Entry 2196, on 2022-01-10 at 21:40:13 (Rating 3, Politics)
Do we have enough freedom, including freedom of speech? Is society too restrictive now on what we are allowed to do, say, or even believe? Many would say yes, but the more authoritarian elements of society (which ironically mainly exist on the left now) have a rather neat way of diverting from that criticism. They say something like: "you have freedom of speech, action, etc, but you don't have freedom from the consequences of those things."
Superficially, it sounds like a fair idea. After all, we shouldn't expect to do whatever we want without consequences, should we? There are consequences everywhere. If I drive too fast, I might have an accident; if I start a business, it might fail; if I steal from someone, I might get caught and end up in prison.
So what's the problem here? Well, it is the unevenness of the application of consequences, the arbitrary way the consequences are created, and whether any are even justified at all which bothers me.
Let's look at an imaginary case which makes my point by taking the idea to the extremes. It is the 1930s in Germany (you see where this is going?) and and some Nazis are taking a local Jew to a concentration camp. The Jew says "what have I done to deserve this, I have freedom of religion, don't I?" The Nazi says "yes, you have freedom to follow any religion you like, but being taken to a concentration camp is the consequence of that decision."
This illustrates all three points: first, the consequences only apply to Judaism, not other religions, so they are uneven; second, the decision that the appropriate response to following Judaism is to be sent to a camp is arbitrary, or even worse; and third, such a serious consequence arising from a relatively harmless personal decision to most people would be completely unjustified.
So when I defend an academic who has been fired for making an unpopular opinion known on a contentious subject (such as whether traditional Maori knowledge is science) I invoke all three of these points. Him being fired is the consequence of making an unpopular opinion public, and he might have been suspected ahead of time that that might happen. But is that fair?
Would the same action be taken against a different opinion which might have the same amount of supporting evidence but come to a politically correct conclusion instead? Who decided what that action should be? Is it someone who fairly considers all opinions, or just a person who wants to shut down those he disagrees with? And is offering an opinion a sufficiently harmful action that being fired is an appropriate response?
I would say no to all of these questions. Cancel culture often utilises all three of the processes I mentioned: it applies penalties unevenly, the penalties have no basis in fairness or rationality, and they tend to be out of proportion to the alleged offence.
Here's another example. Tennis player Novak Djokovic is currently being held by Australian immigration officials because of some "irregularities" with his visa. Another top player, Rafael Nadal, offered this: "The world has been suffering enough. Get vaccinated. If he wanted, he would be playing here in Australia without problems. He makes his own decision. Everyone is free to make their own decisions, but then there are some consequences no?"
Can anyone really make a free decision based on their own knowledge, opinions, and moral standards when the world is going to punish you if you make the "wrong" decision? Is it really fundamentally different from the Nazi taking the Jew away because he made the wrong decision? That's not freedom of action, just like completely out of proportion punishments for having unpopular opinions isn't freedom of speech.
Note that I'm not saying that Djokovic was being reasonable in refusing vaccination. I am vaccinated and think, on balance, it is the best option, although the mainstream positive opinion on it is undoubtedly more propaganda than fact. But I don't think refusing vaccination (or refusing to confirm or deny it, as in this case) is a bad thing necessarily. And saying that Djokovic could make his own decision, but if he makes the wrong one he will suffer severe penalties, is nonsense. That is not freedom.
Here's the comment I left on a Facebook discussion of this topic: "This argument that there are consequences is bogus. Who created the consequences? Are they fair? Should we resist draconian consequences? It’s more complicated than what Rafa thinks. He should stick to tennis."
In fact, I have been quite consistent on this cultural phenomenon for several years now. I defended Israel Folau who was cancelled for his Christian beliefs about homosexual lifestyles. I think he's wrong, because as an atheist I think basing your morals on the Bible is dangerous, and as a libertarian I think people (in this case, homosexuals) should be able to live how they like, but I think him making his opinion known that way is entirely fair, and the reaction to it was a far greater hazard to a fair society than his initial comment was.
There will always be consequences to what people say and do, but they need to be fair, positive, and proportional.
If an academic says traditional Maori knowledge isn't science, let's start a debate on that, including what the definiton of science should be. And if there is Maori science, can we be shown an example, because I haven't seen one yet. If the opinion is wrong instead of just being unpopular (and I mean unpopular in the sense of being against standard dogma rather than being rejected by any sort of majority) then the academic might be humiliated or forced to change his opinion. Isn't that a better consequence than him being fired?
And if one of the greatest tennis players ever wants to play in Australia and has natural immunity (which is many times more effective than vaccination), why not admit that the purpose of the immigration laws has been fulfilled, even if the exact word of them might not be (that is unclear at this stage). If it can be shown that Djokovic really does pose a hazard to Australia, then explain why and reject his entry into the country then. If the advantages of vaccination over catching COVID can be demonstrated using a vaccine denier's experience then that is a better consequence than just rejecting his right to play in Australia.
And if Israel Folau thinks homosexual people will go to Hell, let's reject that rationally and fairly. Let's show how his beliefs make no sense in the first place, and even if they were true that would indicate a very intolerant and violent god which is the exact opposite of the most common portrayals in the New Testament, which should be a Christian's primary source. If Folau's religious beliefs can be shown to be lacking then that is a better consequence than him being forced out of the team he played for.
I suspect there is a very good reason why cancel culture is used in place of reasoned debate: that is that the purveyors of cancel culture are wrong, and they know they're wrong. If they engaged in reasoned debate they would lose, so they are forced to indulge in draconian and authoritarian actions instead.
If the Nazi guard really sat down and talked to the Jew to discuss the alleged issues with Judaism, he would soon see that concentration camps are an unfair consequence of following a religion. But that's why the Nazi leadership didn't take that route. It was just an early, and extreme, version of consequences preventing freedom.
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2022-01-28 at 21:55:18:
You dragged out the old Nazi analogy again. Not very original!
Comment 2 by OJB on 2022-01-28 at 21:55:48:
Sure, I agree it isn’t original, but sometimes the old classics are the most effective!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE