The last few years have seen acrimonious public clashes about the value of free speech, with activists both on the Left and the Right accusing the other side of trying to silence them. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are, admittedly, not particularly informative terms, since there are significant differences within each camp. But each is concerned that the other is trying to silence it, whether by means of censorship or intimidation.
It is hard to be sure of the true extent of this hostility to free speech, since much of the evidence is anecdotal and, of course, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘compelling data.’ For example, much of the conflict about free speech is focused on university campuses. I have taught thousands of students in the UK, including, more recently, American students studying in London, and I have rarely encountered petulant ‘snowflakes’ crying out to be protected from offence. Nevertheless, there is plenty of credible evidence that my experience is not wholly representative. There is reason to believe that an increasing number of young people regard unbridled free speech as a threat, showing themselves to be in the grip of rigid and intolerant ways of thinking about disagreement. But what are the intellectual tendencies behind this new intolerance, and how do they creep into popular discourse? The following list is not comprehensive, but nonetheless seems to me to cover the key problems.
1. Excessive Trust in the ‘Authority’ of Strong Feelings. Angry rhetoric seems to demand acceptance just because it is angry; to question it would be an affront to the feelings of angry people. We are living in a culture that celebrates intense emotions, spreading the idea that disregarding these emotions somehow invalidates the people who experience them. Patiently trying to unpick the reasoning being angrily expressed is seen as an affront.
2. Indifference to the Principle of Charity. How often do you hear that ‘X says A, but is really saying B’? It is hard to defuse the suspicion created. For example, if you were to remark in the wake of #MeToo that some people accused of sexual assault are innocent, it may be assumed that you don’t care about the victims of assault, or that you think everyone who makes an accusation is a liar or fantasist. The inference is a non-sequitur, of course, but because there are some people who mask their indifference to victims by loudly standing up for the accused, it is assumed that you are one of them. Some people have difficulty seeing that taking complainants very seriously, and being concerned about giving the accused a fair hearing, is not a zero-sum game.
3. Guilt by Association. Make a point that is also made by a widely despised source, and many people will assume you agree with most of the other things the source says. This fails to allow that you can agree with it on one issue, without sympathising with it in general, or that you can agree with it, while having completely different reasons for doing so. You may also falsely be accused of getting your ideas from the hated outlet. In the UK, leftists will contemptuously suggest that you got your views from the Daily Mail, a popular right-wing newspaper that is hated with a vengeance by the Left. Right-wingers will sneer that you got your opinions from The Guardian, a left-leaning newspaper derided by the Right. If you agree with one thing that the paper says, it is assumed that you agree with that paper’s stance across the board.
4. Normalisation of Hyperbole. This is now so pervasive that it goes unnoticed. The mainstream media regularly talk up ‘epidemics’ and ‘traumas’ – even if the mundane reality is that there has been a modest, and perhaps short-lived, incidence of a bad thing, and some people suffer some distress. If you question whether there really is an epidemic, you may be accused of denying the occurrence of the bad thing in question, since the term ‘epidemic’ is increasingly used to mean ‘incidence.’
5. The Genetic Fallacy. In textbooks on informal logic, this is roughly defined as the error of basing conclusions about a thing solely from facts about its origins. For instance, saying that ‘Man is really a hairless ape’ suggests that, because humans are descended from ape-like ancestors, humans must be ape-like. Novel versions of the genetic fallacy appear in discussions of several contentious issues.
Take, for instance, the campaign to remove ‘whiteness’ from university curricula, or at least to balance the curricula with ‘non-white’ ideas. This movement has genuine merit. If curricula were originally designed by people with power and influence, some of the ideas they promote probably reflect those people’s interests and viewpoints, to the detriment of other genuinely important perspectives. But it is easy to be led from this to another idea: that the perspectives themselves are ‘white’ and must be bad for that reason. Christianity, science, and the ideas of the Enlightenment were exported to much of the world by white European colonial powers. But it does not follow that the ideas spread by colonisation were intrinsically ‘white European ideas’ (except in the banal sense that the people exporting them were white Europeans). Nor does it follow that the ideas were bad, just because colonial rule was unjust and oppressive in numerous ways. To suppose otherwise shows something like magical thinking: anything touched by, or associated with, something bad must itself be bad.
Moreover, in certain corners of academe, the free speech ideal is being attacked for a related reason: it is oppressive. For example, in an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education, Kate Manne and Jason Stanley argue that:
The notion of freedom of speech is being co-opted by dominant social groups, distorted to serve their interests, and used to silence those who are oppressed and marginalized. All too often, when people depict others as threats to freedom of speech, what they really mean is, “Quiet!”
So, at least on one reading of this somewhat ambiguous passage, the very notion of free speech is suspect, because it is used by people who wish to maintain their dominance over others. On the other hand, perhaps the authors mean that, although the ideal of free speech is admirable, it is misused by people who want to silence the oppressed. That would suggest that the ‘dominant social groups’ do not really care about free speech at all. But if this charitable interpretation is the correct one, it isn’t clearly spelt out.
https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/861659327853187072
What is one to make of this? Certainly, articulate, assertive and well-educated people might express their opinions very effectively and to a wide public, making it difficult for people who lack some of these attributes to answer them. This may be partly because their parents didn’t have the money to buy them a better education. But this is hardly a good criticism of the “notion of freedom of speech.” At most, what has been shown is that more people should have freedom of speech, not fewer. And I suggest that we bring this about not by silencing discussion, but by spreading it. Curtailing speech because the speaker is privileged risks suppressing good ideas as well as bad ones, and in the long run that is good for no one.
