I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it - unless it's on social media

[LaureBerthaud]

When did our society lose the doctrine of I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?

It feels like we can't disagree on here, Twitter, other forms of social media without insults starting to be hurled. Threats being made. People declaring YOU ARE WRONG. END OF.

Have we lost the ability to think critically, to tolerate differences of opinion and respect differing views?

I’m just feeling increasingly depressed with Social Media, and have come off quite a lot of it for a while. Twitter is just full of ‘cancel culture’ and everyone slinging insults and threats.

Respect people's right to have an opinion that differs from your own. Challenge their views, discuss, debate. We can do this without vitriol and no platforming.

I agree that vitriol is often unhelpful (though sometimes justified) but no platforming is a completely valid form of democratic expression. ‘Right to free speech’ is not the same as ‘right to a platform’. You don’t have a right to be hosted or listened to, or have your opinions shared, or to benefit from a platform others have created to share your views.

Part of the problem is that if you don't hold the 'right' view and vocalise it perfectly, you are seen to be a irredeemable person who should be 'cancelled'.

This is a shame because there 100% are people who have had racist/sexist etc views changed through discussion and reading other viewpoints. Now we don't even allow for that, it's just 'no you are evil die in a fire'.

There are other views and topics of discussion that are important apart from racism and sexism, let’s not forget. Violence is violence, hatred is hatred, pain is pain in all contexts.

Example
Two days ago a op put on a thread on MN saying that George Floyd was convicted of breaking into a pregnant woman’s house and holding a gun to her belly!! This is not a made up statement he was convicted of this crime.
Does this justify how he was murdered by a police officer of course not, his death was just disgusting.

But to take down the op thread because you did not like what she said is why we are now talking about this thread

I fully now expect my two penny’s worth to be taken off as some will say I’m a racist !!

@zscaler

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?

What is your interpretation of the meaning of this phrase? Do you think the implication is that one should never expect to be argued with, disagreed with, or ignored because one has a right to speak?

Because what this phrase was actually intended to convey was an opposition to the idea that your right to express yourself can be curtailed by government. It simply means that, within reasonable limits, you should be free to say what you like without being punished or censored by the government.

It doesn’t mean people generally have to respect what you say. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t argue with you, tell you they think you’re wrong, point out errors of fact or judgment, criticise you for holding a certain opinion, or accept your point of view. Those are all perfectly normal ways to respond to an opinion in a democratic society which protects free speech.

Exactly this! Very well said.

@CrazyToast

I agree, however, as an earlier poster pointed out, social media is full of trolls who get a rise out of being contrarian and offensive. Once you've seen the first ten thousand or so, it's wearing to the point that it's just simpler to ignore/block/delete/no platform them.

Again, this is a symptom of the media itself. It's not impossible to sniff out a troll on Twitter, but it takes time and effort, and when there are so many they become impossible to distinguish from the genuinely ill or uninformed that it is indeed possible to debate and inform.

You can't 'read a room' on Twitter or any other social media as easily or readily as you can in a physical room full of other actual human beings. It's an order of magnitude more difficult to determine who is actually there for an open and honest debate, and who is there simply to stoke up trouble and get a rise out of doing so. I really, really can't judge people who are quick to hit the block button when you're talking about public personalities or prominent activists who must encounter thousands of trolls on a daily basis.

I also can't really blame them for just shutting their ears to people who would otherwise engage in constructive debate either. Like I said, they are often indistinguishable in among the legion of trolls and bigots.

@CrazyToast

I agree, however, as an earlier poster pointed out, social media is full of trolls who get a rise out of being contrarian and offensive. Once you've seen the first ten thousand or so, it's wearing to the point that it's just simpler to ignore/block/delete/no platform them.

Again, this is a symptom of the media itself. It's not impossible to sniff out a troll on Twitter, but it takes time and effort, and when there are so many they become impossible to distinguish from the genuinely ill or uninformed that it is indeed possible to debate and inform.

You can't 'read a room' on Twitter or any other social media as easily or readily as you can in a physical room full of other actual human beings. It's an order of magnitude more difficult to determine who is actually there for an open and honest debate, and who is there simply to stoke up trouble and get a rise out of doing so. I really, really can't judge people who are quick to hit the block button when you're talking about public personalities or prominent activists who must encounter thousands of trolls on a daily basis.

I also can't really blame them for just shutting their ears to people who would otherwise engage in constructive debate either. Like I said, they are often indistinguishable in among the legion of trolls and bigots.

