In essence?
Randall Munroe is not always the most chromatic*, but he is succinct.
*I can't find the right word here, but Chromatic (meaning coloured) sort of works here.
Further reading:
https://www.scribd.com/book/232956987/The-Open-Society-and-Its-Enemies
I hope to pick it up soon - seems like a book worth reading.
- Skeptics might ask, “Well, how do we precisely define intolerance, and who gets to make that determination?” This is admittedly a potential point of contention (one that I plan to write about soon)
I'll be interested when the author writes on this question which is the crux of the issue.
- While we may each have somewhat different opinions on precise definitions, I believe that we can (and should) easily come to a consensus
I disbelieve this.
There will never be a consensus. It's whatever the shifting Supreme Court says it is. If you have the money to get that far. As Justice Potter said in a 1964 decision defining obscenity, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."
I call it the "I know it when I feel it" test. That is as specific as many of these things can get.
You would think that something as simple as exposing organised animal abuse would be a no-brainer as protected speech. But it isn't.
On another level, it is what local law enforcement says it is, unless you have the money to fight back. Even making a Facebook post denigrating an ex-husband/cop for something silly or liking that post can get you arrested.
- There will never be a consensus.
Then man will never fly or slaves - be free. Yet here we are.
Humanity is still exploring its cognition: you can see it thanks to Sigmund Freud and his excessively new theory of the unconscious mind. Once we're capable of expressing our deepest feelings with the right words, a written consensus shall not take long.
- Then man will never fly or slaves - be free. Yet here we are.
You're talking about something different here. There's consensus about what people can do as defined by the law. The quote is about a consensus about what it's ok to say.
The article is about free speech. The author is espousing that there will be a consensus about what people should be allowed to say.
If there is a consensus about what people can say, then speech is that much less free because the majority is impinging on the minority who might choose to say it.
If no one chose to say it, no such consensus would be necessary.
I was talking about how things at some point thought to be impossible are possible now thanks to the development of humanity. My point is that humanity has progressed and continues to do so, therefore it's not impossible for us to reach a better state of affairs, even, as I pointed out to someguyfromcanada, it won't happen, during our lifetime.
- If there is a consensus about what people can say, then speech is that much less free because the majority is impinging on the minority who might choose to say it.
This isn't what freedom of speech is. The majority of people despises racist exclamations from white supremacists' rallies without that despisal being considered an offence on the freedom of speech. The majority of people doesn't like to talk about death or dying, yet thanatology is considered a valuable field of medical science and not in any way immoral in the way it freely discusses dying as a natural mechanism of organic life.
The choice to "say it" has to come from some set of rules - one that many of us learn from early age and others (ones incapable of grasping such topics intuitively) are restricted from because it's a taboo to talk about. Best it come from a consensus, meaning people agree to not say something on their own accord: that way, rules are clear and no one is offended by being excluded from making such a choice, therefore less likely to break the rules.
It is wrong to try to set control over what's allowed to say because it restricts one's personal autonomy. It is, however, not wrong for people to agree to restrict themselves of something for a good reason.
- I was talking about how things at some point thought to be impossible are possible now thanks to the development of humanity. My point is that humanity has progressed and continues to do so, therefore it's not impossible for us to reach a better state of affairs
This is not very relevant. You're saying that anything is possible so the word never has no meaning in any context.
In this context, I think it does.
Most people agree that murder is bad. Some people still do it.
If someone said that there will never be a time when no one murders anyone else, you might say that it's always possible that in the future, it may be possible. You may be technically correct in a trivial way, but it's colloquially irrelevant.
It doesn't really affect the current discussion because if you can't foresee how it would happen, you can't really change the concept enough to have it make a difference.
I should clarify that freedom of speech is different in different countries.
I can only speak for the US version. Perhaps the OP is speaking for a different country's version.
In the US version, the minority viewpoint is held at the same level as the majority viewpoint. Therefore, consensus screening does not allow for freedom of speech.
- Best it come from a consensus, meaning people agree to not say something on their own accord: that way, rules are clear and no one is offended by being excluded from making such a choice, therefore less likely to break the rules.
This part is really unclear. The majority can agree not to say something of their own accord. That doesn't stop anyone else from saying it.
It also allows the majority of people to make rules clear that people in a minority don't like. The example in the article is the LGBT group was in a minority before that was silenced.
You seem to be assuming that the majority makes the consensus rules in ways that you would always agree with. That might not always be the case.
