[RD] Does free speech even exist as a concept?

[Ryika]

While living in a capital of conservatism in 2004 I went to a GWBush campaign rally and handed out flyers loaded with links to resources detailing the lies involved in the run up to the Iraq war. To no one's surprise I ended up detained by the cops...long enough for them to confiscate my flyers. Also to no one's surprise I lost a few customers, and a few acquaintances opted not to get any closer to me and in fact distanced themselves. Not because of my "political wrong thinking," but because I pissed people off. I did not pretend to be surprised, or blame anyone for the fallout my actions precipitated, because that should be the expected outcome when you set out to piss people off.

Just because it's not surprising doesn't mean that it's good. That people distanced themselves from you is of course their own decision, but what if people started campaigning to get information about you out there to get as much pressure on your acquaintances as possible to make them distance themselves from you? Would you call that a positive outcome? Is it "good" if that's the expected outcome, or would it not be better if that wasn't the likely consequence?

 

[Hehehe]

The right loves markets. The right professes the sanctity of the "marketplace of ideas." The right does not seem to realize that part of a functional marketplace involves ensuring that garbage products are excluded from it.

And how do you decide which ideas are garbage? Or are you simply going to go with the dogmas? A blind true believer?

Following this analogy, the right thinks products ought to be outcompeted through pure market forces rather than a boycott. The only way they'll ever take back any ground in the culture war is by abandoning the notion of a 'marketplace of ideas', which has only ever existed in their imaginations.

I don't know. I do believe that it is possible to change people's minds through rational argumentation (up to a point). As someone who has been "on the right" for a long time, these past few years have been an exciting time. I still remember when right wing parties started at single digits, barely making it into the parliament. Now, right wing parties all over Europe are competing for top spots. I know my mind was changed by the "free marketplace of ideas", and I'd like to think that I've changed a few minds as well. As for the culture war, we're already positioned to take over the mainstream. It seems like everything is coming our way. But I do understand why ideologues on the left don't want a free marketplace of ideas, it's because they're getting trashed (free marketplace of ideas simply refers to open and civil conversation, and is not to be confused with freedom of speech)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Just because it's not surprising doesn't mean that it's good. That people distanced themselves from you is of course their own decision, but what if people started campaigning to get information about you out there to get as much pressure on your acquaintances as possible to make them distance themselves from you? Would you call that a positive outcome? Is it "good" if that's the expected outcome, or would it not be better if that wasn't the likely consequence?

Why shouldn't that be a likely consequence? It's not like I didn't know what most of the people in that city thought about 'dirty traitorous liberals' before I went out and revealed myself as one (even though I actually wasn't one). It isn't like they were dragging people in at random for interrogations, I put myself on that block.

What do you think the response should have been? "Hey, turns out Tim is one of those dirty traitorous lib'ruls we've been talking about. <shrug> Oh, well, business as usual." Why would anyone expect something like that? Why would anyone think that such a response should be forced on people?

 

[Traitorfish]

tl;dr: Free speech has only ever existed as a legal restriction of state power. In broader society it appears to be a shorthand for 'my ideas deserve to be given a seat at the table.'

I think there's a lot of truth to this. And it's a pity, because there are genuine questions about who gets to sit at the table, and moreover, who is in charge of assigning seats. Flattening it out into a one-dimensional question of "free speech" preempts that whole discussion.

A cynical part of me thinks that might be partially deliberately; after all, how many of the right-wing advocates of "free speech" are really interested in having the institutional structures of the Western public sphere, as opposed to the personalities of leadership-figures, put under scrutiny? Leaping into the middle of the room and bellowing "I should be allowed to yell racial slurs directly into your baby's face" is always going to be an effective distraction.

 

[Ryika]

Why shouldn't that be a likely consequence?

Why SHOULD it be?

What do you think the response should have been? "Hey, turns out Tim is one of those dirty traitorous lib'ruls we've been talking about. <shrug> Oh, well, business as usual."

No, like I said... if the individual feels like that changes things, fair enough. Having a hatemob harass these individuals to take action against you on the basis of exaggerated claims? I don't see how that's helping anyone.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why SHOULD it be?

I already answered this. As I said, I put myself on that block. It isn't like I got picked off the street at random, interrogated until I 'revealed myself as a dirty lib'rul' and then got put in stocks in the town square until everyone saw me. It was a predictable consequence of actions I chose to take.

No, like I said... if the individual feels like that changes things, fair enough. Having a hatemob harass these individuals to take action against you on the basis of exaggerated claims? I don't see how that's helping anyone.

