"Cancel Culture" 3

[Kalbear]

So to restate my thesis:

• I fundamentally oppose the notion that "the solution to bad speech is more good speech", or "exposure to the light is the best disinfectant". 
• I believe that the most effective way to combat bad speech is to deplatform and ostracize the users of that speech. 
• I do not believe that all speech is valid or fair, and that one must give it room to speak because restricting it would cause some slippery slope.
• I believe that rational debate with people rarely changes any witness's minds, will often give legitimacy to the other side's views (often based on how charming that person is), and almost never changes the person's mind who is in debate.
• I believe that emotional connection, personal connection, attraction and empathy change views far more than reason. 
• I also do not believe that deplatforming speech requires much in the way of government intervention one way or another, and things like cancel culture have very little bearing on governmental rights of free speech. 

[Altherion]

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

• I fundamentally oppose the notion that "the solution to bad speech is more good speech", or "exposure to the light is the best disinfectant". 
• I believe that the most effective way to combat bad speech is to deplatform and ostracize the users of that speech. 

As I told sologdin earlier in one of these threads, there is solid experimental evidence that silencing people merely creates the illusion of winning the debate. The Soviet Union and, after the 1940s, the other members of Warsaw Pact went to considerable lengths to root out what the local elites considered to be "bad speech" and they had means at their disposal which are considerably more effective than deplatforming and ostracism. Despite the fact that this attack on "bad speech" went on for literally decades, the "bad speech" came back with a vengeance the moment the coercive measures were removed.

45 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

• I do not believe that all speech is valid or fair, and that one must give it room to speak because restricting it would cause some slippery slope.

So who gets to say which speech is valid or fair? Shall we leave it to the massive transnational corporations or are we going back to "whoever isn't shouted down by a mob" or perhaps all the way to "might makes right"?

Your position is a dangerous one (even to yourself!) and, fortunately for everyone, it's mostly not the state of things in most Western countries. Right now, the speech you favor is mostly consistent with the allowed speech, but there's no guarantee that this will always be the case. Unless you're very good at adapting to the times, chances are you'll be grateful for the free speech advocates at some point in your life.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Altherion said:

As I told sologdin earlier in one of these threads, there is solid experimental evidence that silencing people merely creates the illusion of winning the debate. The Soviet Union and, after the 1940s, the other members of Warsaw Pact went to considerable lengths to root out what the local elites considered to be "bad speech" and they had means at their disposal which are considerably more effective than deplatforming and ostracism. Despite the fact that this attack on "bad speech" went on for literally decades, the "bad speech" came back with a vengeance the moment the coercive measures were removed.

So...don't remove the coercive measures?

5 minutes ago, Altherion said:

So who gets to say which speech is valid or fair? Shall we leave it to the massive transnational corporations or are we going back to "whoever isn't shouted down by a mob" or perhaps all the way to "might makes right"? 

At some point your society is going to make a decision for you, one way or another, and if you don't do that chances are good the group whose platform is 'kill those other guys' is going to win out.

5 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Your position is a dangerous one (even to yourself!) and, fortunately for everyone, it's mostly not the state of things in most Western countries. Right now, the speech you favor is mostly consistent with the allowed speech, but there's no guarantee that this will always be the case. Unless you're very good at adapting to the times, chances are you'll be grateful for the free speech advocates at some point in your life.

Everyone is far better at adapting than they think they will be, and fears adapting more than they should.

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

So...don't remove the coercive measures?

[Kalbear]

I mean, the point isn't winning the debate. I don't care to win a debate against Nazis. I care that their influence isn't spread and that they don't coopt people into their cause more than they would. And they will - there's no end to angry stupid people wanting to blame others for their problems. No one went bankrupt betting on people hating Jews. But you can limit the damage.

[A wilding]

35 minutes ago, Altherion said:

As I told sologdin earlier in one of these threads, there is solid experimental evidence that silencing people merely creates the illusion of winning the debate. The Soviet Union and, after the 1940s, the other members of Warsaw Pact went to considerable lengths to root out what the local elites considered to be "bad speech" and they had means at their disposal which are considerably more effective than deplatforming and ostracism. Despite the fact that this attack on "bad speech" went on for literally decades, the "bad speech" came back with a vengeance the moment the coercive measures were removed.

Two points:

In your example it is the state that was deplatforming speech. Not the same as people choosing to do so.