- It is wrong to try to set control over what's allowed to say because it restricts one's personal autonomy. It is, however, not wrong for people to agree to restrict themselves of something for a good reason.
People can make a consensus that they themselves choose not to say. They cannot make a consensus about what other people are not allowed to say.
The quote you took and disagreed with says the same thing you just wrote.
I should point out that I haven't read the article and am arguing about a concept, not anything that's been said in the article itself. If I'm missing some crucial details that the article touches upon, I apologize for my ignorance.
Which, it seems like, I should, given that we seem to be talking about two different aspects of what freedom of speech is: you're talking about it from a legal, legislative perspective while I talk about it from a more general, ideal perspective.
- This is not very relevant. You're saying that anything is possible so the word never has no meaning in any context. <..> It doesn't really affect the current discussion because if you can't foresee how it would happen, you can't really change the concept enough to have it make a difference.
Perhaps, you're right. While I do still foresee human development still going up from this point, I don't have anything in particular to give to the situation but my idealistic vision. We see the idea of consensus differently; I imply that everyone agrees upon a point, not merely the majority. Is it idealistic? Most definitely. Can we achieve that at the moment? Most definitely not. I do believe, however, that as humanity develops as civilized society (or whatever better shape it might take), there might become minds and tools available for us to make such a fundamental shift in paradigm.
This is the point I'm arguing from. I understand that it will not serve the immediately visible differences and the divide currently present on the subject, but I think it's a vision to strive towards, no matter what the present holds.
- We see the idea of consensus differently; I imply that everyone agrees upon a point, not merely the majority. Is it idealistic? Most definitely.
I don't share your vision about that ideal. One thing I appreciate about being in the US is my right to have my voice heard. I also share the fundamental belief that the sharing of diverse voices leads to better solutions and more rights and freedoms for everyone. Innovation comes from the sharing of different ideas.
Getting to the point where everyone agreed on everything is not only unrealistic, it's stifling. People would become like walking zombies, agreeing on the same things.
There was an episode of Star Trek, The Next Generation where it seemed like people agreed on everything. Everything looked placid and calm on the surface. When someone disagreed, there was a device to reprogram that person's brain to get back in agreement. People who disagreed with having the device used like that were forcibly taken to it. Even if the tool weren't an actual device, that's not a future I'd be interested in.
But the reason I stopped to take the time to respond to your argument that "anything's possible" is because you've used it on me before as a rhetorical device and debate strategy. I feel that it's a poor tactic to further open discussion. It stops discussion because it's difficult to deal with the idea that anything is possible. It has people trying to shoot down possibilities that aren't even in the realm of possibility.
- People would become like walking zombies, agreeing on the same things.
This and your Star Trek analogy imply that it's a forced-upon agreement rather than people coming together in their views and recognize their differences. You seem to think that I mean people to agree upon every single matter, which is taking my argument too far. I don't believe that this is agreement: this, as you point out, is zombie behavior.
We experience reality differently due to the massively, incomprehensibly-vast amount of ways each of us brought up. Every detail shapes our view, and so it would be quite difficult to have people to agree on everything, much more useless. There are, however, things that would benefit from such an agreement: like, say, agreeing on not using derogatory terms towards people because they're belittling to the target person and don't address whatever issues you might have with their race, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality or another aspect of their lives. It's a can of worms I don't want to open; I was merely providing my perspective on why that could be in the works.
As for "anything's possible" argument: thank you for noticing that. I will give it some thought. If there's any other insight you can provide on the matter, I will greatly appreciate it.
Fair point. Just because something has not happened does not necessarily mean it won't.
At the same time, some things that have never happened will also never happen.
But saying "I can not foresee an advancement in technology" is very different than "I can not foresee everyone agreeing with the same subjective values". Slavery is one such subjective value that was never, is still not and may never be universally agreed upon.
And yet, we've progressed to the point where but the most uneducated agree upon slavery being wrong. We've explored and will continue to explore and understand what is violence and abuse as we move on to understand what drives us. You can see, a harrowing example as it may be, male rape being talked about more openly nowadays; if yet unaccepted, it's a topic that people are willing to raise and discuss, not merely push away since "men can't be raped" as it used to sound before.
That's merely an aspect of how we discover and develop as humanity. I prefer to think that it's going to progress to the point where subjective disagreements can be resolved through communication, even if it won't be in our lifetime. We have, after all, come a long way since the dawn of civilization - signified by the fact that people from different backgrounds like you and I can discuss subjective perception of such a vaguely-defined thing as tolerance and intolerance.