Again, it isn't like this "hatemob" picked the lock on my front door, stole the flyers, and ran chanting "Look what we found in the house of a dirty lib'rul." If I sat in my car and checked the crowd to make sure my best customer Bob wasn't there because that would be a consequence I was unwilling to face then I should never have gotten out of the car. It's not incumbent upon anyone else to help hide my actions from Bob. Again, it would be different if they peeped in my window and went running to Bob, but we're talking about actions taken in public, most notably at a place where they could only be described as unwelcome.

 

[Ryika]

I already answered this. As I said, I put myself on that block. It isn't like I got picked off the street at random, interrogated until I 'revealed myself as a dirty lib'rul' and then got put in stocks in the town square until everyone saw me. It was a predictable consequence of actions I chose to take.

I don't think it's a sound argument for why it "should" be that way. You're basically victim blaming yourself there. "I did this, therefor I deserve the consequences." - yeah, you have to EXPECT those consequences in the current climate, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether you "should" suffer those consequences.

I mean, take a similar scenario. If I decide to walk into the part in the worst part of the city in the middle of the night, then chances are I'm going to get raped or murdered. Yeah, I have to EXPECT those consequences, but does that mean that I "should" suffer those consequences? Clearly not, right?

That sort of danger might be the unavoidable reaction to the action that was taken, but that doesn't mean that the reaction is justified.

Again, it isn't like this "hatemob" picked the lock on my front door, stole the flyers, and ran chanting "Look what we found in the house of a dirty lib'rul." If I sat in my car and checked the crowd to make sure my best customer Bob wasn't there because that would be a consequence I was unwilling to face then I should never have gotten out of the car. It's not incumbent upon anyone else to help hide my actions from Bob. Again, it would be different if they peeped in my window and went running to Bob, but we're talking about actions taken in public, most notably at a place where they could only be described as unwelcome.

Well, you're basically a real life troll at that point, and like I said, I don't really have that much sympathy for you if you're trolling (even though in principle the concept is still the same). But like I also already said, usually the people aren't trolling, they're just giving their political opinions in places that are meant to be used as platforms where you discuss these things. If a person does not like ones political opinions, then there are a number of acceptable ways to deal with those people: Ignore them, argue against them, make fun of them, or whatever else. Going after their job for uttering an opinion that you disagree with in a public space? Not so much.

 

[Mouthwash]

A cynical part of me thinks that might be partially deliberately; after all, how many of the right-wing advocates of "free speech" are really interested in having the institutional structures of the Western public sphere, as opposed to the personalities of leadership-figures, put under scrutiny?

I think the strategy isn't that effective, though. Example: 'these arguments may cause LGBT people to commit suicide' is a lot stronger than 'we need an open conversation about gender dysphoria'.

It was effective when both sides built their identity around being free thinkers. Now it's more of an unthinking, instinctive fight against oppression for the left, and intellectual pretensions aren't going to cut it anymore.

 

[metalhead]

Because left does not equate left. I mean, that should be obvious to you, you've been part of those debates in this very forum. Progressives vs. Liberals, Far-Left Marxists vs. Democrats, Victimhood feminism vs. Empowerment Feminism, Sex negative feminism vs. Sex positive feminism, etc.

So, intersectionality?

Pretty much any study you can find on the topic confirms that college administrators and college teachers who are democrats vastly outnumber those who are republican. Here's an example, and there are tons of more focused studies on google that find similar results.

Of course being pro-democrat does not equal left wing, and being pro-republican does not equate to right-wing, but there's a strong correlation. So I don't see what's "dumb" about that take, the political leanings are pretty obvious.

Yeah, no, college administrators in the U.S. as "left" is just a laughable claim. Really.

Straight numbers game. If there are a whole lot more left than right there will be more left than right that "go too far," all else being equal.

But the conservative claim is that ONLY right wing views are censored. More left wing views are censored among faculty. And the data also shows that conservative attempts to censor liberal speech are successful 55% of the time, where the other way it's 30%.

So conservative views are not disproportionately targeted, nor are they disproportionately censored. There is evidence however that the opposite might be true.

Of course, there is so little censorship to begin with that the whole issue is pretty much a red herring.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think the strategy isn't that effective, though. Example: 'these arguments may cause LGBT people to commit suicide' is a lot stronger than 'we need an open conversation about gender dysphoria'.

I'm not convinced that the liberal bourgeoisie have a much stronger interest in interrogating these institutions, if that's what we're turning towards.

 

[Mouthwash]

I didn't realize we were talking about class conflict at all, but to each his own.

