mprotsenko | "Illiberal Left" and good faith discussions

Just thinking aloud about "cancel culture", "attack on a freedom of speech", and "angry mobs of leftists bullying academics".

Are there progressives who would like to silence their opponents? Of course. Are there topics that are not discussed? Yes, such as eugenics.

Are those topics not being discussed out of malice or because there is a clear and present danger of misusing this discussion? IMO, it is the latter.

Do you want to argue about DNA differences that explain 1-2% of mean IQ difference between different races? You should ask yourself "why?" Just because you feel like it? Well, that is a good reason if you discuss a neutral question like a butterfly wings' pigmentation. On the other hand, when your argument is abused by racists, supremacists and the whole other bunch of actually evil folks (and it is going to be, we still see zombie ideas from 70-ies and 80-ies that have been debunked time after time after time!) - it does harm. Actual harm to real people.

You lend your scientific and personal credibility to their cause. They can start quoting you - "Look, even Dr. So-and-so agrees with us!" They will use it to recruit more followers - and that's not a paranoia. That happens right here, right now. (It doesn't always involve hood-wearing, cross-burning hoodlums. Sometimes it is just your regular neighbors, who think they are not racist but "hey look, there is some science behind some of the claims.")

You don't think that's a problem worth mentioning and you cannot be held responsible for what those people think and do anyway? Well, then you cannot really discuss "leftists' issues" in good faith. If you decide to pick on one side's smaller-scale problem while totally ignoring much larger issues on the other side - you're not having a good faith discussion. You are shifting attention.

That may not be even your intention - but that's the impact you're making!

The example of a person who manages to avoid that is Prof. Chomsky. He rubs me the wrong way personally and I vehemently disagree with many of his positions. Yet, when it comes to protecting freedom of speech - he is an equal opportunity person. He argues both against "cancel culture" and against those who are trying to silence BDS supporters and Holocaust deniers.

Here comes the catch - fighting for the right of speech of Holocaust deniers and BDS supporters puts your career in danger. And speaking against "cancel culture" does not. Not actually. If it did then many of us would have been fired long time ago.

If you choose to attack "cancel culture" and keep your silence on BDS ban (and other issues) - you're not really fighting for a complete freedom of speech. You're okay with keeping "bad" voices silent. (So do I - I don't think that Radio of the Thousands Hills is a good idea!) Yet, you're picking up on those who are safe to pick up on, not on the biggest or the most serious problem with freedom of speech.

Having said that - I would like to hear ideas on new ways to return to good faith discussions. I don't have a good solution and I would love to hear your suggestions.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

lm644

True. I would like to hear those condemning James Bennet’s resignation to express their indignation re. Blake Neff’s firing from the Fox News. If they don’t, then it’s not about freedom of speech - not really. It’s all about where you draw the line dividing acceptable and non-acceptable; everybody does it.

From:

malyj_gorgan

Responding in English, though let me know if you’re OK if I still use Ukrainian, I enjoy it much more.
Good post. I agree with the individual points you make and with the overall message/issue, though strongly disagree with the middle-scale logical connections.

Item 1: comparing topics of eugenics and statistical analysts of differences between races is bad cheating. Eugenics is evil in itself (unless we talk about breading chickens or wannabe royal blood lines), statistical population research is not. True, it can be used by some to justify racism or whatever other bad ideas. But that is no reason to silence it, it’s like to censoring genetics or evolution theory discussions, because they were used to justify eugenics. Well, both genetics and evolution theory have been censored for ideological reasons from two edges of ideological spectrum. So, I would say this example underlines the fact that we should censor as few topics as possible.
Item 2: you are right on past issues with censoring certain other kinds of speech, like Holocaust denial, . And you right to use the past tense in pointing out asymmetries there. What happens now is an attempt to either replace one set of taboos with another, or plain expand the list of things one cannot say. Both are bad even though motivations might be ok. Those fair motivations are a good reason to differentiate between levels of risky speech:
challenging Holocaust and doubting affirmative action.

+100 on the loss of ability to lead a constructive discussion. Nice example of Chomsky: I also strongly dislike him, but really like some of his argumentative freedom and consistency. I do have to say, that taken in his entirety, Chomsky may be about as worth discussing as any serious proponent of, say, eugenics: one with questionable set of underlying values, yet elegant ideology built on top, who should be heard if only because that ideology is popular with enough people. (I don’t want to discuss specific chomskys or bannons or whoever, just want to point out that in order to stay civilised, such discussion has to be either about their underlying values or about specific arguments within the ideologies, disregarding the underlying moral values. Not both.)

But all of the above are minor comments, the main question of the post, how to have a good faith discussion, has a simple solution. Well, at least, the first step to the solution: one should avoid dichotomising ones opponents right away into set in stone ideologies, allow dissent or just lack of position on some issues or details, then discuss what is left. ‘Cause either side likes to declare anyone who is not fully aligned too radical to even talk to (Based on observation: 3/4 of my opponents think me radical liberal leftist, 1/4 thinks me a radical right winger, whereas I have only one position that is somewhat radical, and it has nothing to do with the US)

From:

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags