safe spaces in universities

[vixnix]

no, I'm joking. I think I'm describing myself

[vixnix]

Also, I looked up what is known about the 40% who don't vote in the U.S. presidential elections, and it looks like it is disproportionately those who would be supposedly better served by the Democrats.

[vixnix]

Though I say supposedly because if it is anything like my own shit country, the centre-left party is only really interested in maintaining the status quo established by the previous generation of crony capitalists, and especially, maintaing the status quo of those who have been elected

[vixnix]

I'm not sure if this is part of the Manufacturing Consent documentary or not. Most people have probably seen it before. But for those who haven't, well...I'm sharing it for them.

[slunken]

man, jordan peterson has aged fast

b/w

woody allen got very political

pick your punchline

[hnibos]

My initial thought is this is fine. Why do people care if others want a small place where they are guaranteed not to see or hear shit they don't want to see or hear? But then I'm like, why can't people create their own safe space? Especially if it's just gonna be another thing the right attacks, even if it's unfair. No need to create another target. But maybe I don't know what exactly a safe space is.

[JESUSNEEDSAHIT]

this thread

[Disco King]

This thread has moved too quickly for me since I last replied, and I don't know what to reply to.

[Sonic Johnny]

wow congratulations gang I tried to read this thread but i ended up tearing a few of my own teeth out (I think my logic was "maybe I will black out from the pain")

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by vixnix

I'm not sure if this is part of the Manufacturing Consent documentary or not. Most people have probably seen it before. But for those who haven't, well...I'm sharing it for them.

Though Chomsky is an anarchist, his stance on speech seems much more informed by liberalism than anarchism. Even within the academy, he has been against attempts to silence professors with right-wing views.

Freedom of speech is a protection from the government, so seeing as anarchists don't believe government should exist in the first place, removing government kind of obviates the speech debate for them. There is no need to protect speech if the institution that we have to protect it from doesn't exist. But one who goes against the values of society will still be subject to consequences from other members of society.

The issue has become more significant in recent years because it's hard for me to tell where my intuitions lie. Especially being an agnostic leftist. I have an interest in both liberal and anarchist ideas because I'm agnostic as to whether capitalism supplemented by sufficient social-safety policies can be reformed to serve the common societal good, or if only the dissolution of private ownership and government would be sufficient to end oppression and maximize wellbeing.

On the one hand, I have liberal views about speech, thinking that it's best to let people say whatever they choose, and to defeat them by challenging them or simply ignoring them. On the other hand, I feel as though we know too much about social psychology and cognitive bias to seriously believe that reason and rationality are enough to win the day.

I also have different feelings about larger institutions using force against speech, and regular citizens using force against speech. I'd prefer not to have government or universities act with a heavy hand against speech, but I cry no tears when a Neo-Nazi gets punched in the face by another citizen. Speech has consequences, and sometimes those consequences are "talk shit, get hit, mofugger." I'm totally for bashing a fash. In fact, I was surprised when Chomsky came out against antifa, as it's rare that I disagree with him so fundamentally about anything. He seems way too smart a man to be making the arguments that he was making, such as "antifa is a gift to the authoritarian right wing, because it gives them another reason to suppress civil rights." The flaw in this argument is that, in claiming that the actions of antifa are a significant factor in authoritarians' actions against rights, one must believe that, if not for antifa, the authoritarian right wing would be measurably less likely to move against civil rights. That is an incredibly naive belief. Authoritarians need no reasons to suppress civil rights, and will do so regardless. That is what makes them authoritarian.

But then I also wonder, if I am comfortable with groups of private citizens using force against certain speech, what happens when the size of those groups increase, and the severity of their actions increase? Lynch mobs were groups of private citizens, as well. I would have to invoke some standard as to why I accept some level of violence against some people whose views are thought to be fundamentally opposed to the values that keep society free, and why I do not accept other levels of violence against other people whose values could possibly be argued to be against the very foundation of a free society.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Disco King

But then I also wonder, if I am comfortable with groups of private citizens using force against certain speech, what happens when the size of those groups increase, and the severity of their actions increase? Lynch mobs were groups of private citizens, as well. I would have to invoke some standard as to why I accept some level of violence against some people whose views are thought to be fundamentally opposed to the values that keep society free, and why I do not accept other levels of violence against other people whose values could possibly be argued to be against the very foundation of a free society.

how about because rigid moral ideologies such as the categorical imperative are bullshit and all actions should be judged in the context of how much good or harm will be done to the greatest number of people?

[vixnix]

I thought he was anti-government mostly in the sense our default position toward our governments should be sceptical/critical.

Is his antifa stance related to how the most recent threat to individual liberties in the U.S. have come in the aftermath of 9/11 and were introduced by a right wing government? I dunno. I guess, given how support for the invasion of Iraq was built - so that HRC and even Bernie Sanders were in favour of it, there is a possibility that a similar level of support could be found for restricting certain civil rights, based on the reactions of antifa groups. Maybe.

