Cancel Cutlure

[baker]

Much indignation comes directly from not being able to channel energies productively. Any excuse is enough for outrage these days, as per the thread topic.

When people are happy and fulfilled and have enough sex, they tend not to be indignant about everything under the Sun. When they are frustrated, miserable and unfulfilled, anger is the go-to emotion.

That's just it! This is backwards, and it's reductionist.
What you're describng isn't happiness, it's numbness. When people "have their needs met", they aren't happy, they're numb.

You've sold yourself out to Big Brother. You have lowered your expectations of life. Subjugation is complete when the subjugated thinks himself free.

[Steve3007]

As far as I can recall, incidents of deplatforming usually have worked this way: A invites B to speak in a platform provided by A. Then, C shows up to the venue to block B from exercising their free speech rights...

Yes, often by shouting something.

...actually overriding the permission from A to use the platform.

Yes, verbally doing so (often loudly).

Or they put some threats against A (a typical cancel culture retaliation) to force them to revoke the permission and effectively block B from the previously granted access to the platform.

Yes, threats being verbal assurances that something physical is going to be done. So, to the free speech absolutist, they're morally neutral and not a form of force (because they view it as a self-contradiction to say that humans actions can be verbally forced.)

This is effectively a physical obstacle, an action to block B from delivering a speech. The ultimate objective of these actions is not to criticize B's speech, but to not allow the speech act to be consummated.

I agree that this has an effect which is, to a degree, similar to a physical obstacle. The free speech absolutists apparently don't.

The act of speech is a concrete singular event that includes the whole physical context where it is delivered, so it cannot be argued that it remains unhindered because potentially the message can be delivered somewhere else. It is THAT act that is being stopped, it is those people's speech (including the speaker and the audience) that is being stopped. Would you find it reasonable if someone blocked Steve3007 from expressing his views and argued: "anyone else can express the same views somewhere else, so no free speech right has been hampered"?

It would depend what you meant by "blocked" but no I might well not find it reasonable. But, as I've said, I'm not a free speech absolutist. I'm just examining the consequences of that position.

[Count Lucanor]

Yes, often by shouting something.

Yes, verbally doing so (often loudly).

Yes, threats being verbal assurances that something physical is going to be done. So, to the free speech absolutist, they're morally neutral and not a form of force (because they view it as a self-contradiction to say that humans actions can be verbally forced.)

I agree that this has an effect which is, to a degree, similar to a physical obstacle. The free speech absolutists apparently don't.

It would depend what you meant by "blocked" but no I might well not find it reasonable. But, as I've said, I'm not a free speech absolutist. I'm just examining the consequences of that position.

I'm not sure what the free speech absolutist would argue, but I know they will not be able to argue that these actions are acts of speech (therefore, within the scope of the concerns to protect free speech), since they are not acts of communication, but actions designed to effectively block (physically) the exercise of speech. You cannot do that by communication alone. In fact, they might be right to argue that any communication to promote these actions is protected speech, but the actions themselves are not.

[Steve3007]

I'm not sure what the free speech absolutist would argue, but I know they will not be able to argue that these actions are acts of speech (therefore, within the scope of the concerns to protect free speech), since they are not acts of communication, but actions designed to effectively block (physically) the exercise of speech. You cannot do that by communication alone. In fact, they might be right to argue that any communication to promote these actions is protected speech, but the actions themselves are not.

I think one of the interesting more general points that this exemplifies is a bit of a "hobby horse" of mine: the way in which we impose often quite arbitrarily positioned discrete divisions on continua. In this case the continuum would be from pure verbal communication to physical action, via hybrid activities, like shouting aggressively. As we saw in Washington DC over the last few hours, there are a variety of different ways to communicate, with a variety of different results.

[baker]

I think one of the interesting more general points that this exemplifies is a bit of a "hobby horse" of mine: the way in which we impose often quite arbitrarily positioned discrete divisions on continua.

Early Buddhists, for example, consider that action can be mental, verbal, and bodily. The FSA would surely be shocked to consider that thinking thoughts can be action.

[Pattern-chaser]

"Words are morally neutral" has a better chance of being an axiom than other free speech absolutism claims. After all, most people are taught from early on that sticks and stones can break their bones, but words can never hurt them, and that anyone who'd be hurt by words is a wuss (and being a wuss is bad). So "Words are morally neutral" comes naturally to most people.

This is exactly what the bullies say. Words can cause damage far in excess of what merely physical weapons can. All the bullies want is not to be stopped from their coercive practices. They like being bullies; they like to use violence and pain to force others to do their will. It makes them feel powerful, I expect. Words, and the way they are used, are definitely NOT morally neutral. [Not that words are ALWAYS used in this way; of course they aren't. But this sub-thread seems to be considering bullying-via-words, which does conform to my descriptions.]

I am a "wuss", as you describe. I was bullied unmercifully as a child and as an adult. Mostly, this was achieved by means of words, but often the words turned into actions, and I was injured. I am one of very, very, many victims; please do not dismiss us as overly sensitive. Thanks.

[Pattern-chaser]

What you're describng isn't happiness, it's numbness. When people "have their needs met", they aren't happy, they're numb.

You've sold yourself out to Big Brother. You have lowered your expectations of life. Subjugation is complete when the subjugated thinks himself free.

Instead of telling others what's wrong with their position, why don't you try saying what's right and proper? Tell us what's right, not what's wrong (with others)?