Part of the problem is that if you don't hold the 'right' view and vocalise it perfectly, you are seen to be a irredeemable person who should be 'cancelled'.

I agree with this & there also seems to be a weird thing where if you state a fact then that is the same as your opinion. For example saying Trump was popular in Wyoming equals I love Trump.
I remember on here I quoted another poster who referred to an area as stabby & criticised that point of view. Another poster didn't understand quote marks & accused me of being racist. Even when other posters chipped in, the poster still kept saying I was wrong & should have used a different word.
Critical thinking seems to be on the decline.

@nanalisa60 yes & I think I said on that thread by removing those elements from discussions only adds fuel to the fire for the right wing conspiracy nuts.

Most of what's being said is bollocks though. And the people shouting loudest about 'my right to speak' seem to mean 'you're not allowed to contradict me or ask difficult questions'

I agree with you. I find it difficult to read a lot of discussions on social media because people leap so quickly to personal insults and trying to belittle the other person. All it exposes is that the person has no argument. I find balanced views reflecting critical thinking far more persuasive, whether or not they differ from mine.

It’s a problem when certain thoughts and ideologies are perceived to be beyond questioning or criticism. We are seeing it today with racism and BLM. There is no chance of even questioning BLMs motives yet alone criticising them. It’s a global activist group with some fairly radical ideals at heart that publicly promote the interests of one racial demographic over all others. But they are literally beyond criticism right now. Same as we’ve seen with the JK trans debate. Counter arguments and views are shut down as evil and ignorant. But nothing should be beyond cross examination. No topical debate off limits. Otherwise we are entering into very dangerous territory, which really is evil and ignorant.

Has JKR been banned from Twitter?

@stressing how is BLM promoting the interests of one racial group? You get that black lives matter is black lives matter too?

I think there are limits. I don’t ‘defend the right’ of the KKK or neo nazis to talk about how they would happily eradicate an entire race of of people. There’s no point challenging these people because they aren’t open to debate. They don’t care, you can’t appeal to their humanity. So I think if what you’re saying is actively harmful and violent then no I’m not happy for you to have a platform to do so.

[quote DameFanny]**@stressing* how is BLM promoting the interests of one racial group? You get that black lives matter is black lives matter too*?[/quote]
Their website says that their position is uncompromisingly black, their focus is just on helping black people, improving education for black people, gaining justice for black people, increasing black representation in government, protecting rights of black women and black trans. Their belief is that this focus will then symptomatically improve the lives of everyone else. there are various ways that can be interpreted.

Seems fair to me @stressing - but what you're not demonstrating is how this is promoting black interests over other interests? It's perfectly possible to promote interests alongside others, and you might want to question why you automatically assumed that you or your interests would have to lose out?

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, as long as what you say is not offensive to anyone.

I’m not saying they are, but by making black lives a priority they could be. The point is not so much about BLM, but whether some groups have themselves wangled into a unique position where they are beyond criticism.

So you're making a negative assumption about BLM without cause?

And you're saying that BLM have our themselves above criticism, when Trump is trying to have them declared terrorists, and black people are still being treated with suspicion and hostility for just existing in public spaces?

You might want to examine your own biases @stressing. We all have them, but if you recognise what they are you can make better choices for the future.

@potter5

Nobody is allowed to express an opinion these day s. You need to have a thick skin and expect to be shouted down.

I don’t u dear stand this ‘shouted down’ argument about social media. Nobody can shout you down on a website. You’d an write your full argument without interruption. Many people may disagree with you afterwards, but they can’t shout you down, you’ve already said what you wanted to say. And they can’t stop you adding other ideas either. They can’t interrupt you - or shout - at all.

Understand*

So, activism works when there is quantifiable objective. Everyone knows when the activist has ‘won’. Equal pay, a change in the law, abolition of an act. These are all achievable objectives. Trouble with BLM is that there is no quantifiable objective. No one will know when or if they succeed because there’s no measurement. So, the movement promotes the interests of a underrepresented, oppressed racial group. They fight for equality. They keep making progress. Then they make more progress. They keep fighting for the interest of the race for how long? When will they have enough equality? How will the know when they surpass equality? Will anyone notice if they move into a position of privilege? Then superiority? Can they be trusted to stop the single promotion of the black cause when another race becomes the repressed instead? This is why we need to keep a sense of cynicism and independent thought and make sure everything is up for debate.

And Dame by calling out my bias you’re proving you’re not capable of a debate without putting down the opponent in an attempt to silence through shame.