And in my opinion it failed in the long term because the speech they permitted was so obviously at odds with reality that they ultimately failed to hold the line and suppress other speech

[Altherion]

54 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So...don't remove the coercive measures?

Brilliant. Why didn't anyone else ever think of that? Oh wait, that's exactly what they tried to do, but the more you coerce people, the angrier they become and the harder it is to keep coercing them.

57 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

At some point your society is going to make a decision for you, one way or another, and if you don't do that chances are good the group whose platform is 'kill those other guys' is going to win out.

You didn't actually answer the question: who, specifically, gets to decide what speech is acceptable? Also, silencing people dramatically increases the viability of violent platforms because violence is also a means of communication and one that is quite difficult to silence.

31 minutes ago, A wilding said:

In your example it is the state that was deplatforming speech. Not the same as people choosing to do so.

It's not the people here either -- the people who have heard of cancel culture overwhelmingly oppose it. The deplatforming is done by corporations, universities and the media. It's true that this is not the same as the state doing it, but the main difference is that it's not as effective.

35 minutes ago, A wilding said:

And in my opinion it failed in the long term because the speech they permitted was so obviously at odds with reality that they ultimately failed to hold the line and suppress other speech

All ideologies are at least partly at odds with reality. The positions being pushed by cancel culture are no different and in fact in recent times have grown somewhat more at odds with physical reality which is partly what caused the split within the left on free speech.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Brilliant. Why didn't anyone else ever think of that? Oh wait, that's exactly what they tried to do, but the more you coerce people, the angrier they become and the harder it is to keep coercing them. 

Depends on the kind of coercing. 

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

You didn't actually answer the question: who, specifically, gets to decide what speech is acceptable? Also, silencing people dramatically increases the viability of violent platforms because violence is also a means of communication and one that is quite difficult to silence.

Society decides, as always. Again, democracies around the world are functioning just fine without having unlimited free speech laws. Your slippery slope is invalid. 

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's not the people here either -- the people who have heard of cancel culture overwhelmingly oppose it.

The people who heard about fair housing for AA people after MLK's speech were also overwhelmingly against it. So?

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The deplatforming is done by corporations, universities and the media. It's true that this is not the same as the state doing it, but the main difference is that it's not as effective.

Doesn't need to be as effective. Being more effective is fine. 

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

All ideologies are at least partly at odds with reality. The positions being pushed by cancel culture are no different and in fact in recent times have grown somewhat more at odds with physical reality which is partly what caused the split within the left on free speech.

What positions are being pushed by 'cancel culture'? What 'split' are you talking about? 

[Knight Of Winter]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

At some point your society is going to make a decision for you

And what if your society happens to be 1950s Soviet Union? Or 1930s Germany? Or, less extremely - present day Saudi Arabia? What happens when these societies, as per your instructions, start shaming and ostracizing voices they deem dangerous? What happens - both to these "dangerous voices" in question and to society itself?

Your ideas, which you outlined here:

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

So to restate my thesis:

theoretically could work. They could, in abstract, lead to better and fairer society - but only under two conditions:

1) that you (and people like you) are the ones in power, and not some other, shall we say less intelligent and moral group
2) that your certainty in quality of your values is so high that you're confident that "dangerous voices" can offer nothing new of value. That they're redundant at best or frightening at worst.

I'm willing to bet that likelihood of these two happening simultaneously is pretty low - and not worth it. 

[Galactus]

And what if your society happens to be 1950s Soviet Union? Or 1930s Germany? Or, less extremely - present day Saudi Arabia? What happens when these societies, as per your instructions, start shaming and ostracizing voices they deem dangerous? What happens - both to these "dangerous voices" in question and to society itself?

This happens anyway, is the thing. The existence of rights is largely a chimera because in themselves they do nothing. If people are willing to ignore them it doesen't matter if they exist on paper.

Remember, the USSR theoretically had a full catalogue of human rights. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Knight Of Winter said:

And what if your society happens to be 1950s Soviet Union? Or 1930s Germany? Or, less extremely - present day Saudi Arabia? What happens when these societies, as per your instructions, start shaming and ostracizing voices they deem dangerous? What happens - both to these "dangerous voices" in question and to society itself?

The same thing that happens everywhere - they get changed and ostracized. As an example: in most European countries images of violence are heavily regulated. Not in the US though. 

But really, comparing shaming and ostracism to the USSR is weak. No one is talking about deplatforming at a governmental level or making laws about it. What happens to those dangerous voices is that they largely go away, or become fringe and sulk for a while. But letting them fester and keep talking doesn't fix it; it allows things like Trump to rise. 

