[Maru]

I thought I would share this article, as it is fairly well-written point of view. I do not personally agree with its premise.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/davide-...cahpmg00000002

So-Called 'Free Speech' Isn't Worth Fighting For
"Free speech" is too costly for the disenfranchised, and this will never change when the system in power profits from this imbalance.

On Monday night, the president and vice-chancellor of Wilfrid Laurier University released a statement announcing the results of an external fact-finding report launched to investigate what happened after teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd played a clip of University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson on The Agenda with Steve Paikin, where he explained why he refuses to refer to some people by their pronouns. According to the actress and transgender advocate Laverne Cox, misgendering people is an "act of violence."

Despite the controversy regarding Shepherd's decision, the report concluded: Shepherd did nothing wrong, no students actually filed a complaint about her showing the clip and the professors who interrogated her will be punished.

The pundit Jonathan Kay, who, as he admits, has made a career complaining about what's happening on campuses he was a student at decades ago, captured the mood among "free speech advocates" across Canada.

Despite their celebrations, this supposed victory of free speech is not a win for all.

There is no such thing as a neutral free speech, an objective ideal we can reach, from which everyone benefits. Instead, the abstract idea of free speech is filtered when it passes from the pages of its inception into the world, being shaped by class, race and other factors. In the end, only the most privileged benefit from free speech.

The Shepherd incident, and the way it has been handled compared to a somewhat similar case, is a good example of how this works in practice.

This summer, Masuma Khan, a student leader at Dalhousie University, was put under investigation by the school's administration for expressing opposition to Canada Day 150 celebrations. She called them an ongoing "act of colonialism," and described the opposition to the student union's decision not to take part in the celebrations as an example of "white fragility."

Some leftist commentators have been quick to point out that Khan received far less support from free-speech advocates than Shepherd, with many of Shepherd's eventual supporters actually attacking Khan. They argue this unequal outrage at the perceived limiting of expression is an example of hypocrisy among "free speech advocates."

They may be right, but that's not the real problem. The issue is not with those who inconsistently defend free speech, but rather with the myth that free speech is possible under capitalism. That's why Shepherd's reply to the apparent contradiction between how her and Khan's cases were handled is illuminating.

It's not a coincidence that you'd need a microscope to find out Khan and Shepherd's circles of supporters are actually chunks of a Venn diagram, as very few people supported both, and those who have are effectively irrelevant in the broader conversation. This is because Shepherd, who is in the midst of an Olympic-speed turn from supposed leftist to right-wing pundit, was advancing an already dominant, but dehumanizing, idea, which naturally attracted the ravenous flock she now leads. Khan, meanwhile, was challenging the foundation of the system that has propped up those in power, a position that has naturally been less popular.

"Free speech advocates" love to cite the oft attributed to Voltaire quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The reality is, they aren't putting themselves on the line for anyone they disagree with, nor should they be expected to, as free speech advocacy is never neutral.

Yet, as another recent incident illustrates, the veneer of ideological impartiality is critical for "free speech advocates." On December 17, a panel on the "Sunday Scrum" segment on CBC News discussed people of the year. The Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson cited Shepherd, claiming she made free speech part of the national discourse. Another guest, Metro News Canada national columnist Vicky Mochama, replied by arguing Shepherd has only received so much attention because she is a "young, crying white girl," and stating she is not the right person to have ignited this debate because she "leans hard-right."

Shepherd, Peterson, Kay, a Toronto Suncolumnist and others, have all been melting down since, labelling Mochama, a black woman, as a racist. Their reaction illustrates how whiteness and the ideas of those in power have intersected in this case, as they often do.

Many white people perceive themselves as the default from which everything else departs, so reminding them they're white is disorienting because they are no longer centred. People in power, meanwhile, see their ideas as non-ideological, or even as common sense, and those who point this out are accused of having an agenda.