 

[Traitorfish]

I didn't realize we were talking about class conflict at all, but to each his own.

I mean, who else owns the institutions comprising Western public spheres? Not a lot of union-owned newspapers these days.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But the conservative claim is that ONLY right wing views are censored.

As is true of most conservative claims, this is an obviously false bit of nonsense that merits no serious discussion in the first place.

Of course, there is so little censorship to begin with that the whole issue is pretty much a red herring.

Indeed.

I mean, take a similar scenario.

Well, you're basically a real life troll at that point, and like I said, I don't really have that much sympathy for you if you're trolling (even though in principle the concept is still the same). But like I also already said, usually the people aren't trolling, they're just giving their political opinions in places that are meant to be used as platforms where you discuss these things. If a person does not like ones political opinions, then there are a number of acceptable ways to deal with those people: Ignore them, argue against them, make fun of them, or whatever else. Going after their job for uttering an opinion that you disagree with in a public space? Not so much.

Why should there be a difference between "real life trolls" and other trolls? I "uttered an opinion" in a public place where people of opposing opinion where known to have gathered. The same thing happens on-line. Nobody is going to form a "hate mob" over things that I say on this forum. The hate mob forms on Breitbarf because saying those things there is an invasion of their gathering.

As to your "similar scenario," I'm not taking it because it is clearly not similar. Gotta do better than that Ryika.

 

[Hehehe]

A cynical part of me thinks that might be partially deliberately; after all, how many of the right-wing advocates of "free speech" are really interested in having the institutional structures of the Western public sphere, as opposed to the personalities of leadership-figures, put under scrutiny?

I'd say more right-wingers are interested in discussing " the institutional structures of the Western public sphere", than the other way around. If anything, it seems to me that the left has nothing but legitimate and illegitimate criticisms against the personality of Donald Trump.

Leaping into the middle of the room and bellowing "I should be allowed to yell racial slurs directly into your baby's face" is always going to be an effective distraction.

I've seen a lot of strawman arguments in my time, but this has to be one of the silliest.

It was effective when both sides built their identity around being free thinkers. Now it's more of an unthinking, instinctive fight against oppression for the left, and intellectual pretensions aren't going to cut it anymore.

I guess I do agree with you halfway. Left has become unthinking and instinctive in its fight against imagined oppression.

But the conservative claim is that ONLY right wing views are censored. More left wing views are censored among faculty. And the data also shows that conservative attempts to censor liberal speech are successful 55% of the time, where the other way it's 30%.

So conservative views are not disproportionately targeted, nor are they disproportionately censored. There is evidence however that the opposite might be true.

But you haven't shown any left-wingers being censored. Didn't we already agree that free speech does not guarantee a right to be platformed?

And as far as who censors who, you'd need to look at total numbers. Percentages alone say nothing. For example, it could be the case that conservatives are successful in 11/20 cases (55 %) whereas liberals are successful on 300 000/1 000 000 cases (30 %). Obviously this is a made up example, the point is, we also need the total numbers. But even then, that's only a small slice of the total pie. There are other aspects of "censorship" too.

 

[Wastl]

I'd say more right-wingers are interested in discussing " the institutional structures of the Western public sphere", than the other way around. If anything, it seems to me that the left has nothing but legitimate and illegitimate criticisms against the personality of Donald Trump.

I don't think that is the case at all. If anything, it is very much the opposite.

The "left" has offered plenty of criticism based on actual politics. They also had better policies at the 2016 election, but Trump had some buzz-words, and apparently that is what matters to lots of people.
Anything aimed at Trump comes mostly from two things, a) him making a fool of himself at least ten times a day and making policies that go against everything the country (supposedly) stands for or even hurt the country directly, and b) certain parts of the media being more into infotainment than reporting news, and Trump's erratic behaviour sells a whole lot better than talking about how the Trump-government is screwing over its citizens based on new law X.

The "right", on the other hand, basically went with "screw Obama" for eight years, to the extent that they didn't even know what to do when they were suddenly in charge. They basically had nothing to work with, only being fueled by being against something. This is also supported by the fact that the Republicans are still targeting Obama and Hillary Clinton during the current campaign for the mid-terms, even though neither has anything to do with it. Beyond stacking the supreme court in their favour, they don't really have anything they can offer.

 

[Hehehe]

I don't think that is the case at all. If anything, it is very much the opposite.

