Entry 2227, on 2022-07-22 at 22:41:31 (Rating 4, Politics)
I like short, snappy adages which - to me at least - summarise important truths about the world. While I like them, I also realise that they can be quite misleading if they are just accepted without any critical examination. So I thought I might look at a few of my favourites, about free speech, and analyse them in both a supportive and skeptical way. So here they are...
The first one is: We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that stupid people won't be offended.
This seems to summarise, in a single sentence, a lot of what is wrong with the world today. We do seem to have gone backward with free speech, and we seem to be kowtowing to various minority groups who don't necessarily need, or even want in many cases, the increased privileges.
So the way I interpret this is: we tell people there are certain subjects they may not talk about because it might be harmful to various groups of people who might be traditionally considered weak, or vulnerable, or in need of extra protection for some other reason.
There are many examples of this, which I am sure my readers will already have thought of, but the most prominent areas where this occurs today are in protecting trans people. It is not considered acceptable by many to offer any criticism, or even reasonable inquiry into the proper way to handle trans people in sport, prisons, bathroom facilities, etc.
Note two important points here: first, these people often aren't stupid, so the original saying might have used a better word there; and second, the people who are the subject of the problematic comment aren't necessarily the ones making a big fuss about it. As often as not, the people attempting the silencing of unwanted opinions are not even members of the group being critiqued; they are just self-appointed arbiters of what is considered appropriate.
The fact is that in order to have a complete and meaningful discussion on any topic - especially one which might be seen as contentious - some level of potential offence must be accepted. Sure, we should try to avoid unnecessary or overly aggressive criticism, but in general having too much is better than having too little.
Here's another quote, related to this: If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. - George Orwell
This seems obvious. After all, if a person only ever heard things they already agreed with, they would have very little chance at growth or gaining new perspectives. It would also give no chance to correct a person if they had existing incorrect ideas.
No doubt, people who are driven by ideology want to protect that perspective, and only hearing supporting views is the best way to do that. But is a belief system is so vulnerable that it needs to be protected by not allowing any criticism or even genuine questioning of it, then I don't think it can have a lot of merit to begin with.
I have changed my perspective on several things over the years, and that has only happened because I deliberately seek out contrary ideas. It is possible that I have started by believing the right thing and now have switched to something that is less valid, but I think it is more likely that I have become more realistic after being persuaded by views contrary to what I previously believed.
This is undoubtedly a real phenomenon. Even if the institutions which are supposed to be the most open to discussing different ideas and evaluating various opinions, our universities, we often see suppression of inconvenient perspectives. For example, here is a question used as part of the total assessment for students of an Auckland university: What is transgender theory? Why does transgender theory matter? (Essays that take a "gender critical" position on transgender or question the validity of trans identities will be failed).
There doesn't seem to be much chance there for open discussion of new ideas, no matter how well supported they are by facts. In the past an essay would be marked based on the quality of the arguments it presented, not whether they were politically correct or not.
Here's another good one: Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Emerson lived about 200 years ago but this quote is so relevant to the situations we have today. Being a victim is the highest status a person can attain in the modern world. The woke crowd immediately accept alleged victims as people who they need to help, and the people they see as causing the victimhood are perceived as the enemy, to be suppressed in whatever way they deem appropriate.
People should welcome contradiction and debate, even when it makes their existing views less tenable. In fact, that is the situation where alternative opinions should be most celebrated. It's bad enough having an opinion, or supporting a cause, which has major shortcomings, but continuing to have those views, when there is ample contradictory evidence, is even worse!
Finally, these two related quotes. First: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - SG Tallentyre. And second: I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself. - Oscar Wilde.
The first is possibly the most famous quote on the subject of free speech, and is often incorrectly attributed to Voltaire himself. The second is a witty re-working of the quote which actually reveals another important aspect of free speech.
The first, of course, is just reiterating what I have already said. Hearing an opinion you disagree with is not a bad thing; it is a reason to think about your beliefs and potentially change them. But the second quote reveals another concept I haven't discussed yet, which is possibly more important.
People are going to maintain their opinions whether they are seen as politically correct or not. In fact, when people cannot express their views they are more likely to not engage in debate over them. If someone is free to say what they think, and what they think is found to be lacking, then the defects in their argument should be quickly revealed. In other words, as Wilde says: they can express their views and make an ass of themselves.
So having free speech which allows contrary views to be freely expressed can not only weaken the view being criticised, but also the criticism itself. If the contrary view can be exposed as deficient then the subject being attacked should gain from that examination.
It is only views which can be successfully attacked which need to suppress criticism. So when I see people refusing to allow their critics to be heard I assume that those views aren't actually particularly valid, or the criticism would be easily dismissed.
So when you find a subject which you are "not allowed" to talk about, and if you do the consequences might be being called a racist or bigot, or having your social media account suspended, or enduring harassment, or being fired, or even being visited by police (it has happened, here in New Zealand) then those subjects are probably not well supported by evidence, and are the ones most in need of further criticism.
We need more free speech on these issues, not less.
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2022-08-20 at 20:37:01:
But heres the problem, some people, like Trump fans, use the free speech you are so keen on to abuse others and cause harm. Hope youre OK with that.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2022-08-20 at 21:47:14:
I know free speech can be open to abuse, but I think the positives far outweigh the negatives. And people who are offended by what someone else says should just get over it. If they think the person is wrong, then what's the problem? It's just someone who is wrong. If they think the person is right, then they need to think a bit about their own beliefs.
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