As such, people like Mochama, who will identify this impartiality, are essential, because they undermine the appearance of neutrality "free speech advocates" need for their fight to be successful, and prevent right-wingers from browbeating people for not being part of their cause. This is the first step in the necessary fight against the "free speech" movement.

"Free speech" is too costly for the disenfranchised, and this will never change when the system in power profits from this imbalance.

I'm a little disturbed that this person (and many others) seem to be getting most of their personality assessments from Twitter. The internet, Twitter in particular, is definitely going to give you the extreme skew in perspective and it's also an easy breeding ground for either sides to create talking points. Therein lies the issue, you won't get any creative analysis/outside the box thinking from reading vitriol. (usually )

I don't personally care what other people think or practice too much. It can't bother me anyway, as not only do I have the same right to express my own version of self, but that my view of self is not dependent on other's world-view, politics or personal experiences.

For me, when people create their world views mainly based on what other people say they think/feel/express about what they experience, you’re heading for a dead end which will inevitably lead to a major change in your own worldview (though later in life). We can do little more than draw general comparisons in those cases, and for me this does little more than scratch the surface than create a deeper understanding of self, and by virtue, others.

This is the problem I have with most anti-hate/pro-empathy-based arguments. They boil down to emotional arguments in the end, as they are based on a personal assessment of someone's personality as a bystander (and in many cases, "suspicions" of the impact of verbally spoken or online words) rather than approaching the argument from a worldview beyond than your own. Thankfully, Freedom of Speech is not dependent on the individual worldview. It doesn't "work for" the individual, it just works.

Racists and bigots will still be racists and bigots even if Freedom of Speech were to be curtailed. In fact, this won't actually do anything to treat the symptoms of hate, except to create the placebo effect of there being a legitimate safe space in place. Hate will still be spread online and it's impossible to logistically police all thought without a society becoming an overly authoritative regime (see: North Korea).

The most concerning effect of these laws on the population is that it seems to create a culture of "right" (whatever the hell that is) versus "wrong think, which will in turn encourage more bullying and “reward” self-censorship by way of indoctrination. In either case, you can't protect groups from “wrong think”... all you can do is steal power from the rest of the folk by restricting intellectual diversity. Just like you'd sooner find ice in Hell than get rid of trolls from TiBB/"The Internet", you can't get beyond this major drawback.

I also don't think it is a good idea to draw most of our personal assessments of the world from bullying that happens online or even in places like high school, college, etc. These are environments with limited conditions and their own culture that are at best described as social pitre dishes. It's good to experiment with your sense of self in these places, but probably not good to make any firm assessments of self or the character/nature/being of others from what you learn in an environment that is hyper-polarized. Many people are not like they were in high school/college, they change. That's a recipe for disaster for personal development I think too to use that as your constant reference point in life. Kinda like how we fixate on things that have happened to us in the past when we have been in "unsafe" places, (such as high school), we should strive to heal and not let it affect us when we're out of this environment.

In general, I'm for creating "safe spaces" based on demographics, environments where people still grow/transition to their most natural selves without infringing on the rights of others. I am just not for enforcement of laws that force all environments to share the very same characteristics. As for me that is counter to solid social/psychological and personal development. It does not build character to live in an homogenous environment constantly. Many people end up aschewing what they pick up from these environments because of the pure rigidity/restrictiveness. It is also counter to everything in Westernized culture.

Think of your strongest argument(s), core belief structure and your value system. They likely didn't come from areas of your life that did not challenge you in some big way. Ideally a well-balanced individual would be able to leave their "safe space" (we all create/have them) and still main the same structure/core sense of self in multiple areas of life.