I guess I would draw the line at violence. Anytime someone uses violence to suppress speech no matter the type that's a problem. If the government fails to protect the speaker from violence and again fails to punish the violent offenders then the government is defacto suppressing speech.
That's the problem with that milo guy. Guy maybe a total ahole but allowing violent protesters to deny him his right to speech, and the right of those attending to listen sets a really bad precedent. Because in many cases the local police choose not to press charges they basically complicit in the suppress of speech.
The comic misses big picture of one group of people using violence to denying another group their legal rights. Clearly somebody wanted to listen to milo and they were not allowed to. He wasn't shown the door he was made to leave by an intruder at gunpoint.
- Guy maybe a total ahole but allowing violent protesters to deny him his right to speech, and the right of those attending to listen sets a really bad precedent.
That precedent had already been set. Ever heard of Selma, Alabama? Or MLK?
And he wasn't denied his right to speak. He spoke. People didn't like what he said, and they drove him away.
So what?
You are missing the point of the comic: Milo is a dick. Nobody has to give him a stage to be a dick from. Nobody has to listen to him being a dick. If he had any balls or integrity, he'd go to Speakers Corner and make use of the rights provided to him.
But he's just a troll. Having integrity and engaging honestly doesn't interest him. He just pokes the beehive so he can complain about getting stung.
Same model as the Westboro Baptist Church. They are all lawyers who have found the simplest way to make money is to be a dick in public, and when someone reacts, you sue them. That's their entire reason for existence: to be such colossal dicks that people get upset, and then use the legal system to threaten them until they pay up. Simple extortion wrapped in the sheep's clothing of "free speech."
- That precedent had already been set. Ever heard of Selma, Alabama? Or MLK?
- Nobody has to give him a stage to be a dick from. Nobody has to listen to him being a dick. If he had any balls or integrity, he'd go to Speakers Corner and make use of the rights provided to him.
They didnt have to but for some reason they did. Once people showed up to listen others violated not only the rights of that Milo (who i dont really care about) but also the right of any of those that showed up to listen. I think all those people that were busy infringing on others rights should have been appropriately punished, given a night in jail, and made to pay for any property damage they caused.
If your ideas cannot withstand the court of public opinion, then your ideas are bad and do not deserve a public stage. This has always been, and always will be, simply due to common sense.
His "rights" were not violated. He took a public stage, and the public didn't like what he had to say, and he ran away.
Comedians get heckled. That's not violating their "rights". And the skilled comedians who actually have talent and strong ideas, can turn the tables on hecklers. Milo doesn't have that intellectual skill or integrity in actually believing what he says, so he turned tail and ran like a little bitch instead of inviting his hecklers on stage to debate on equal footing with him.
- If your ideas cannot withstand the court of public opinion, then your ideas are bad and do not deserve a public stage. This has always been, and always will be, simply due to common sense.
So according to that statement gay rights are bad idea in Russia and women's rights are a bad idea in the Middle East. I disagree. I think the court of public opinion can be wrong quite often and should not be used to judge what speech can be said.
Can you link to a source that he was forced to leave by an armed intruder please? I have not heard about that.
My understanding is that the event was opened and Milo took the stage. People were there to listen and he spoke. Outside, a socialist protester was shot by a Milo, Trump and NRA supporter who claimed on FB that he was punched and his MAGA hat was stolen an entire hour before he shot someone. And he has not been charged. Yet.
I am not convinced that the shooter was even really there to listen as, like may others, he could have spent that time inside the hall instead of outside protesting and posting to FB about being assaulted and asking Milos for a new MAGA hat.
I am also pretty sure there was no governmental restriction on MY's right to speak. He spoke. He chose to end it at the time of his choosing. No governmental authority prevented or forced that. If the "tough guy" instigator can not handle the consequences when he intentionally foments the foreseeable backlash (for the sole purpose of attention whoring IMO) , he has no one to blame but himself. He is a "tough guy" that likes to play the victim.
I was thinking of the UC berkly violence but I guess something similar happend in Davis https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/14/us/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-davis-speech-canceled/index.html?client=safari
In both cases protesters use violence to shut down speech. If we accept that as normal and acceptable without punishment of the violent individuals it sets a horrible precedent. Today it might be some alt right wignut in Berkeley but tomorrow it might be a BLM speaker, Muslim speaker or an abortion clinic in Alabama. The point is protecion of speech should be grey and only in cases of clear and immediate danger should it be allowed to be suppress.
