any merit in its continued existence. Candidly, when I learn that someone is at all associated with the KKK, I lose the ability to consider any additional information about that person.”? If it’s true, then what’s the harm in acknowledging it? Who are you fooling – yourself?
Or reconsider the merits of using labels such as “tolerant,”? “PC,”? “feminist,”? or whatever to describe yourself. Such labels generally conceal more than they disclose, and are likely to promote prejudgement among both those who share your label and those who object to it. Recall Amp’s recent Civility thread, wherein some commentors lambasted Amp for failing to conform to their concept of a “feminist.”? Amp needed an entire separate thread to unpack the great variety of thought that he acknowledged to fit within the “feminist”? category. After all that, does the label “femanist”? convey more information or disinformation?
Hey, I’m on a roll!
I don’t mean to codify some censorship ethic; I merely mean to raise consciousness. I too make a utilitarian argument: Certain forms of criticism are more likely to elicit discussion than other forms. If you want to promote a free exchange of ideas, behave accordingly. Conversely, if you’re a fascist CONTROL-FREAK – – er, that is, if you find yourself in circumstances where it would be appropriate to bring closure to a discussion or focus it along different lines, then behave in a manner to promote that end. Whether I would label any specific conduct as “censorship”? is not really the point.
Ha! Well, kinda. I mean that people should know the consequences of their language, and pick the language that best achieves the consequences they want to achieve.
But ironically, the process of naming (“calling a spade a spade”?) often makes people defensive. People sometimes praise naming behavior as a symbol of candor. But it only seems like candor when you share the speaker’s point of view; to everyone else, it seems like the speaker is ignorant of, or ducking, alternative points of view. (“A spade? Doesn’t he realize that a spade is a name given only the shovels manufactured in Spadovia…?”?)
Functional characterizations (“Man, I bet I could really dig up my whole garden with that thing”?) are less likely to provoke defensiveness, or at least is more likely to channel discussions in productive ways. (“That thing? Naw, its handle would never support your weight….”?) In this manner, an endless, reasonless question (“What IS a spade?”?) is replaced with a discussion that might lend itself to reasoned analysis (“What could I use to dig up my garden?”?).
apologies for potential thread drift but i have to say, i’m surprised & dismayed to see folks talking about Summers & Churchill as if they were equivalent opposites on some level political spectrum. it bespeaks a deeply simplistic understanding of both cases. the only thing they share is the desire to provoke on the part of each of them. after that, it’s not just apples & oranges… it’s apples & something-not-an-apple-or-really-very-appley-at-all (maybe-a-rubiks-cube-or-penguin-instead).
and hell, while i’m promoting thread drift, let’s also break Godwin’s law – the “outrage” over Churchill’s comments comes from the way people exceptionalize the Nazis as the superduper ultrabadfolks of all time that will never be equaled or surpassed – and that, friends, is a steaming crock. i don’t necessarily agree that Eichmann was the best example to use, but history isn’t something we should enshrine & pronounce untouchable. comparisons with past imperial powers (& those who administrated them) are not out of line when discussing US foreign policy.
damn. apologies for rudeness as well. as least to you, Mr. Ampersand. i should have said thanks & appreciation for your response to my initial snarky comment above, before continuing on with more criticism.
so, thanks.
but yes, i think Churchill has been “smeared” not criticized (and i don’t think it was “unlucky” that this happened to him). in any case, there has been virtually no one in the mainstream media that i’ve seen that have discussed or even attempted to discuss either the context or content of the offending essay. it’s either Bill O’Reilly types turning red & spitting invective or more liberal types scrambling for legitimacy by distancing themselves from the man who “called 9/11 victims NAZIS!”
thus far, i’ve found myself most in agreement with Mr. Jensen. for those who don’t feel like reading the whole thing, here’s the short version: solidarity.
(critical solidarity, that is)
From what I’ve read in Churchill’s writing to explain the earlier essay, my sense is he was making a good point, but said it so badly that most readers misunderstood it. Summers, on the other hand, was making a stupid argument that was understood by everyone.
First of all, thanks, drumgirl–not for agreeing with me (though I like that), but for putting our accord so well. One is not right by virtue of being politically correct, but rather the reverse. So, while your libertarianism likely means that you and I start with different premises, it cheers me that we have reached similar conclusions in at least this respect. I look forward to reading your blog.