I'm against antifa just because I think it's unproductive and I sort of agree with him that nutty far-right movements will run themselves into the ground if we just ignore them long enough. That's just a hypothesis though.

But it's what happened to the counter-culture movement in the late 90s/early 2000s that I was a part of, that was anti-globalisation, and anti-corporation, anti-war, anti-imperialism. I hardly hear anything about that sort of stuff, now - most xennials I know just accept those things as a given and move on with getting to work on time and filing their tax returns. If nothing happens in response to the activism I think people just give up. It seems to me that antifa sort of fuels the fire, in a way.

[myosis]

chasing people out of town with pitchforks does that make them disappear though?

what makes you think that punching a nazi will silence them? they take it as an aggression and as validation that they must double up their forces. no way are they thinking "wow we are so wrong i guess they showed us!"

[Elphenor]

I think a discussion with fuzzyroes shows a contingent of the population is going to be authoritarian racist no matter what and the answer is not tolerance

[myosis]

are you saying that "not tolerance" = violence?

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by vixnix

I thought he was anti-government mostly in the sense our default position toward our governments should be sceptical/critical.

Is his antifa stance related to how the most recent threat to individual liberties in the U.S. have come in the aftermath of 9/11 and were introduced by a right wing government? I dunno. I guess, given how support for the invasion of Iraq was built - so that HRC and even Bernie Sanders were in favour of it, there is a possibility that a similar level of support could be found for restricting certain civil rights, based on the reactions of antifa groups. Maybe.

I'm against antifa just because I think it's unproductive and I sort of agree with him that nutty far-right movements will run themselves into the ground if we just ignore them long enough. That's just a hypothesis though.

But it's what happened to the counter-culture movement in the late 90s/early 2000s that I was a part of, that was anti-globalisation, and anti-corporation, anti-war, anti-imperialism. I hardly hear anything about that sort of stuff, now - most xennials I know just accept those things as a given and move on with getting to work on time and filing their tax returns. If nothing happens in response to the activism I think people just give up. It seems to me that antifa sort of fuels the fire, in a way.

Chomsky believes that governments are inhently bad and illegitimate authorities, but that because they allow for at least some popular influence, it is strategically necessary to make use of them to try to protect society from the predatory harms of capitalism. But ultimately, states mostly serve the capitalist class even if they make some concessions to the people, and both the state and capitalism should be dissolved.

But he also believes in opting for the lesser of evils in the meantime. Even though both parties serve the interests of elites, people should vote for the party with policies that cause marginally less harm, because real people's lives will be effected by these differences. One problem I have with many other anarchists is that they get so caught up in their ideological purity that they refuse to accept the lesser of evils, and disengage from the established political system entirely. Yeah, it's great and all that you didn't vote for either of the capitalist war-mongering pigs, but that's cold comfort for that single mother who would have been able to feed her children better if you voted for the candidate that wasn't for cutting the social services she relies upon.

Part of the popular support for the invasion of Iraq was that the media was totally in the bag for if, even the so-called "liberal" outlets. I suppose I do see similarities in how even "left-leaning" major outlets cover antifa in a way that suggests moral equivalence with fascist terror groups, but I think the fact that the issue isn't as major makes it less likely they they will stoke up enough fear to turn the majority of people against antifa. I mean, I'd wager that the majority of Americans still haven't even heard about antifa, despite the news coverage during the Charlottesville thing. Whether the country engages in another ground war is a much bigger news story, on the other hand.

As for the correct approach to far-right groups, I don't know. Engaging with them in debate can sometimes just give them more attention, making them appear to be yet another position on the accepted political spectrum worth reasoning with. Similar to the way that fact-checking every lie Trump uttered meant that we had to give Trump more air-time, and pretty much fact-check him into free campaign advertising. Suppressing them can also give them more attention, the way that folks like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos pretty much made careers out of having their talks protested and canceled, and then whining on the internet. Chomsky makes an observation that Holocaust denial is more popular in Europe than in America, despite many Europeans countries outlawing it. He says that in America, somebody publishes a denialist book, and it gets quietly ignored as nonsense. In Europe, somebody makes denialist statements, and the fact that they did something so subversive becomes front-page news. More attention, and now we have go seriously discuss Holocaust denial, instead of just ignoring it the way we ignore Flat Earthers.

But ignoring the far-right also has pitfalls. Lots of liberal elites trapped in bubbles in Boston and New York just thought Trumpism was so absurd that nobody could possibly take it seriously. Of course, we are rational people, like my friends and I, who would never opt for a government like that. There are just a handful of crazies out there that we can ignore. Then they realized that not everybody thinks like them.

I honestly don't know what the correct approach is. But it's hard for me to see antifa as being a factor in making fascism more popular. And they do more than get I'm fist-fights with fascists. They organize, help their communities through direct action, defend labour and marginalized groups, etc. They even helped citizens affected by the Puerto Rico disaster.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

I think a discussion with fuzzyroes shows a contingent of the population is going to be authoritarian racist no matter what and the answer is not tolerance

This. We can't get rid of them and no amount of debate is going to change the mind of someone who has real hate in their heart. The best option is to peer pressure them into silence and submission via social consequences. Most of the progress that was made during the Civil Rights movement in the US was achieved by changing norms so that public racism was not tolerated. Now these fuckers are emboldened again and just like the first time, we aren't going to change their minds. But we can punish them until they shut the fuck up.