1 minute ago, Knight Of Winter said:

theoretically could work. They could, in abstract, lead to better and fairer society - but only under two conditions:

1) that you (and people like you) are the ones in power, and not some other, shall we say less intelligent and moral group
2) that your certainty in quality of your values is so high that you're confident that "dangerous voices" can offer nothing new of value. That they're redundant at best or frightening at worst.

I'm willing to bet that likelihood of these two happening simultaneously is pretty low - and not worth it. 

Tell that to Canada, Germany, New Zealand and Japan. Hell, tell that to most European nations. Are they better or worse off than the US right now?

Mostly, these things don't have to be controlled by the government (largely). Deplatforming is not a government requirement. But even if it were - how hard is it to say something like 'any speech which advocates for the physical or cultural extermination of another group is not protected by free speech laws and can be considered a violent act'? 

[sologdin]

split within the left on free speech.

no doubt.  Though i am not willing to own as a leftwing doctrine the private arrogation of the question of what debates shall be permitted to proceed, others controvert that the question should be a matter of public determination--and this is itself a question subject to reasonable dispute.

insofar as freedom of expression may nevertheless be terminated lawfully as a matter of private property rights, through capitalist employment relations, and other non-governmental arrangements, boycotts as part of civil society are consequently in accord with the bourgeois order and are therefore not a radical form, through which flow minimal revolutionary content.

[HoodedCrow]

Justin Trudeau said “ Go Home and Stay Home!” There was a lot more helpful advice.

We have a much better covid picture. If you want even nicer, listen to Bonnie Henry. It may not hold, but we are half open.

American friends are upset, sad, embarrassed, scared. Let’s get the orange menace out if we can. Even right wing friends were done after the injecting disinfectants thing. 

[Week]

 

[Darth Richard II]

20 hours ago, karaddin said:

 

As absurd as it sounds its pretty much this. Its the prevailing obsession amongst white upper middle class British feminists. And I don't use the word obsession accidentally, they put a lot of effort into recruiting their peers into the same mindset. The religious right in America recognised this and starting pumping money across the Atlantic to encourage it as part of their culture war.

It reminds me of the anti vax movement a bit, where a bunch of "celebrities" bought into some bullshit science that was discredited and if you tried to call them on it they would stomp their feet and scream about free speech and just yell NO NO NO WAAAH over and over.

[Kalbear]

Heh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/24/homestylefamilyrecipescom-will-not-cave-cancel-culture/#click=https://t.co/M1N6MOiXfb

[Galactus]

Paywalled. 

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Tell that to Canada, Germany, New Zealand and Japan. Hell, tell that to most European nations. Are they better or worse off than the US right now?

I'd be curious to look at the correlation between "true democracies" (which the US isn't) and Free Speech. I'd bet there isn't much of one.

Look, I get the desire to want to be able to debate people out of believing their nonsense, but you can only watch it not fucking work except for one time in several hundred until you realize that it just isn't effective. Heck if you go to some of my older posts you can probably watch my feelings go from "debate is the best" to "okay the main douchebag won't be convinced, but maybe it'll make the audience think" to "fuck it I just want to make fun of these people."

[Altherion]

30 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Society decides, as always. Again, democracies around the world are functioning just fine without having unlimited free speech laws. Your slippery slope is invalid. 

You are just going to keep evading this question, aren't you? "Society" consists of everyone -- including the people who would say all sorts of things you dislike. Who, specifically, gets to decide which speech is acceptable? You will never get a unanimous opinion out of society so usually what happens is that those with power decide... until the masses have had enough at which point there is a period of time during which almost nobody is well off. This is why in the US (and to a considerable extent in many other countries too), a fairly broad (though far from unlimited) range of ideas is tolerated except in times of crisis.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Doesn't need to be as effective. Being more effective is fine. 

How about less effective? Because it's definitely less effective.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

What positions are being pushed by 'cancel culture'? What 'split' are you talking about? 

The split I am talking about is between the people who wrote the original free speech letter (Chomsky, Rowling et al) and the people who attacked this letter (some even wrote a counter-letter). All of these are people of the left. Regarding the positions, there is, for example, the set Rowling was complaining about which brought the ire of the cancel culture crowd upon her (though with little effect -- she's too rich and too powerful).

[Darth Richard II]

No way is every signer on that letter on the left.