Now to nobody.really. What I mean by “hate speech” is an ad hominem attack on someone that has no relation to her expressed views. I don’t believe that’s actually difficult for you to understand. I think you’re trying to make me deal with you rationally when you have no intention of doing the same with me. But since you haven’t proven that beyond a doubt, I’ll go on. What I mean by “calling out” is probably best expressed by a story, and as you seem to be fond of that strategy, I ask you to consider this one: I grew up in a suburb of Detroit, where it was ok for most kids to dislike black people. Where I lived, one had to go out of her way to meet them. I did that, as did some others. Why? It seemed important, that’s all. So when I heard “nigger,” I objected. Loudly. Rudely. In ways that got my ass kicked. I didn’t care then, and I don’t care now. Part of my ethical stance is intuitive, and it’s that part. So your intellectualization of the obvious strikes me as false: I don’t think that’s how you’re thinking it, just how you’re saying it. And I’m calling you out. Will this damage me with you? I doubt that, but I’m hoping it will damage you with others.
The thing is (and this wasn’t clear to me earlier), you’re trying to disarm not only the “left,” but also those others who don’t buy your falsely dispassionate rightist stance. “Fascist control freak???” You seem unable to lose an argument. My engaging with you was not fascist in any meaningful sense.
I apologize; I intended the “fascist control freak”? remark as a joke. See how inapt use of language can provoke needless defensiveness? (That’s supposed to be a joke, too.) Seriously, I regard your discussions here as entirely civil, and I didn’t mean to call that into question.
Not difficult once you explain it, thanks. I’ve heard the term “hate speech”? used in a variety of contexts.
But I share your distaste for ad hominem attack.
What do you mean by “false”?? (Ok, ok, I’ll knock it off now….)
To be sure, when people piss me off my intuitive reaction is to rip them a new one. You may correctly perceive that I struggle to stifle this reaction, and (as my kids would attest) I don’t always succeed. So my conduct is clearly “false”? in the sense that turning the other cheek is false, or non-violent civil disobedience is false. It does not derive from intuition; it requires discipline, self-control, compassion toward the person with whom you disagree, a degree of self-awareness – and lots of practice. If you’re interested, you can learn more here.
Wow. You ripped me a good new one, and I’m blithly feeling the pain. I had seen you as leaving the rational universe, and I was wrong. But since you’re so willing to still locate me there, I’ll return that favor and try to explain my position. There is a point (and a danger that we’ll misidentify it, as I did with you) where rational dialogue is excluded. When that happens, people throw down. Maybe should, maybe shouldn’t, but do. The failure on the part of we who defend the status of gays/women/blacks/indigenious to see a throwdown is not acceptable. That is to say, I can take back (and I do) calling you hateful, but I can’t raise arms soon enough if I give too much credit. Maybe this is a Detroit thing: I defend my beliefs as ultimate, and I fondly remember a bunch of people who liked me for that. There seems to have been a crossfire effect on you, and I apologize.
Don’t speak too soon. I might still persuade you.
Well, now that I seem to have gained some sympathy, let me wade in over my head.
I encourage people to pick their language to promote the goals they want to achieve. But that requires predicting how people will react. Different people will react differently based on cultural background, profession, educational level, etc. For example, the dispassion that a physician uses to describe disease and death might seem cold in the mouths of the rest of us.
Now, I’ve read sociological studies about the conflicting ethics of various parts of the US. People from New England (and by extension, the Great Lakes areas and much of the West Coast) often have a sense of “dignity”?: the idea that a person’s worth is innate. Dignified people tend to regard slights as something to be overlooked, so as not to draw attention to the clumsiness of the person making the slight. Failure to respond in this manner suggest a kind of insecurity in your own sense of dignity. This is perhaps an easier ethic to maintain when you are also at the top of the social order, as New England was during our nation’s early years.
In contrast, people who derive from more Spanish-influenced cultures (the South and Southwest) have a sense of “honor”? or “pride”?: a person’s worth derives from the regard he commands from others. Honorable gentlemen regard slights as something to duel over, and failure to respond in this kind suggests a lack of courage, deserving less honor. As blacks migrated out of the South and into Northern cities, they tended to bring a sense of honor with them. (I’ve often thought of this analysis as Amp would describe masculinity something fragile that needs to be won or proved.)
Doubtless I have oversimplified this analysis. But it illustrates the idea that people will respond differently to my actions. So if I want to discourage someone from referring to blacks as “niggers,”? how should I proceed? Again, the goal is not to punish the wicked, but to modify behavior. I might appeal to compassion by noting how hurtful that term can be. I might appeal to collegiality and self-interest by confidentially suggesting to the speaker that his language will needlessly offend members of his audience. I might appeal to his desire for approval by flinching and saying how disappointed I am. I might appeal to his sense of fear by bellowing that I will not tolerate such behavior and reporting him to his supervisor. I might make an ethnic slur in return. I might slap him. Knowing how to respond depends largely on the person in question, and his own cultural norms and idiosyncracies. Some people will respond to collegiality; some to bellowing.