[FoolofaTook]

My entire family is made up of Fuzzies. I mean, some are not as bad and others are worse. But basically they are bigots and proud of it.

So far I have tolerated it, which is cowardice. And I've argued against it, which is pointless. So now I will just have nothing to do with the ones I can afford to ignore. Hopefully someday I can shun them all.

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by myosis

are you saying that "not tolerance" = violence?

I'm saying it might be the only answer along with deplatforming

I hope not but Idk

[buzzard]

I suspect that fuzzy is more akin to a flake of chameleon dandruff and could have just as easily ended up in a Clinton Foundation trucker cap had he stumbled upon the right sense of belonging at the right time.

[redbreegull]

I don't even really specifically give a fuck if universities allow milo yianorapeschildren to speak or not, but as a society, we should be chasing these people with pitchforks via every avenue possible, and that may ******* punishing venues who give platforms to these folks. You can see how this actually does work with someone like Alex Jones. The less his voice is projected into society, the better off we are.

In the last two years, it is fucking terrifying how normalized hate speech and harassment of marginalized groups has become in the US. Peer pressure is one of the most powerful forces in society and in many ways is the glue of social cohesion. It can be a force of great good

[Elphenor]

I don't necessarily agree with RBG's assessment of Democracy or he'd have to clarify

I think "mob rule" is a form of Democracy, it's just not the only Democracy

I'd prefer if we had a more direct democracy while remaining constitutional

[Elphenor]

Robert Dahl's book Polyarchy and Chomsky's lectures on what it means to be a Polyarchy gave me a lot of insight on what the US really is

But even in theory the US is structured such that a minority can impose their will over the majority, that's both what Trump and the senate are

[Elphenor]

general politics thoughts now

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by myosis

chasing people out of town with pitchforks does that make them disappear though?

what makes you think that punching a nazi will silence them? they take it as an aggression and as validation that they must double up their forces. no way are they thinking "wow we are so wrong i guess they showed us!"

At the point where it comes to using violence against them, it's not about changing their minds. We don't care about their minds anymore. It's about protecting society from them, making sure that they never get the opportunity to see their agenda realized.

They necessarily and explicitly seek to cause harm to people. For them, violence isn't a means, it's an end. Their ideology is based upon oppressing or destroying certain groups of people. So, when they profess their ideology, they are making a threat. And it is admissible to use violence to defend oneself or others from the use or threat of unjustified violence. Punching a Nazi is essentially self-defense.

It's not just punching somebody for their views. It's punching somebody specifically their view is equivalent to a promise to cause harm.

[Elphenor]

I don't believe utilitarianism is the be all either

freedom and democracy have inherent worth you can't measure in like a happiness poll

it just happens that capitalism is the chief enemy of both freedom and utilitarian goals

[Disco King]

And, even though it is legally assault, I think we as a society acknowledge that sometimes being a dick gets you punched.

Say I walk up to a woman and start making crude statements about how I want to fuck her. I get pushed into some garbage cans by her boyfriend. Legally assault, sure. But few people, even those who say "you can't punch Nazis just because they don't share your opinion, only the state can use force," would probably take much umbrage with the consequence I faced. It's illegal, but morally justified. And the legal system is backed up with enough cases that police and judges probably wouldn't bother bringing something like this to court, they'd probably file a report, but tell me to deal with it myself, if I contacted them. Hell, even when people go to the police with serious complaints, the police often do very little.

We can't just have everybody going around using force as they please in civilized society, but punching some assholes now and then still has its place in any civil society. Even if we need a state and a monopoly of authorized force in order to prevent society from becoming a war of all against all, some punches thrown by people who aren't part of that monopoly are acceptable when called for.

This is just a continuation of my last thought, not a response to anybody in particular.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

I don't necessarily agree with RBG's assessment of Democracy or he'd have to clarify

I think "mob rule" is a form of Democracy, it's just not the only Democracy

I'd prefer if we had a more direct democracy while remaining constitutional

when I say democracy itt, I mean Enlightenment democracy. I think Enlightenment democracy is a system of popular rule based on Enlightenment values such as freedom and equality among all individuals and not just the elite, non-violent transfer of power, a society where the people willfully buy into the social contract, etc, stuff like that.

I would consider mob rule a form of popular governance, but not democracy, but that's just semantics. I think I am thinking along the lines of Aristotle's designations, where polity (except here I'm using democracy) is the good form of rule by the many and democracy (here, mob rule) is its perversion where the people literally rise up and do whatever they want

[redbreegull]

I also don't think utilitarianism is the end-all-be-all moral ideology, but it's still comparatively pretty good. No single ideology can provide provide a wholistic handbook for everything in life and society

[redbreegull]

how did this turn into Polisci 201, Perspectives on Ideologies