My thought, if you as a person can get beyond their comfort zones, then try to participate in campaigns, clubs or townhalls (not cults ) in areas or locales that are completely counter to your usual viewpoints if you are really interested in empowering your own sense of self. If you find that you’re constantly listening to their arguments specifically looking for references to “validate” your current worldview, then there is a high possibility your current worldview is not as solid as think it is and it’s likely at least some of what you believe you came to for very emotional reasons. This doesn’t necessarily mean your beliefs will change but that they could be more solid. Try to maybe get into their head a little bit intellectually and see where they’re really coming from. You will come away with something more worthwhile than "so and so said something offensive to me"... which is pretty much the default position of most online arguments these days.

As for my "verdict" on the article... my problem with many articles like this using emotional arguments is that they seem to reference internet culture as a cultural standard. This is a problem when you're trying to make a reasoned argument, as most online communities, especially where anonymity is involved, have a lot of visual and social impairments that tend to make our biases much more of an issue when reading. For example, certain avatars may influence your impression of the text. It's also rather fractured demographic-wise, especially on the extreme scale. We have true intellectuals types mixed in with self-soothing neurotics, your basement trolls, branded "personas", scientists who also part-time as amateur comedians (i.e. smartasses)... it's more like going to a bar or a really loud (albiet weird-ish) party. I'm sure others could be added to that list. Actually, I also think self-censorship (especially more moderate viewpoints) is far worse online than most places.

Open minds are already hard to find, especially when most of us live in our self-chosen/created safe-spaces... which is why I think Freedom of Speech, particularly when talking about societies centered around intellectual diversity (Western Culture), should remain uncurtailed.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Its too long tbh

whats the bullet points?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Maru

scientists who also part-time as amateur comedians (i.e. smartasses)... .

How DARE you .

A very interesting read though Maru, I'll try to reply properly to this thread at some point when I can give it the time it deserves.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

Its too long tbh

whats the bullet points?

Sorry, my trollspeak translator can only handle output in gifs atm

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

How DARE you .

Damn it, I knew I should've taken that out. Tbf, I was following a lot of science peeps, but ever since the US elections, everyone's Twitter has been on political steroids and so I've had to purge so much. I'm now bulemic thanks to social media

A very interesting read though Maru, I'll try to reply properly to this thread at some point when I can give it the time it deserves.

So much Xmas cheer. TY. TYT It doesn't need to be so comprehensive, I just had a lot of thoughts on my mind is all...

[Oliver_W]

It's the kind of rubbish you'd expect from HuffPo.

The writer didn't really make any solid points, there's not really much substance to argue against. One of the quotes reduced Lindsay Shepherd to "a crying white girl", and incorrectly stated she leans hard right, which is a)incorrect and b)not a valid arguement against anything... Also, violence is physical, Lavern Cox. Stating that calling a trap "he" is a form of violence is insulting to actual victims of violence.

The article pretty much boils down to " muh marginalized folks".

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by The_Hogfather

Also, violence is physical, Lavern Cox. Stating that calling a trap "he" is a form of violence is insulting to actual victims of violence.

Not necessarily by definition, but yes, I've noticed a lot recently that what would normally be called aggressive (or passive aggressive) language is being re-termed as "violent" and I can only assume that this is because of the connotations attached to the word. But it's a bit... Ham-fisted really.

[Northern Monkey]

Of course it is in a Western democracy unless we want to become some old communist regime.

Some of these Uni’s are pushing their hard left everyone’s a victim if they’re not a white male bs on impressionable young minds which is reprehensible tbh.It’s the new racism.University used to be a free market of ideas not an echo chamber of political cultish behaviour.
They’re attacking free speech under the guise of anti oppression and turning kids into sensitive creatures who need a sanctuary of safe space or a human rights board every time they get offended or their feelings hurt and are gonna get a massive shock when they get out of this bubble into the world.They’re advocating authoritarianism and suppressing people’s language and ideas for political ideology.
It’s dangerous because some of these kids will be possible future politicians and people with power.
The only hope is that they grow out of this extreme bs and learn to think for themselves.

IMO.

[Kizzy]

Unis are all about shaping minds, don't give them the impression they can think for themselves fgs!