The "left" has offered plenty of criticism based on actual politics. They also had better policies at the 2016 election, but Trump had some buzz-words, and apparently that is what matters to lots of people.
Anything aimed at Trump comes mostly from two things, a) him making a fool of himself at least ten times a day and making policies that go against everything the country (supposedly) stands for or even hurt the country directly, and b) certain parts of the media being more into infotainment than reporting news, and Trump's erratic behaviour sells a whole lot better than talking about how the Trump-government is screwing over its citizens based on new law X.

The "right", on the other hand, basically went with "screw Obama" for eight years, to the extent that they didn't even know what to do when they were suddenly in charge. They basically had nothing to work with, only being fueled by being against something. This is also supported by the fact that the Republicans are still targeting Obama and Hillary Clinton during the current campaign for the mid-terms, even though neither has anything to do with it. Beyond stacking the supreme court in their favour, they don't really have anything they can offer.

I think that the very fact that you think this way shows just how sheltered you are, and how sorely lacking the left is in any kind of meaningful discussion on actual politics. I can't expect you to agree with Trump, or to vote for him, can you at least bring yourself to understand why some other people would? Can you bring yourself to imagine that there might be some actual issues that people have with the left's agenda and policy proposals? It's like you've hunkered down so deep into your own echo chamber that you don't even understand why people would vote the other way.

And don't get me wrong, both Trump and the conservative party are very much flawed, I have a lot of criticism for both; all I'm saying is, my understanding of politics goes a little bit beyond "buzzwords"

 

[cardgame]

I think that the very fact that you think this way shows just how sheltered you are, and how sorely lacking the left is in any kind of meaningful discussion on actual politics. I can't expect you to agree with Trump, or to vote for him, can you at least bring yourself to understand why some other people would? Can you bring yourself to imagine that there might be some actual issues that people have with the left's agenda and policy proposals? It's like you've hunkered down so deep into your own echo chamber that you don't even understand why people would vote the other way.

And don't get me wrong, both Trump and the conservative party are very much flawed, I have a lot of criticism for both; all I'm saying is, my understanding of politics goes a little bit beyond "buzzwords"

Sure, it's easy to understand why people would vote for Trump. First off, there's the explicitly Pro-trump faction: the crazification factor, holding steady at around 27%. Then there's the explicitly anyone-but-Hillary faction to make up the rest. Not too hard to reach the minority! vote needed to win when you have those built-in voter bases, and Hillary fails to campaign correctly (including offering policy instead of nonsense. Yeah, that was apparently a mistake, since she lost, after all.) Plus, you know, the whole Russian undermining and unprecedented social media propaganda.

The left is the only group offering any meaningful discussion on actual politics, change my mind. The right is sycophantic and the E N L I G H T E N E D _ C E N T R I S T S are too busy being undeservedly smug to place anything on the table, except for "truth in the middle" fallacies.

 

[Hehehe]

Sure, it's easy to understand why people would vote for Trump. First off, there's the explicitly Pro-trump faction: the crazification factor, holding steady at around 27%. Then there's the explicitly anyone-but-Hillary faction to make up the rest. Not too hard to reach the minority! vote needed to win when you have those built-in voter bases, and Hillary fails to campaign correctly (including offering policy instead of nonsense. Yeah, that was apparently a mistake, since she lost, after all.) Plus, you know, the whole Russian undermining and unprecedented social media propaganda.

The left is the only group offering any meaningful discussion on actual politics, change my mind. The right is sycophantic and the E N L I G H T E N E D _ C E N T R I S T S are too busy being undeservedly smug to place anything on the table, except for "truth in the middle" fallacies.

Did you just quote "crazification factor" unironically?

Crazification factor (alternatively known as the "Keyes constant"[1]) is a neologism coined by blogger John Rogers to refer to the portion of the electorate comprising the nuttiest of the wingnuts and the bathorsehocky crazy.

In popular usage, it is an application of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, in which you only call attention to data supporting your proposition: you will find endless examples of people online crying "Crazification factor!" when 20-30% of people do something — anything — the speaker doesn't like, or are even polled as holding an opinion they don't like.[1][2]

Rogers later stressed that the phrase was a joke, not some serious statistical proposition.[3]

For the rest, you only see meaningful discussion on actual politics on the left, because you live in a leftist echo chamber

 

[cardgame]

I live in the bible belt.

And just because it was coined as a joke doesn't mean the phenomenon itself isn't real.

 

[Hehehe]

I live in the bible belt.

And just because it was coined as a joke doesn't mean the phenomenon itself isn't real.

Well, try arguing with libertarians. See if they have any "actual politics". I'm not a libertarian myself, but I at least realize that there is an argument to be had. To dismiss the entire right wing spectrum like that seems very arrogant and/or ignorant