This discussion of “calling out”? and “throwdown”? suggests an honor-based norm, wherein a public confrontation is created to force one party to capitulate to the other. In the circles I travel, I don’t believe that this behavior would be appreciated, even among people offended by the term. A greater sense of diplomacy would be expected. But your milage may differ. We may simply have different norms.
” This is perhaps an easier ethic to maintain when you are also at the top of the social order, as New England was during our nation’s early years.”
My only objection to your post is the suggestion that this is no longer true. But largely, you’re right. My point, which I guess I’ve expressed pretty poorly, is that at some point people will decide to punish evildoers rather than modify their behavior. It becomes an issue of cultural will, and is no more right or wrong on our side or the other. While “throwing down” freezes the lines & doesn’t bring converts, it lets your friends know who you are. I think that’s a good, necessary, thing.
Yes, I live in New England, and grew up in its “extension.” Since I can’t live in France, there’s no better choice.
Nobody.really, you are barking up the wrong tree with me. My whole blog is un-PC. Why the heck do you think I call myself ‘redneck’?
I do think I’m fairly tolerant about others’ views– but again, a society can’t tolerate EVERYTHING unless we want to become lawless. Note that I said the KKK has a right to free speech, but under current law, they don’t have the right to “incite violence”. This is because others have the right to personal liberty, including (gasp!) people of color.
Also recall that I defended Amp and did not agree with some other feminists on that issue. Like I said earlier, I don’t think all conservatives are bigots. I simply ask that conservatives realize not all feminists are alike either. I am a libertarian, and do in fact vote Republican sometimes. If you want to make assumptions about me, that is your right. Just take note that you may be incorrect.
Likewise, a lot of people think “libertarian” means “conservative”, or that “libertarain feminist” is code for “anti-feminist”. I’d like to think I break some of those stereotypes too.
Thanks for the comments about me, Rob! I find that many libertarians are taking more “left” positions– a little, at least. I think it’s our dislike for “the state”. And right now, the state is largely Republican.
Good morning, I haven’t read all of the posts yet, but I have to say the topic grabbed my attention !
In short form, I would say both sides ( left and right ) have the attitude that disagreement is censorship. Take for instance , the 2004 election. The left criticized the Iraq War, the right then returned fire with the attitude that if you disagree you are unpatriotic. Then, the left had the same opinion, saying that “I have freedom of speech, therefore you can’t say anything against me”.
Both arguements are laughable.
For disclosure purposes….I am a political independent, with a strong Libertarian lean.
I’ve got to say that I never saw any such thing. I did see folks on the left saying, “That’s bullshit and slander,” though. Hardly the same thing.
Jake, I did not make my point clearly. What I meant was that the left took the approach that “My questioning the government is protected by free speech”. Which I agree with by the way. However, they added to that..that the right questioning the patriotism of the left, is somehow attacking the left’s freedom of speech.
Bottomline, freedom of speech goes both ways.
I am obviously having a difficult time articulating this morning ! LOL Where is my caffeine????
I think the “left,” as such, was responding to the statements that it was damaging to the country (and thus unpatriotic or even treasonous) to question the president in “a time of war.” So it wasn’t so much a response to being called unpatriotic as it was a response to being told to shut up. But that’s just my opinion based on what I saw, you may have seen different things than I did.
Yup. There’s a difference between being criticized for your views–or even being told that your views are unpatriotic–and being told that the expression of dissent is itself unpatriotic. Especially if that charge escalates to arguing that expressions of dissent are tantamount to terrorism or treason, and therefore undeserving of First Amendment protections.
So, freedom of speech means, you can say what you want, but the person who wishes to chastise you for it doesn’t have that same freedom of speech?
I never heard it called terrorism, or treasonous. Unpatriotic , yes. I don’t agree it was unpatriotic, but at least I can see the arguement being made.
Eek…
It’s not necessarily incorrect that certain labels can be used to “chill speech.”
Consider: I am a white Protestant of German descent. I have sympathy for the Palestinian situation. Someone says “that’s because you’re anti-Semitic.”
Consider: I am a white person criticizing some element of African-American culture. “That’s because you’re racist.”
Any conversation is likely derailed into “I’m not” “You are too” and the substance of the argument is lost.
Outsider cultures often resent the criticism of (perceived) insiders and liberals have tended to respect that to a greater or lesser degree, especially when an outsider culture has historically experienced oppression. This is because, historically, criticism of said outsider culture has often been derived from racist/anti-Semitic/mysogynistic/homophobic roots.
