Quote from the text:
Being a true 'free marketplace of ideas' advocate (he actually uses that phrase), the author systematically fails to realize the importance of power. So concerning Frederick Douglass, his tale of emancipation through argument & tolerance is missing something pretty big - the American Civil War.Ironically, identitarians fail to appreciate that their ability to express themselves freely after years of various forms of racial and gender repression is a product of public arguments for greater tolerance and liberty.
Great minds such as William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass and Olaudah Equiano publicly marshalled arguments against the morally unconscionable practice of making profit from enslaved black people.
So Douglass, who knew about power, opted for canceling Southern racism pretty hard. Here's a bit of war propaganda he participated in (from wikipedia):In 1861 tensions over slavery erupted into civil war, which Douglass argued was about more than union and state's rights. He saw the conflict as the seismic event needed to end slavery in America. Douglass knew that this new freedom had to be won both on and off the battlefield. He recruited African Americans to fight in the Union army, including two of his sons, and he continued to write and speak against slavery, arguing for a higher purpose to the war. He met with Abraham Lincoln to advocate for African American troops and to encourage Lincoln to see the war as a chance to transform the war aims to include emancipation of the nation's four million slaves.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/frederick-douglass-and-civil-war.htm
Having read the article you linked, I still fail to see the contradiction.Quote from the text:
Being a true 'free marketplace of ideas' advocate (he actually uses that phrase), the author systematically fails to realize the importance of power. So concerning Frederick Douglass, his tale of emancipation through argument & tolerance is missing something pretty big - the American Civil War.
So Douglass, who knew about power, opted for canceling Southern racism pretty hard. Here's a bit of war propaganda he participated in (from wikipedia):
The author describes liberation as the result of public dialogue (first sentence I quoted), and invokes Frederick Douglass as a historical example. I pointed out that this is a blatant misrepresentation of Douglass, citing the war he actively supported to strip slaveholders of their power.Having read the article you linked, I still fail to see the contradiction.
I don't' see the contradiction between supporting free speech and actively fighting a war to ending literal slavery.The author describes liberation as the result of public dialogue (first sentence I quoted), and invokes Frederick Douglass as a historical example. I pointed out that this is a blatant misrepresentation of Douglass, citing the war he actively supported to strip slaveholders of their power.
The entire article is a big contradiction and I'm not convinced by the writing as a whole but this part combined with what @Synco posted demonstrate a massive contradiction:I don't' see the contradiction between supporting free speech and actively fighting a war to ending literal slavery.
People are demonized on the basis of their moral and political views all the time, that's why Douglass endorsed a violent response. The entire article is weird and completely out of touch with reality and history.However, the logic of ‘cancel culture’ is not to engender respect for people but rather to demonise people on the basis of their moral and political views.
An essential part of the author's argument for "free speech" is making a broader point about how social progress historically came through argument and open dialogue. He uses Douglass as an example. But civil war is the absolute opposite of tolerance and dialogue in a society. It involves depriving the enemy of his most fundamental freedoms, and if necessary even his life. It's political oppression of the harshest kind (although it might still be justified, depending on circumstances).I don't' see the contradiction between supporting free speech and actively fighting a war to ending literal slavery.
Well despite that I posted the article I am not essentially a free speech absolutelist. I think comparing present day cancel culture with the actual war to end legalized slavery is somewhat hyperbolic, but I catch the drift of what your saying and agree with some of it. My main take away from the article is this quoteAn essential part of the author's argument for "free speech" is making a broader point about how social progress historically came through argument and open dialogue. He uses Douglass as an example. But civil war is the absolute opposite of tolerance and dialogue in a society. It involves depriving the enemy of his most fundamental freedoms, and if necessary even his life. It's political oppression of the harshest kind (although it might still be justified, depending on circumstances).
It would be, but I haven't made that comparison myself (ignoring my general reservations about the term "cancel culture" for now). The author brings up Douglass, I merely said the historical narrative about social progress through peaceful dialogue and tolerance he tries to build doesn't fit the man's actual legacy.Well despite that I posted the article I am not essentially a free speech absolutelist. I think comparing present day cancel culture with the actual war to end legalized slavery is somewhat hyperbolic, but I catch the drift of what your saying and agree with some of it.
I think this statement can be true in some situations, and false in others. It certainly doesn't work as an unconditional principle for society at large, because human attitudes are shaped by many other social factors than just the exchange of ideas. Which brings me to the point I made at the beginning: the (imo constitutive) blindness of this kind of liberalism for the reality of power in their own society, a reality that will often enough prevent the better argument from prevailing in practice.My main take away from the article is this quote
" And what if an idea is false? Should it be stifled? Mill suggests it shouldn’t. For two reasons. First, there is no guarantee that a silenced opinion does not contain some true and valid propositions. And secondly, it is through debate that individuals are compelled to re-examine their values and opinions and to comprehend why they should or should not hold certain beliefs. Indeed, for Mill, it is not simply enough to be opinionated; one must understand the substance of one’s beliefs. Without the free exchange of ideas, that understanding becomes more difficult. "
What he really says isIt would be, but I haven't made that comparison myself (ignoring my general reservations about the term "cancel culture" for now). The author brings up Douglass, I merely said the historical narrative about social progress through peaceful dialogue and tolerance he tries to build doesn't fit the man's actual legacy.
