The free speech of cacophony disregards necessities of purpose and function; as Beauchamp suggested¹, "Abstract appeals to 'free speech' and 'liberal values' obscure the fact that what's being debated is not anyone's right to speech, but rather their right to air that speech in specific platforms like the New York Times without fear of social backlash."
I think we're past the point of thinking that policing what appears in the mainstream press is going to solve problems of radicalisation and disinformation. These days, social media is a lot more influential on the opinions of young people, especially.
I would suggest that Beauchamp ought to focus more on sensible regulation of the major social media platforms, and stop worrying so much about the New York Times.
But this is what it gets us. The nearest analogy I can give you is that I used to know a small clutch of atheists and skeptics who would insist on reliable science to criticize religion, and for most of them it turned out that wasn't any sort of general standard but an opportunity to complain about religion
Sounds like Tiassa still has a bee in his bonnet, and a grudge to bear, against this unnamed "clutch of atheists and skeptics", whoever they are. It might be good, at some point, for Tiassa to identify the people he is talking about and elaborate on what is particular gripe with them is, rather than tiptoeing around whatever his actual problem is with these people. Taking snide snipes at generic groups of people isn't very productive. In fact, one might venture the opinion that Tiassa is engaging in the kind of thing he is complaining about others doing, in the very same post. That's somewhat hypocritical, if that's what he is doing.
To wit, sure, they didn't believe in racial superiority and inferiority, but they were reluctant to be seen doing anything that they felt might be perceived as silencing political views.
I find it strange that Tiassa seems to be putting the blame for the promulgation of racist views onto "a small clutch of atheists and skeptics". What about the majority of Americans who identify as Christians? Don't they bear any responsibility, in Tiassa's mind?
As such, holding bigotry to the same standard as believing in Jesus just wasn't something they could do...
That's not what I generally observe when I see small clutches of atheists and skeptics commenting on social issues of concern. Maybe Tiassa has been mixing with an anomalous small clutch of atheists and skeptics.
If good people aren't allowed to lie about black people and women in order to justify abrogations of their human rights, then we are jackboots silencing politics just because we disagree with them.
Phew. There's a lot to unpack in that.
For instance, who are the gatekeepers in this, in Tiassa's mind? Who is telling these "good people" that they are allowed to lie? Is it small clutches of atheists and skeptics?
And who is defending the rights of "good people" to lie about "black people and women", to "justify abrogations of their human rights"? Is it those same atheists and skeptics? Can Tiassa provide any examples of this kind of thing?
Is Tiassa claiming that small clutches of atheists and skeptics want to justify abrogations of human rights? If so, Tiassa should probably provide evidence for his claim. But again, if that's the case, I wonder whether Tiassa really thinks it's the atheists and skeptics who are the core source of the problem that has him so concerned.
Surely this isn't all a performative effort on Tiassa's part to take a snide swipe at a group of people whom Tiassa doesn't like? Is it?
Also, is it really appropriate to use a
mass shooting of innocent people as an excuse to take a swipe at a group of people who Tiassa doesn't like (for whatever reason)?
They're not really fooling anyone, and this is what it gets them, and everyone else, to go out of their way to legitimize bigotry.
Do I understand correctly? Tiassa seems to be saying that
free speech is what gets everyone to go out of their way to legitimise bigotry.
What solution does Tiassa suggest, then? Abolish free speech?
Over time, one might think their problem with religious authoritarianism is religion itself compared to who deserves to be authoritarian.
Religion, typically,
is authoritarian, at least in its most popular denominations. Lots of small clutches of atheists and skeptics do indeed take issue with religious authoritarianism. For some atheists, that's near the top of their list of reasons for rejecting religion. Incidentally, it's also why many theists reject organised religion. But most atheists have a more fundamental objection to religion, which is that the foundational claims made by religions are
not true. Religion can be criticised for other reasons as well, of course.
But the thing is that those identity skeptics have met their threshold, such that science is no longer sufficient to support their beliefs.
What's an "identity skeptic"? This is a term that is unfamiliar to me. Anybody?
But having recently seen some recite the stations of anti-trans prejudice, apparently appropriated from religious fanatics, it stands out that their behavior isn't much different in that episode than prior appeals against equality. Y'know, racism, misogyny, &c.; they're not a new phenomenon.
Nobody said that every small clutch of atheists and skeptics is perfect. Atheists and skeptics are human beings, just like everybody else. Some of them have prejudices, just like religious and gullible people. I guess this might "stand out" as something of an anomaly, compared to the average atheist and skeptic. Generally speaking, atheists and skeptics, in my experience, tend to be very tolerant of diversity in all its aspects. Far too tolerant for many, actually. It's one reason why some prejudiced people get angry at atheists and skeptics.
As Americans try to pretend around a sonnenrad and other symbols to describe killers who didn't discriminate who they hate, remember that this is the difference. When people say things about not calling it supremacism just because you disagree with it, this is what they're protecting.²
Who is Tiassa referring to, at this point? It's all rather vague. Americans who try to pretend seems to be his target here. Well, okay. Being mean and pretending stuff can certainly be a bad thing, especially if it ends up harming other people.
No, they don't support it, but in order to be good people, they need to make sure teenagers can be disinformed to the point of murder.
So, again, what's Tiassa's solution to the problem? Go hard and regulate The
New York Times? Make sure their freedom of speech is appropriately curtailed, along with the other mainstream media?
Maybe start persecuting small clutches of atheists and skeptics, who advocate for too much free speech?
Isn't this turning a blind eye to the more obvious sources of the problem that Tiassa presumably wants to address? (Or is he more concerned with a different "problem"?)
But if we are to attend this narrative of kids led astray, we must also consider the manner and scale by which we legitimize consequential fraudulent speech. In this narrative of such vague and uncertain hatred, the uncertainty legitimized in cacophony is an influential component, and part of what plenty have sought to protect for their own sentimental reasons.
Vague and uncertain hatred is not a good thing. I agree. But we see less of that these days than unambiguous hatred.