A lot of Milo's rhetoric calls for action that leads to the mistreatment of a lot of different people. While I don't agree that violence is the answer to things. Milo is openly racist, sexist, and xenophobic. That wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't using his speech as a call to action for those who follow him. Same with Spencer, who actively looks to uproot my life, and my family with his rhetoric. Milo, Spencer, and people like him are looking to incite violence against me. In the same way the riots should have been stopped, I don't think they should be given a platform to share their ideals because they are helping in normalizing violence, aggression, and mistreatment of minority groups.
My problem is we consider stuff like Milo and Spencer's work as protected speech. It isn't protected speech in any right. I'm all for the discourse of ideals, but when your ideals say that people like me don't have a place to express my ideals, when they preach the suppression of my voice, and my livelihood I don't label that as speech that deserves protecting. I'm very much in agreement with what the author says. Milo and Spencer preach hate, suppression, harassment, and in some cases violence that shouldn't be allowed. If it is allowed then you can't be angry when people become violent because that is literally what they want, its what they preach about every moment of everyday.
- I'm very much in agreement with what the author says. Milo and Spencer preach hate, suppression, harassment, and in some cases violence that shouldn't be allowed.
Generally the courts in the US have put a very limited threshold on what sort of speech is NOT protected for this very reason.
It's very easy. Does the person take part in actively harassing, harming, destroying the lives of others with their actions and speech? Milo whatever his name is, does that pretty regularly. He incites his following to active suppression, and in some cases takes part in it himself. Thats no longer protected speech.
The intention remains completely different. MLK's intention was to create a new stage for colored people to voice their opinions in public discourse where none previously existed. Its present in his rhetoric. Milo and Spencer are working to tear down public discourse by suppressing voices across race, gender, sexuality, and religion. Those topics are also present in their rhetoric.
If you actually listen to what they have to say, they're not doing anything to "tear down public discourse," they're actually trying to introduce more (highly controversial) ideas into that discourse. It is actually the liberal establishment that is acting to shut them down, either through tactics like no-platforming or otherwise disrupting their speaking engagements.
A peaceful ethnic cleansing is a new and interesting idea that deserves discussion? Really? Me having to defend why I deserve to not only have a seat at the table, but live in the country I was born in? Normalizing behavior that actively works to silence my voice is absurd, and counter to freedom of speech. Milo Yiann-whatever uses his platform to do shit like OPENLY mock a transgender kid on stage? To dox and verbally harass people from every stage of life? I've actually heard the dude speak in public, and was promptly told by a few people in the crowd I should go back to my own country and I'm from fucking Puerto Rico a fucking US territory. Liberals at the talk were openly mocked when asking questions, and made fun of by the surrounding crowds. Wtf is that? That's freedom of speech? I actually left that talk because I physically didn't feel safe there. That's not silencing my freedom of speech? By normalizing contempt/hatred/etc. for others you are actively working to silence those groups. Sorry I don't find that defensible its very easy to see where the line is drawn for me.
No right is absolute. Never has been. I have always been a fan of the free marketplace of ideas but lately: 1) the "alt-right" seems to have been energized with brigades of people obsessed with lying and manipulating discussion forums; they openly organize and strategize on places like stormfront or voat and overwhelm other forums like reddit (I have not seen that organization from opposing voices) and 2) I am too old to bother to exchange with or counter that shit. So they "win" I guess, as long as extremists are energized and organized and people are stupid enough to buy into it. Lots of speech does not mean good speech.
p.s. I could not even begin to count how many dozens of times I have posted that comic in response to people being butt hurt about being banned.
Nuanced would be a good word. I dunno if it was what i was originally looking for but it's basically right.
K.
Small point of clarification from the linked article.
Yiannopoulos did not 'incite a fierce campaign of doxxing and harassment.' Jones got into a spat with a known Trump supporting firebrand, and couldn't deal with the trollstorm that comes from engaging with such people. Yiannopoulos did not directly order people to go after her, because he didn't have to do it. She made herself a target and continually made herself a bigger one by continuing to engage with him. She broke one of the cardinal rules of the internet, don't feed the trolls. If you are a grownup who wants to use the internet, you must learn how to not feed trolls. She chose to do so and blamed Milo for the fallout.
I'm not saying he's guiltless, he could have stopped replying to her at any point and he chose not to do so. But he didn't doxx her, (How do you doxx a public personality anyway?) at most he said mean things to her, which people do all the time on twitter.
- How do you doxx a public personality anyway?
