5 ms·

But surely "not really constructive" and "muddy the water" implies a judgment—a pre-judgment—that the speech itself ought to be allowed to face. If he speaks an

But surely "not really constructive" and "muddy the water" implies a judgment—a pre-judgment—that the speech itself ought to be allowed to face. If he speaks and his ideas are "not really constructive" and "muddy the water", then the listeners can decide what to do with the ideas, both within their own minds and in conversation afterward. If he's not allowed to speak, then the people preventing the speech are enforcing their own opinions by violence. This behavior actually implies that his ideas are of more merit, because if the ideas were not really constructive or entirely lacked value, then the listeners could dismiss them thoughtfully. Or could it be that modern students don't have the ability to think carefully about or make good judgments about speech?

komali2 3y ago
> a pre-judgment In the case of Milo, this is a fair pre-judgement. Are we expected to ignore a person's entire corpus of work and treat them as an untouched field of snow every time they present themselves? We're to "rehash" their position every time they speak? That seems silly. People like Milo form their careers on rage-bait. Shouting him down is the same as simply banning a troll or banning flame-bait on forums. For the others, for the most part it's the same - reactionary speakers, especially in the USA, are mostly uninterested in good faith debate. They leverage rhetorical fallacy and outright disinformation to muddy the waters. See: the Trump election conspiracies, the antivax movement, the rewriting of the cultural history of gender fluidity to attack trans people's existence, etc etc etc.
- putzdown 3y ago
  It’s not clear to me that either political “side” has the corner on these faults. But even if they did, why not allow audiences to make their own judgments? Universities don’t have to provide auditoriums or catering. They shouldn’t have to provide extra security, if free speech is honored by students. Why can’t listeners simply walk away? I truly don’t understand.
  - komali2 3y ago
    Conversely, why aren't you respecting the free speech rights of students to speak out against people sharing hateful ideologies on their campus? (Ben Shapiro coming to spread transphobia for example) For decades we've tolerated anti-woman's-rights activists shoving pictures of medical procedures into people's faces, and preachers telling students they're going to go to hell for being gay. That's ok, but protesting a transphobe isn't? I truly don't understand the double standard. Just kidding, I get it. Leftists face a double standard when it comes to free speech. Dare to speak with your colleagues and organize a union? The president himself will order you to shut up and get to work. Stand up and shout at a transphobe who is speaking through a sound system your tuition pays for? Get escorted out by a security detail you're also paying for. Shove fetus pictures into people's faces? No problem! Strap on swastikas and March through town? Police escort! Take a knee in front of a slaver statue? Pepper spray! The article is crocodile tears.
    - hotdogscout 3y ago
      >Shove fetus pictures into people's faces? No problem! Strap on swastikas and March through town? Police escort! If it's really no problem try doing it. You're not being realistic about the consequences of being disruptive.
      - komali2 3y ago
        I'm not being realistic? You speaking from personal experience? Because I've been to many, many, protests, and I think I have a very good idea of the consequences of being disruptive, with the literal scars to show for it. I watched proud boys march with police escort. I dealt with people shaking fetus pictures in my face the third Friday of every month for four years when I'm just trying to get to the library. I witnessed firsthand the system's indifference or hostility to leftist protesting: the violence and arrests we faced at peaceful BLM sit-ins when proud boys meanwhile are allowed to walk around armed and shouting racial slurs at people. What personal experience are you drawing on to deny what I'm describing? What evidence?
        3y ago
cauch 3y ago
Do you have examples of people attempting to deplatform someone who has not expressed the content of their speech before? From what I can see, deplatforming attempts are in very large majority done towards people who already have demonstrated the quality of their ideas. > because if the ideas were not really constructive or entirely lacked value, then the listeners could dismiss them thoughtfully. If it was true, then racism, populism, or prejudice would not exist at all, because all of that is based on flawed logic that can be easily demonstrated. The reality is that intelligent debate LOSES in front of convenient fearmongering. Not because people are idiot, but simply mathematically: fearmongering is way easier and way more convincing than rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law > Or could it be that modern students don't have the ability to think carefully about or make good judgments about speech? I would say that maybe modern students are smarter than before and go further than the naive logic of "if it's incorrect, the rational side will win", which has been demonstrated incorrect again and again in history.
- bzebb 3y ago
  [flagged]