Over to you.

[baker]

This is exactly what the bullies say. Words can cause damage far in excess of what merely physical weapons can. All the bullies want is not to be stopped from their coercive practices. They like being bullies; they like to use violence and pain to force others to do their will. It makes them feel powerful, I expect. Words, and the way they are used, are definitely NOT morally neutral. [Not that words are ALWAYS used in this way; of course they aren't. But this sub-thread seems to be considering bullying-via-words, which does conform to my descriptions.]

I am a "wuss", as you describe. I was bullied unmercifully as a child and as an adult. Mostly, this was achieved by means of words, but often the words turned into actions, and I was injured. I am one of very, very, many victims; please do not dismiss us as overly sensitive. Thanks.

The power of words is something to harness, not to be harnessed by.

[Terrapin Station]

"Words are morally neutral" has a better chance of being an axiom than other free speech absolutism claims. After all, most people are taught from early on that sticks and stones can break their bones, but words can never hurt them, and that anyone who'd be hurt by words is a wuss (and being a wuss is bad). So "Words are morally neutral" comes naturally to most people.

This is exactly what the bullies say. Words can cause damage far in excess of what merely physical weapons can. All the bullies want is not to be stopped from their coercive practices. They like being bullies; they like to use violence and pain to force others to do their will. It makes them feel powerful, I expect. Words, and the way they are used, are definitely NOT morally neutral. [Not that words are ALWAYS used in this way; of course they aren't. But this sub-thread seems to be considering bullying-via-words, which does conform to my descriptions.]

I am a "wuss", as you describe. I was bullied unmercifully as a child and as an adult. Mostly, this was achieved by means of words, but often the words turned into actions, and I was injured. I am one of very, very, many victims; please do not dismiss us as overly sensitive. Thanks.

Re someone bullying you via speech, why didn't you just tell them to go jump in a lake?

[Terrapin Station]

So, that being the case, as I said I think a consistent free speech absolutist would see nothing immoral in cancel culture or de-platforming (if they're being self-consistent).

My issues with something like Roseanne Barr's show being canned because of something she wrote on twitter don't have to do with free speech, by the way. It's actually more related to general issues I have with people overreacting to various things (especially when we're talking about any sort of punitive action), and it's related to, or at least rooted in the same motivations as, my socialist views. It's not at all that I'm complaining that anyone's freedom of speech is being violated or anything like that.

[baker]

My issues with something like Roseanne Barr's show being canned because of something she wrote on twitter don't have to do with free speech, by the way. It's actually more related to general issues I have with people overreacting to various things (especially when we're talking about any sort of punitive action), and it's related to, or at least rooted in the same motivations as, my socialist views. It's not at all that I'm complaining that anyone's freedom of speech is being violated or anything like that.

Showbusiness is based on people overreacting to things. Imagine an ataraxic audience: the end of showbusiness.

It's strange to expect that people would do things on the show that they wouldn't do behind the courtains; or that one wouldn't spill over into the other.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is exactly what the bullies say. Words can cause damage far in excess of what merely physical weapons can. All the bullies want is not to be stopped from their coercive practices. They like being bullies; they like to use violence and pain to force others to do their will. It makes them feel powerful, I expect. Words, and the way they are used, are definitely NOT morally neutral. [Not that words are ALWAYS used in this way; of course they aren't. But this sub-thread seems to be considering bullying-via-words, which does conform to my descriptions.]

I am a "wuss", as you describe. I was bullied unmercifully as a child and as an adult. Mostly, this was achieved by means of words, but often the words turned into actions, and I was injured. I am one of very, very, many victims; please do not dismiss us as overly sensitive. Thanks.

The power of words is something to harness, not to be harnessed by.

The power of words is something to harness, not to be harmed by. Bullying is a very damaging thing.

[Steve3007]

My issues with something like Roseanne Barr's show being canned because of something she wrote on twitter don't have to do with free speech, by the way. It's actually more related to general issues I have with people overreacting to various things (especially when we're talking about any sort of punitive action), and it's related to, or at least rooted in the same motivations as, my socialist views. It's not at all that I'm complaining that anyone's freedom of speech is being violated or anything like that.

OK, but given your views on free speech I would assume you'd regard any punitive reaction at all, to something like Roseanne Barr's tweets, as an overreaction? Also: I don't immediately see the connection to the socialist views. Do you object to the overreaction simply because you dislike overreactions (as you might, for example, dislike some foods) or do you regard the overreaction as morally wrong? And, morally, would you say that somebody who agrees to employ somebody else (to make a TV show) can choose to change their minds and remove the offer of employment without necessarily having to give a reason? Obviously this relates back to de-platforming and whether it's morally acceptable for me to remove a speaking platform from someone simply because I've decided I don't like the cut of their jib anymore.

[baker]

The power of words is something to harness, not to be harmed by. Bullying is a very damaging thing.

It's not likely that one will ever overcome the effects of having been bullied if one continues to let oneself be harnessed by words.

[LuckyR]

The power of words is something to harness, not to be harnessed by.

The power of words is something to harness, not to be harmed by. Bullying is a very damaging thing.

No doubt folks are harmed (sometimes seriously) by words routinely. The fact that this is under the control of the victim is a completely separate issue. For example: can you harm a person with words if they don't speak your language? How about trying to harass someone on social media who doesn't have a social media account? Can't do it.