I mean, it's complicated -- is "harassment" free speech? what about the heckler's veto? Should certain communities who've traditionally had to put up with a lot of shit be shielded from future shit? And what the heck do we do about social media?
But I dunno, it's not THAT complicated, and I think my liberal "team" has REALLY lost the plot…
I mean, it's complicated -- is "harassment" free speech? what about the heckler's veto? Should certain communities who've traditionally had to put up with a lot of shit be shielded from future shit? And what the heck do we do about social media?
But I dunno, it's not THAT complicated, and I think my liberal "team" has REALLY lost the plot on this issue, pushing blatantly illiberal ideas. It's just so easy to argue "the other side" is pushing "offensive" ideas and they should be censored, and it's also really easy to defend the idea you personally don't find offensive. But how is that helpful? Isn't that just two sides screaming at each other? And bystanders think, "They're both being hypocritical," which they often are.
We need a system where we can debate and discuss without people immediately pressing for censorship. Even if "de-platforming" worked, which it doesn't, I'd probably be against it just on principle. Is Trump less powerful now that he's off Twitter? Or did widespread exposure to his racist Twitter insanity actually make him LESS powerful at the time?
I think the bar should be very very high to "censor" something, and "censor" should be broadly defined to mean: anyone, not just the government, deliberating suppressing an idea you don't like. Sunshine is the best disinfectant! But it will always be messy and ugly at times, it just fricking will. That's life in a liberal democracy!
As for kids, the best lesson to teach them is how to deal with "offensive" ideas, exposing them as the silly lies they are, not telling them that words and idea are plutonium that can literally damage you. We're all much stronger than that, or at least we should be.
Gosh, it's almost like I have strong opinions on this issue. Hehe.
I mean, it's complicated -- is "harassment" free speech? what about the heckler's veto? Should certain communities who've traditionally had to put up with a lot of shit be shielded from future shit? And what the heck do we do about social media?
But I dunno, it's not THAT complicated, and I think my liberal "team" has REALLY lost the plot on this issue, pushing blatantly illiberal ideas. It's just so easy to argue "the other side" is pushing "offensive" ideas and they should be censored, and it's also really easy to defend the idea you personally don't find offensive. But how is that helpful? Isn't that just two sides screaming at each other? And bystanders think, "They're both being hypocritical," which they often are.
We need a system where we can debate and discuss without people immediately pressing for censorship. Even if "de-platforming" worked, which it doesn't, I'd probably be against it just on principle. Is Trump less powerful now that he's off Twitter? Or did widespread exposure to his racist Twitter insanity actually make him LESS powerful at the time?
I think the bar should be very very high to "censor" something, and "censor" should be broadly defined to mean: anyone, not just the government, deliberating suppressing an idea you don't like. Sunshine is the best disinfectant! But it will always be messy and ugly at times, it just fricking will. That's life in a liberal democracy!
As for kids, the best lesson to teach them is how to deal with "offensive" ideas, exposing them as the silly lies they are, not telling them that words and idea are plutonium that can literally damage you. We're all much stronger than that, or at least we should be.
Gosh, it's almost like I have strong opinions on this issue. Hehe.