komali2 3y ago

> a pre-judgment In the case of Milo, this is a fair pre-judgement. Are we expected to ignore a person's entire corpus of work and treat them as an untouched field of snow every time they present themselves? We're to "rehash" their position every time they speak? That seems silly. People like Milo form their careers on rage-bait. Shouting him down is the same as simply banning a troll or banning flame-bait on forums. For the others, for the most part it's the same - reactionary speakers, especially in the USA, are mostly uninterested in good faith debate. They leverage rhetorical fallacy and outright disinformation to muddy the waters. See: the Trump election conspiracies, the antivax movement, the rewriting of the cultural history of gender fluidity to attack trans people's existence, etc etc etc.

putzdown 3y ago
It’s not clear to me that either political “side” has the corner on these faults. But even if they did, why not allow audiences to make their own judgments? Universities don’t have to provide auditoriums or catering. They shouldn’t have to provide extra security, if free speech is honored by students. Why can’t listeners simply walk away? I truly don’t understand.
- komali2 3y ago
  Conversely, why aren't you respecting the free speech rights of students to speak out against people sharing hateful ideologies on their campus? (Ben Shapiro coming to spread transphobia for example) For decades we've tolerated anti-woman's-rights activists shoving pictures of medical procedures into people's faces, and preachers telling students they're going to go to hell for being gay. That's ok, but protesting a transphobe isn't? I truly don't understand the double standard. Just kidding, I get it. Leftists face a double standard when it comes to free speech. Dare to speak with your colleagues and organize a union? The president himself will order you to shut up and get to work. Stand up and shout at a transphobe who is speaking through a sound system your tuition pays for? Get escorted out by a security detail you're also paying for. Shove fetus pictures into people's faces? No problem! Strap on swastikas and March through town? Police escort! Take a knee in front of a slaver statue? Pepper spray! The article is crocodile tears.
  - hotdogscout 3y ago
    >Shove fetus pictures into people's faces? No problem! Strap on swastikas and March through town? Police escort! If it's really no problem try doing it. You're not being realistic about the consequences of being disruptive.
    - komali2 3y ago
      I'm not being realistic? You speaking from personal experience? Because I've been to many, many, protests, and I think I have a very good idea of the consequences of being disruptive, with the literal scars to show for it. I watched proud boys march with police escort. I dealt with people shaking fetus pictures in my face the third Friday of every month for four years when I'm just trying to get to the library. I witnessed firsthand the system's indifference or hostility to leftist protesting: the violence and arrests we faced at peaceful BLM sit-ins when proud boys meanwhile are allowed to walk around armed and shouting racial slurs at people. What personal experience are you drawing on to deny what I'm describing? What evidence?
      - 3y ago

cauch 3y ago

Do you have examples of people attempting to deplatform someone who has not expressed the content of their speech before? From what I can see, deplatforming attempts are in very large majority done towards people who already have demonstrated the quality of their ideas. > because if the ideas were not really constructive or entirely lacked value, then the listeners could dismiss them thoughtfully. If it was true, then racism, populism, or prejudice would not exist at all, because all of that is based on flawed logic that can be easily demonstrated. The reality is that intelligent debate LOSES in front of convenient fearmongering. Not because people are idiot, but simply mathematically: fearmongering is way easier and way more convincing than rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law > Or could it be that modern students don't have the ability to think carefully about or make good judgments about speech? I would say that maybe modern students are smarter than before and go further than the naive logic of "if it's incorrect, the rational side will win", which has been demonstrated incorrect again and again in history.

bzebb 3y ago
[flagged]