Liberals think that goverment can solve all problems when the truth is Goverment makes problems
1. Liberals are naturally loud, as they intend to drown out any other voice but their own. They also focus that loudness with intensity, i.e. try to intimidate into silence anyone else that thinks differently. If this is unsuccessful, violence is rolled out.
2. The left doesn’t particularly desire clarity for it does not serve their purposes. When Trump cites FBI data and states that SOME ILLEGAL immigrants are violent criminals, the left finds more utility into hearing (and repeating and feigning outrage over his “racism”) that he said ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE CRIMINALS, which, of course, is in no way what he said or meant. No, the left does not desire clarity; chaos and confusion serve them better.
3. Guilt by association can be turned on or off, as with a switch. For instance, liberals can visit Cuba and Venezuela and praise their leaders and their wonderful system that provides free goods and services for all their happy citizens. Yet, they don’t endorse or have anything to do with the terror, torture, imprisonment, violation of basic rights or ultimate failure of those systems. Plus, liberals are not asked by the corrupt liberal media why they haven’t denounced some despicable character every 5 to 15 minutes and, if they HAVEN’T denounced them, obviously support and endorse them and everything about them.
4. The left’s endorsement of hyperbole (which includes, of course, the media) is due to the exhibition and utter failure of their ideology. Obama put liberalism and the approach to socialism on display, showing us how well it works and how it benefits the nation. For all to see, nationalization of health care failed, spying and oppressing citizens failed, unrestricted illegal immigration failed, economic strangulation by regulation failed and begging the forgiveness of our mortal enemies failed. So, promises of “Vote for me and I will shower you with liberal benefits and advancement” fall on deaf ears, so they have sunk to threatening the end of the world if, for instance, taxpayers’ taxes are reformed. It is politics by fear and it is all the left has now.
5. Note, though, that American slavery is not thought of as a “black” idea, even though it originated in Africans when Africans enslaved other Africans and sold them to European traders.
Basically, when faced with a conservative armed with facts and the gift for gab, liberals cannot keep up; they have no argument and must, inevitably, end the debate with, “Oh, yeah? Well… you just SHUT UP.”
6. We just recently saw an example of this with Pelosi, who deemed $1,000 put in the hand of a middle class family is “crumbs”, due to the fact that she flies around on private jets and spends 5 times that amount on catering for each trip. The same is true of health care, where Congress has the finest, most comprehensive free health care coverage but they thought saddling citizens with higher premiums, higher deductibles and fewer doctors would be embraced because, well, at least they had insurance.
7. Actually, as far as liberals are concerned, the degree of some bad thing is not important at all, since they really and truly don’t care. All they care about is how to use it as a political weapon and, where no abhorrent behavior exists, they will simply invent it, even as they ignore REAL abhorrent behavior of their idols.
8. I think what drives this mindset is the failure to accept personal failings as the cause for their misfortune. There is a meme that gives an exaggerated example of this, the guy with facial tattoos and piercings saying, “I can’t get a job and it’s Trump’s fault.” Many people have made very bad personal decisions and then, when they are confronted with reality and responsibility, they blame “the system”. No, YOUR problem is that you took all the easy routes through life and now you have a LOT of catching up to do… and it is up to YOU to do it.
9. This is connected back to 7. When liberals are faced with bad behavior of another liberal, the weakest apology or the perception of contrition is all that is required. However, if a conservative falls from grace, or is MERELY ACCUSED of it, no apology, no reparation, no level of contrition will suffice because the bad behavior is not the issue; how it can be used POLITICALLY is all that is important and if the accusation of bad behavior can be substituted for having candidates that appeal to the electorate and win elections, that is just what has to be done.
10. For the left, “political correctness” is an excuse to redefine words to that their descriptive power is greatly diminished. For example, “illegal immigrant” is being transformed into “undocumented worker”. This tries to ignore that the reason they are undocumented is because they skirted the documentation process and entered the nation illegally. Removing the “illegal” characteristic to their presence enables (in their own minds; no one else is fooled in the least) the left to ignore that they are supporting and encouraging illegal and harmful activity and try to transform these illegal immigrants into “helpful neighbors”.
I’m sure some believe in the righteous nature of their point of view, but I believe many know the point they are making is flawed and silencing the opposition is a means to hide the flaws. Many believe that, for instance, while liberal social engineering has failed the vast majority of those in poverty, they think that those policies will benefit THEM. The rest can be blamed on the opposition.
How awful IS the “personality and pronouncements of Donald Trump” and how much of that perception is the result of the list above? Meanwhile, the benefits of what the left perceives as “bad” (mainly because it contradicts their political goals) is undeniable, unless you are ideologically blinded to progress.
This stands alone and needs no discussion.