Reddit reviews Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought

This is, of course, brilliant and practical. But, I will point out that it isn't new. This, after all, the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the approach to progress espoused by old school liberalism, from J.S. Mills to Jonathan Rauch.

The idea that calmly listening and addressing issues as a better approach than forming groups that fight each other is also consistent with ingroup/outgroup psychology, particularly modeled by Realistic (Group) Conflict Theory. Once you take away the idea that people belong to an identity group, and are just individuals, and that you aren't a member of a different group (tribe) in combat with their group (tribe), people can talk and resolve differences.

But yes, it takes patience and integrity. And you have those like few I've ever seen. That is awesome and inspiring!

I have posted this before but I cannot say enough good about the book, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, which covers this type of PC censorship on college campuses.


http://www.amazon.com/Kindly-Inquisitors-Attacks-Free-Thought/dp/0226705765

You should read this short article by Jonathan Rauch:

The Case for Hate Speech

Rauch has also written a very good book about the subject. Rauch thinks that no, you can't ever define the line what constitutes hate speech and that it's never a good idea to outlaw any type of speech.

OP, buy the following book, and get wise on the specifics of the arguments presented. We all have a good idea why SJW Fundamentalism is bad, but knowing how to present those arguments in a clear, cogent way should go a long way to persuading your peers.

http://www.amazon.com/Kindly-Inquisitors-Attacks-Free-Thought/dp/0226705765

Good luck, and godspeed.

That paragraph you quoted has it exactly right.

In a truly free society people should be able to say what they like regardless of the offense it might cause. This inevitably means that you have to put up with a lot of rubbish at times.

"Racism" and "inflammatory speech" are things that mean different things to different people and some people would like to pass laws using these terms to muzzle people who's opinions they don't share.

If you're really interested in the debate I recommend reading "Kindly Inquisitors". It's only a short book and it sums up the argument for free speech well.

http://www.amazon.com/Kindly-Inquisitors-Attacks-Free-Thought/dp/0226705765+

Here's an interview with the author:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFVRRP-J9mI

You’re welcome. I also want to share this book with you: Kindly Inquisitors.

I've read popper, have you read Rauch?

That's not the point. The point is who gets to decide what good and bad thought is? here is a really good book on this topic

> 'I would prefer if you made a note of when you are going to say a particular thing'

This is the absolute wrong onus. From the point of view of the person making the request, it seems on the surface to be reasonable. However, from the point of view of the person making the speech/content/art the logical conclusion is seven billion different "reasonable" points of view about notices for specific content. The correct onus is for the reader/lister/viewer to be mindful of offensive content, and act appropriately for themselves when that content presents itself. Anything else is absolutely bonkers.

>This world of 'ideal' free speech you are discussing does not exist.

Agreed. It is the ideal goal, however. A goal which permits the silencing of unpopular opinions is oppressive in nature, and contrary to liberty.

>Ironically, the judgment that "all speech should be permitted regardless of content" is also a false moral absolute - it reflects a particular cultural interpretation of 'freedom' that is not necessarily universal to every place and time.

It may not describe the realities of a given location or time, but it is the best ideal. Liberty is superior to oppression.

>Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is actually oppressed - do you really have 'free speech' when your voice is drowned out

History has demonstrated that your claim is false, by virtue the fact that popular opinion is where it is, and is moving ever more towards greater acceptance. What else has gotten us here except free speech by minority activists?

>'shit, dude, this is offensive, please stop doing that'.

This is absolutely not what they are doing. They are demanding self-censorship over a perceived slight where none exists. They are absolutely the ones who are shutting down speech.

>There is a very valid and nuanced discussion to be had about free speech and its limitations, and I feel that your perspective is too heavily founded on absolutes to adequately reflect that nuance.


At least you have avoided the "fire in a crowded theater" fallacy. Make sure you don't fall into that fallacy's trap by conflating the necessity of absolute freedom of speech with actions and their consequences.

Making a comment on twitter is speech. Publishing a game is an action (and also speech). Losing sales because of offensive content is a consequence. Furthermore, it's the most appropriate consequence to objectionable speech. Demanding self-censorship, especially to sooth a fragile ego, is fucking abhorrent.


e:

> Common ethical standards (by 'common', I mean generally shared by people in that particular cultural space and time) and common decency exist. I am not presuming a universal morality, but rather a time/culture-specific ethics

How do you presume those mores changed over time? They did not change because the cultural majority enjoyed a monopoly on what was decent and what was not. See Rauch: “A liberal society stands on the proposition that we should all take seriously the idea that we might be wrong. This means we must place no one, including ourselves, beyond the reach of criticism; it means that we must allow people to err, even where the error offends and upsets, as it often will.”

The speech codes enacted at certain colleges in the "PC nineties" have been revoked, largely for the best reason pointed out in Rauch's Kindly Inquisitors: nobody has a monopoly on knowing what's offensive, so the goal of "no hurt feelings" is unattainable. College campuses weren't looking to shut out odious speech, but to protect the feelings of certain people (and in doing so happened to shut out odious speech).

As far as workplace speech goes, I'm inclined to believe that speech that advances business is always preferred over all other kinds. I fail to see how incendiary commentary in the workplace would benefit anyone's business, and more importantly it's censure is not the same thing as being told "you can't express that opinion." It's more like "you can't express that opinion, in this building, 9-5, and keep this job for which we pay you our money." Which is really applied everywhere; you can exercise your free speech rights in a buddy's house, and find yourself thrown out for being a dick. It's not an overarching, rigidly enforced political correctness that encourages this kind of behavior, but simply getting along with one another and, in the case of business, trying to turn a dollar into two dollars. Even the most racially prejudiced car salesman turns it off when someone of the lesser race(s) comes to buy a car.

As a staunch defender of total free speech (including the neo-nazis, WBC, the Klan, etc) I frankly find the current trends encouraging, not discouraging. Unless I'm missing the point here.

Good, I think it's a good thing to do. People have been writing about suppression of free speech on American campuses for a while now.

Some young liberals might consider it great that conservative or otherwise controversial opinions are being silenced, but those of us who have been around for a while know that you yourself will eventually fall prey to the censorship you promote.