In this case, however, I think that the conservatives have discovered that to cry foul is to wiggle out from under valid attacks on their beliefs/policies/whatever. Consider how criticism of neocons was equated with criticism of Jews was equated with anti-Semitism. So, I’m inclined to believe that this is less likely to be about believing one is entitled to live a life, criticism-free, (or, perhaps, not only about being entitled to a crticism-free life) but rather a rhetorical tactic to escape having to defend the indefensible. Or at least the distasteful.
Brad,
Ann Coulter certainly called it treasonous. She was not the only one.
Perhaps she did, I would not put it past her. But, does she have the freedom of speech right to say it, as well as the person questioning the war?
I believe that there are very few types of speech that are not protected, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Strictly speaking, yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected speech. However, falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech.
Sure, she has the right to say it. I don’t believe the left viewed those statements as censorship, but many of us viewed those statements as what they clearly were – attempts to silence criticism of the right in general and BushAdminCo in specific. OTOH, I see many rightwingers actually use the word “censorship” when they are criticized.
There is a big difference between censoring & attempting to silence.
I fail to see that distinction.
Agreed Amp…..
Censoring:
Your article will not be printed. You will be forbidden to appear in public. Your printing press will be confiscated.
Whoops, hit “submit” too fast.
Censoring:
Your article will not be printed. You will be forbidden to appear in public. Your printing press will be confiscated.
Attempting to silence:
“Hey, shut up!” When you appear in public, I will boo your speech. I will tell my friends that your newspaper is wicked and they should not read it.
Thank you, Robert, for the examples. Much better than I did.
OK, I was considering the phrase “attempting to silence” as being much more harsh than yelling “Shut Up!” etc….but your point is taken.
So the issue then is that the right is claiming censorship instead of claiming an attempt to silence?
Precisely. They (not the nebulous “they”, but easily found comments from individuals) actually use the word “censor” to describe the criticism that they receive.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » San Francisco State U Investigates College Republicans For Stepping On Hezbollah And Hamas Flags
Amp,
This thread was before my time, so apologies if you’ve answered this elsewhere, but where did the preview option go?
What happens on college campuses often isn’t “criticism” but full-blown censorship. Criticism is “We disagree with you”. Censorship is “We’re going to punish you” or “We’re not going to let you say that”. SFSU is planning to conduct a hearing after which that group could lose certain rights they had previously. That’s censorship, not merely criticism.
It got turned off at some point when I suspected it was causing problems. As I recall, the problem was actually being caused by something else, I eventually figured out. So let’s try turning the live comment preview back on and see what happens.
It has returned. It even works. Hooray!
Yay, thank you! While I’m here – this is a great post. And, of course, it all loops back around to the whole ‘tolerance’ thingamaschmiel* now…Just change the words, no one’ll notice that we already said all this!
*yeah, i dunno either
And even with a preview I can’t get all my thoughts in one place. FurryCatHerder:
I don’t know the specifics, but are they going to keep the group from making its statements, or stop the university’s endorsement of it? For students to not want their student fees to fund hate speech doesn’t mean that the hate speech can’t be made.
trillian writes:
For the university’s behavior to be censorship doesn’t require that the group can’t make their statements. Taking away money that goes to every other group is more than sufficient, and I hope they win a nice fat suit against the university.
There are many groups, no doubt, on every university’s campus that someone else on the campus thinks are wrong. The point of Freedom of Speech is to get the government out of the business of deciding what is good and what is bad, and state universities are agents of the state.
“For the university’s behavior to be censorship doesn’t require that the group can’t make their statements. Taking away money that goes to every other group is more than sufficient, and I hope they win a nice fat suit against the university.
There are many groups, no doubt, on every university’s campus that someone else on the campus thinks are wrong. The point of Freedom of Speech is to get the government out of the business of deciding what is good and what is bad, and state universities are agents of the state.”
True, but understand that being an agent of the state is not the same as ‘being the held to the same standards as a legislature or a judiciary would be’. The army is also an agent of the state, but there’s nothing with there being, say, ‘free speech’ constraints against backtalking against your superior officer. Similarly, a public university is funded by the state, but it is allowed to its own policies to achieve what it sees to be its social objective. A university’s job isn’t merely to ‘protect’ its students, but also to make them comfortable and welcomed to a degree far beyond the obligations of the other arms of the State. If this means a particular group of lowlife antagonizers get censored, if you want to call it that, in a manner that would be blatantly illegal if done by the federal government, then that means the university has committed an infraction with about the moral gravity of double parking.