I totally agree with you - a racial slur is an example of a context where consequences are completely appropriate, but its also something of a straw man example in the context of this discussion.
One of Matt Yglesias's coworkers complained to their management about the fact he signed THIS LETTER. This letter is not a slur. Lots of reasonable people disagree with the argument it makes, but its something else entirely to take the position that it is not OK to even present such an argument and anyone who does should be hounded out of their place of work.
Another example is the recent controversy over David Shor's tweeting of Omar Wasow's research on the political effects of violent vs. non-violent protest movements.
Unfortunately, I feel that a lot of people in this thread are looking to "win at the Internet" rather than grapple meaningfully with the issue that has been raised here. "Thad" responded to a previous set of examples I posted by dismissing them, and then argued in another reply that the naked emperor effect that I'm suggesting these examples can produce is a "feature, not bug" of the very thing he dismissed as not being real. You can't have it both ways.
There is a continuum of consequences for speech, from government fines and imprisonment, to facing violent retaliation from individuals, to facing civil lawsuits and DMCA takedowns (which I have personally experienced), to getting hounded out of your job. All these kinds of consequences can create a situation where people are afraid to point out that the emperor is naked.
The question is what kind of intellectual environment do we want to have? We agree that in some cases those consequences are worth the cost, and I suspect we also agree that in some cases they are not. There is a significant disagreement about where the line ought to be drawn.
What do we do when someone says something we object to? I think we can draw a bright line between responding with our own speech and telling them why we think they are wrong, vs taking things to another level and going after the speaker personally - attempting to impose "consequences" upon their life, such as getting them fired from their job.
There is a legitimate conversation to be had about whether or not we think those kinds of consequences are appropriate, and when.
We can decide that we want a social norm that says that those kinds of consequences should be imposed in a broad set of circumstances. That, increasingly, appears to be where we are heading. And there is a cost to it. That social norm will have a corresponding chilling effect on the kinds of things that people feel comfortable expressing.
Alternatively, we can say that we want a social norm that says those kinds of consequences should rarely, if ever, be imposed. If we see people expressing views that we disagree with, we should engage with them in dialog. We should keep it in the realm of ideas. If, as an employer, I get a complaint about something my employee said online, I should ignore it, because what happens online ought to stay there. This social norm is going to afford for the greatest scope of online dialog. People will feel more comfortable expressing views that challenge popular sentiments.
What kind of environment do we want? One side believes that the harm caused by certain kinds of speech is being underestimated, whereas the other side feels that the benefit of being exposed to challenging perspectives is being underestimated.
The people who object strongly to this letter seem to be saying that there is no room for the later side of the debate. Thats wrong.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by decius.
Re:
I totally agree with you - a racial slur is an example of a context where consequences are completely appropriate, but its also something of a straw man example in the context of this discussion.
One of Matt Yglesias's coworkers complained to their management about the fact he signed THIS LETTER. This letter is not a slur. Lots of reasonable people disagree with the argument it makes, but its something else entirely to take the position that it is not OK to even present such an argument and anyone who does should be hounded out of their place of work.
Another example is the recent controversy over David Shor's tweeting of Omar Wasow's research on the political effects of violent vs. non-violent protest movements.
Unfortunately, I feel that a lot of people in this thread are looking to "win at the Internet" rather than grapple meaningfully with the issue that has been raised here. "Thad" responded to a previous set of examples I posted by dismissing them, and then argued in another reply that the naked emperor effect that I'm suggesting these examples can produce is a "feature, not bug" of the very thing he dismissed as not being real. You can't have it both ways.
There is a continuum of consequences for speech, from government fines and imprisonment, to facing violent retaliation from individuals, to facing civil lawsuits and DMCA takedowns (which I have personally experienced), to getting hounded out of your job. All these kinds of consequences can create a situation where people are afraid to point out that the emperor is naked.
The question is what kind of intellectual environment do we want to have? We agree that in some cases those consequences are worth the cost, and I suspect we also agree that in some cases they are not. There is a significant disagreement about where the line ought to be drawn.
Re: Re: I expected more of you MIke.
I have the perception that these things have been happening more and more frequently.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/
The consequences are not always appropriate.
What do we do when someone says something we object to? I think we can draw a bright line between responding with our own speech and telling them why we think they are wrong, vs taking things to another level and going after the speaker personally - attempting to impose "consequences" upon their life, such as getting them fired from their job.
There is a legitimate conversation to be had about whether or not we think those kinds of consequences are appropriate, and when.
We can decide that we want a social norm that says that those kinds of consequences should be imposed in a broad set of circumstances. That, increasingly, appears to be where we are heading. And there is a cost to it. That social norm will have a corresponding chilling effect on the kinds of things that people feel comfortable expressing.
Alternatively, we can say that we want a social norm that says those kinds of consequences should rarely, if ever, be imposed. If we see people expressing views that we disagree with, we should engage with them in dialog. We should keep it in the realm of ideas. If, as an employer, I get a complaint about something my employee said online, I should ignore it, because what happens online ought to stay there. This social norm is going to afford for the greatest scope of online dialog. People will feel more comfortable expressing views that challenge popular sentiments.
What kind of environment do we want? One side believes that the harm caused by certain kinds of speech is being underestimated, whereas the other side feels that the benefit of being exposed to challenging perspectives is being underestimated.
The people who object strongly to this letter seem to be saying that there is no room for the later side of the debate. Thats wrong.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by decius.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt