![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mprotsenkoJust 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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 2020-07-27 10:34 pm (UTC)> ...- критерій Поппера. ...
На тому і стою :) Побачимо, додам лише, що буду радий помилитися багато в чому. З іншого боку, є ще сценарій, коли я помиляюся в неправильний бік, і радикалізація лівого крила стане занадто сильною, як в страшилках правих змі. Такий розвиток подій на перших порах підсилить лівий рух, але якщо це буде скочування в реальне затикання ротів, силами закону, а не лише активістів, і в реально соціалістично державницький підхід, то це буде справді погано, з таким я в принципі не зможу погодитися. Я думаю, що це дурні страшилки і нічого такого бути не може, але я помилявся і раніше, думав, зокрема, що республіканці не докотяться до Трампа, а воно он як.
(no subject)
Date: 2020-07-28 01:09 am (UTC)Камон, друже - це ВЖЕ трапляється. Тим, хто пропагандує BDS - вже затикають рота силами закону, під загрозою фінансових санкцій. Іноземні нон-профіти не мають права навіть розповідати про аборти, бо інакше їм відріжуть фінансування, знову ж, силами закону. Сенатор Коттон учора запропонував застосовувати фінансові санкції до шкіл, які вивчають історію рабства, використовуючи матеріали Project 1619. (Плюс він додав, що рабство було "необхідним злом".)
Так що якщо тебе дійсно хвилює затикання ротів силами закону - то тут виникає проблема. З одного боку - страхи перед уявною лівою диктатурою. З іншого боку - тиша на тему проблеми, яка ВЖЕ ІСНУЄ справа. Існує давно, і постійно погіршується.
Я розумію, що ти це не навмисно, але, як на мене для дискусії in good faith потрібен адекватний масштаб поточного ландшафту проблем, а такий підхід, кхм, цьому не допомагає.
Це ж не той результат, якого ти хочеш добитися, так?
Нема питань, я розумію!