But I also know the issue is complex. Douglass himself was a staunch liberal and advocate of freedom of speech, although I think this worked in a notably different way in his case.
I think this statement can be true in some situations, and false in others. It certainly doesn't work as an unconditional principle for society at large, because human attitudes are shaped by many other social factors than just the exchange of ideas. Which brings me to the point I made at the beginning: the (imo constitutive) blindness of this kind of liberalism for the reality of power in their own society, a reality that will often enough prevent the better argument from prevailing in practice.
Ah great more right wing media...Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm sure the usual suspects, who love playing devil's advocate, will be in here decrying this. No?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Trump is hilarious.Bit random but can anyone think of any right wing (ish) comedians who are/were actually funny? John Cleese? (definitely in the “were funny” rather than “are funny” camp) Jeremy Clarkson can sometimes be funny, I guess?
Basically, I don’t think right wing politics are compatible with making people laugh for a living. Not sure why but that’s just the way it is.
Which old white guys?Trump is the only funny conservative tbh
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
In fairness it's completely subjective, there's a ton of people who find old white guys complaining about things to be hilarious but there's a lot more people who find SNL or John Oliver to be something worth watching.
Both are of course awful.
Which old white guys?
Never heard of Miller to be honest, never watched Seinfeld. Cleese was funny back in the day. But some old white guys are funny.
John Cleese, Seinfeld, Dennis Miller etc etc
So much of mainstream stand up comedy is comedians complaining about about the difficulty of being a comedian. At least Rupert Pupkin had a few decent punch lines.
It's hard to know what qualifies really. Maybe they're looking back to the glory days of Bernard Manning, or the postcard humour of Benny Hill - though I doubt it. I'm sure if asked they'd talk vaguely about British culture and family values - by which I guess they're talking about Eton and Boris.Bit random but can anyone think of any right wing (ish) comedians who are/were actually funny? John Cleese? (definitely in the “were funny” rather than “are funny” camp) Jeremy Clarkson can sometimes be funny, I guess?
Basically, I don’t think right wing politics are compatible with making people laugh for a living. Not sure why but that’s just the way it is.
It's because you don't quote the next part (the one I referred to):What he really says is
" Great minds such as William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass and Olaudah Equiano publicly marshalled arguments against the morally unconscionable practice of making profit from enslaved black people. The likes of John Stuart Mill and Mary Wollstonecraft contended that women are not naturally inferior to men, and instead what set the sexes apart was the educational and cultural climate that deprived women of the liberty to realise their potential. "
" All these ideas were unconventional and challenging in their time. If these authors and their writings had been ‘cancelled’ for going against the grain, we would not have made the kind of progress we have with regard to racial and gender equality."
I dont see him saying that in the case racial of equality and slavery in the US, progress came solely through free speech, but that without free speech if the case against slavery had been completely "opressed" or "cancelled" then that status quo maybe would not have changed or changed much slower. By challenging the status quo it led to a necessary evil which was the Civil war.
But any regulation of speech means it's not free speech anymore. It is either 100% unregulated or not actually free. What we'd talk about then is only the degree to which speech should be regulated by the state or private platforms. (Which would also be the only realistic discussion, imo; free speech exists nowhere, and it probably never has.)I don't believe being a free spech advocat means that you automatically become a complete pacifist. Of course I believe in nuance which is why I am not essentially a free speech absolutelist or total pacifist. If pre-WW2 Germany had a plato-style philosopher king pre WW2 who cancelled Hitlers mein kampf then WW2 probably wouldn't have happened and of course I couldn't comdemn that theoretical scenario.
Yeah i see your point and agree with it.It's because you don't quote the next part (the one I referred to):
" Ironically, identitarians fail to appreciate that their ability to express themselves freely after years of various forms of racial and gender repression is a product of public arguments for greater tolerance and liberty. "
There it is in black and white. He says this without any reservation, he omits any other factor (including when he evokes Douglass), and he does so throughout the text.
But any regulation of speech means it's not free speech anymore. It is either 100% unregulated or not actually free. What we'd talk about then is only the degree to which speech should be regulated by the state or private platforms. (Which would also be the only realistic discussion, imo; free speech exists nowhere, and it probably never has.)
It isn't her fault. Hackers made her do it.Wonder if Joy Reid will be cancelled for basically saying Trump is acting like a muslim, encouraging his base to be violent.
What's a bit silly is that by bickering about what the author says, we didn't even get to the more interesting question: our own opinions about how public speech should(n't) be treated. I'll try to learn from it.Yeah i see your point and agree with it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
They openly call for censorship of politics they dislikeTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm sure the usual suspects, who love playing devil's advocate, will be in here decrying this. No?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Follow-up:Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm sure the usual suspects, who love playing devil's advocate, will be in here decrying this. No?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date