The same way you Doxx anyone else, really.
- you post their Drivers License and passport on a hacked version of that person's website. This actually happened in this situation.
- You post their private home address
- You post their private phone number
- you post their private email
- you post their real name If they perform under a pseudonym (like many hollywood actors do because of weird name rules or because they want to distance themselves from famous family)
I can't specifically comment on that situation. However I hope you don't disregard this article just because you disagree with Serano's reading of the situation.
Frankly the more i've been reading up the Jones/Yiannopoulos situation, the more I am inclined to believe that if Yiannopoulos didn't incite the doxxing, he definitely fanned the flames and made the situation worse on purpose. Then again, He believes that people like myself are worthy of derision So I don't really care to believe in the better angels of his nature.
Y'know, I had a huge response written, and I was all fired up, because the experience Jones had is functionally identical to the experience of anyone who is not a white man on the internet. She didn't have to feed the trolls - She was a black woman who was in a movie they didn't like on principle alone and that was enough. Whether she fought back or not, the result is the same, so one might as well fight back.
But then I realized - I'm not even sure you really read the article, because you're doing exactly what Serano (and Karl Popper before her, in 1949) argues is the wrong way to treat these people.
I read the article that you posted. I wish that its idea of "just ignore them and they will go away" was a viable strategy that worked, but it's never panned out to be true in any situation I've seen, and Popper, who was writing as a Viennese Jew who was on the ground as the NSDAP was consolidating power, also seems to agree that it doesn't work either. These people aren't just trolls, and they aren't on the internet where one can commit hate speech with impunity.
Serano herself speaks from experience, and I speak from my own. Perhaps you remember Grendel? We tried to ignore him so he would go away, but it wasn't enough. We basically voted, by the use of Hush, mute, and other functions, and made it so that he no longer had a useable platform. We judged that his intolerant speech was not to be allowed in our community. We had to make the site basically unusable for him. There are now new user tools that exist specifically because of his presence here - that's the opposite of "ignoring".
anyways, whatever.
- by the use of Hush, mute, and other functions
That's exactly my point. We ignored the troll, stopped engaging with him and he went away.
I read the article, and it doesn't satisfy. 'Punching Nazis' will not stop Drumpf from getting re-elected in 2020, and in fact, may lead directly to it.
- That's exactly my point. We ignored the troll, stopped engaging with him and he went away.
But that's not all that happens when we use those functions. By the coding on this site, if enough people take those actions that person's links stop appearing on the blank front page. We didn't just ignore the troll. We specifically took actions that would also prevent that person's work from being seen by people who are new or unregistered users on this site.
- I read the article, and it doesn't satisfy. 'Punching Nazis' will not stop Drumpf from getting re-elected in 2020, and in fact, may lead directly to it.
and Ignoring them will lead to... what, exactly? There's never been purely peaceful protest that did anything. Even Ghandi's non violence and civil disobedience movement had elements of extreme violence being perpetrated around it - violent protester-police clashes, the INA.
This is a semantic problem.
I say 'We used our self-moderation tools to shut the door on a troll and ignore him. We ignored him and he went away.'
You say 'We didn't ignore him, we reacted to offensive things and took steps to minimize our contact with offensive things which is not ignoring him.'
Freedom of speech lets you knock on someones door and say 'I want to talk about these things, this is what I believe about these things.' It protects a person from being violently assaulted or imprisoned for speaking. It doesn't protect them from someone closing the door.
Refusing to engage, making it impossible for the troll in question to engage is the functional equivalent of ignoring it.
I can't say who the 'right' targets are for violence. But I can say in the affirmative that giving Milo Yiannopoulos of all people the moral high ground is asking for more trouble. Engaging with him in any manner is asking for more trouble.
Definitely, 100%, demonstrably not a semantic argument. Semantics didn't suddenly make those features appear. Many requests, fights between users, and then some hard coding work by several dedicated people working for free brought them to you. It was and remains a very active process.
I am saying that there is no practical difference between hush/mute/filtering someone and just outright ignoring them. It's lovely that we have tools in place to allow people to decide who is and isn't allowed to participate in their discussions. But there's not much difference in my mind between that, and saying 'I will not be paying any attention to what you are trying to say, bye.'
I'm not denigrating the hard work put into the site.
- You say 'We didn't ignore him, we reacted to offensive things and took steps to minimize our contact with offensive things which is not ignoring him.'
Actually, what I'm saying is that we took steps that prevented not just us, but other people from seeing his content, specifically. That's the difference.