It’s interesting that people will decry legally sanctioned execution as proof of social immorality - whether the persecutors are some historical or current people group (ancient Israel, modern Islam) or just Western nations with the death penalty. But then turn around and justify extra-judicial killings as “he had it coming”.
If you think it’s good to kill in the name of ideology or social cohesion, defend it as public policy, don’t deny it and then cheer on vigilantism. If your ideas or culture are worth killing for, own it. And understand that if you’re willing to kill for it, then you, your friends, your allies might die for it too
This is true regardless of how morally right your cause is. Violence is never something that “just happens” to the bad guys, while you remain unimpacted
[FYI: I agree with Helen - just pushing the ideas further]
Nice piece. Another argument that has been making the rounds on X recently is that 'game theory' tells us that we should not be principled in our defence of free speech but engage in calibrated tit-for-tat. This drives me crazy, partly because the argument misapplies game theory and partly because it is being made in bad faith. I ranted about it here: https://x.com/ObhishekSaha/status/1969332639120150759?t=RoJrAeKgSaDrHXV7ugNrYQ&s=19
Please make this into a comment on Substack so I can share it!
I'm glad you did that. People have been telling me I don't understand game theory and my understanding of it is limited but not so much that I can't recognise that they're talking bollocks.
This is a strong piece, and it gets at something I’ve been wrestling with too — how do we rebuild a shared sense of reality when truth has become a tribal project? I just wrote an essay on that question and would really value your perspective: https://frankreagan.substack.com/p/why-truth-doesnt-belong-to-you
Thank you for so artfully articulating the always difficult idea of putting principles over party (or tribe or team or whatever your preferred in group vs out group framing may be.)
I heard a great quote on this recently:
"You must stand up to those with whom you agree on behalf of those with whom you disagree."
I found some of the things he said completely odious. And bringing up Dei as the cause of deaths of people was absolutely terrible when he was talking about a tragedy. But he does not deserve to be shot. There were some problems but the idea that he was a Nazi or anything else those go to the people that don't get mentioned like project 2025 and the as James Lindsay calls them the woke right. Which I just call them the right wing because I really can't tell the difference
Hi Helen. Related...here's a reply I made to a friend who's on political TV a bit....would love to know how you think im doing now as a liberal advocate...
I agree it would be decent of Defend Our Juries to choose to cancel thir protest today. I disagree where you are implying that your sense of decency determines whether a protest should take place. The necessity of freedom - for the establishment and maintenance of a non-totalitarian society, and defining freedom's limits - is a concept that has become poorly understood and confused, generally. I agree the murder was anti-semitic and terrorist. I stand with British Jews. But while the protest is distasteful or abhorrent, you don't ban protests on the grounds of some vague notion of 'not decent' by some decision-maker. That itself would be over-reach by whoever is in power at the time. We must grit our teeth to support diversity of views. What we do ban for, must be more specific. True liberalism is equal for both sides - constitutional not partisan. This 'liberal' view, says a ban is imposed when there is incitement/encouragement to immediate and material harm.
So, feelings of offence are no justification for a ban. That leads to totalitarianism as anyone in power can define 'offence' however they like. We must allow offence. Let the cost to them be reputational for that.
But we've allowed protests recently that do include incitement to immediate and material harm - and we should not have. And the Police have failed, by instruction, to prosecute where appropriate in some protests and not others.
We should judge the Defend our Juries protest on this basis, not on some innate, vague sense of decency (even though I find its timing and intention anything but decent). So yes, ban, but only where it constitutes incitement/encouragement to immediate material harm. Which it may.
Finally, this definition of liberalism is not pacifism or suicidal tolerance. In this construct, you don't have to give exaggerated freedom to those who would not offer you the same equality and freedom in return, once they are in power over you.
What you do have to do, is defend democracy and to educate the voters (and voters-to-be) about the necessity to constantly defend freedom from those who would take it from you. Trojan Horses abound.
Those who often employ the “what did you expect?” argument fail to see that they would reject this reasoning in another context e.g the abuse of a woman wearing revealing clothing. They confuse unjust, yet regrettably expected consequences, with deserved consequences.
La ringrazio per la precisione e la chiarezza ,mentre leggevo,mi è venuto in mente ,a proposito di "conseguenze " dei nostri pensieri il grande Philip Dick .
Minority Report : il marito pensa di uccidere la moglie ,ma,tra il pensiero e l'azione c'è sempre il libero arbitrio ,che,fino all'ultimo minuto ti permette di cambiare idea e non commettere il fatto.
Lovely. Even expression of the most vile opinions must be protected. Agreed. It's smarter to maintain a society in which we can more readily stay aware of what people honestly think. The only rub is the prospect of allowing those dim enough to film themselves celebrating a murder to continue in positions with authority over individuals too young or otherwise too mentally compromised to defend themselves from indoctrination, mental abuse, etc. (Or must parents hand over their impressionable children for education by state employees whose good judgement leads them to film themselves baying for blood and post it online for all to see and hear?)
And I am wondering where freedom of association fits in with this, which I think probably must include the freedom to shun. And also, what about trust and respect, the social lubrication large populations require for strangers to more easily transact with each other. Trust and respect must either be earned via repeated one-on-one encounters or knowledge of past virtuous behavior, or might be assumed by virtue of a stranger who avoids signaling he indulges in cultural taboos and perhaps enjoys the imprimatur of an organization or institution that has been able to build over time, and maintain, a reputation as an association of respectable and trustworthy individuals who police their own standards of behavior and adherence to a common set of principles. But wouldn't there be some disagreement about whether an organization that chooses to end its association with a member/employee for expressing deeply unpopular ideas is cravenly kowtowing to a mob's demands or merely living up to its responsibility to preserve its reputation?
Excellent! Thank you again!
Insightful. Thanks for sharing your work. Strong reasoning is the first casualty of authoritarianism.
It’s interesting that people will decry legally sanctioned execution as proof of social immorality - whether the persecutors are some historical or current people group (ancient Israel, modern Islam) or just Western nations with the death penalty. But then turn around and justify extra-judicial killings as “he had it coming”.
If you think it’s good to kill in the name of ideology or social cohesion, defend it as public policy, don’t deny it and then cheer on vigilantism. If your ideas or culture are worth killing for, own it. And understand that if you’re willing to kill for it, then you, your friends, your allies might die for it too
This is true regardless of how morally right your cause is. Violence is never something that “just happens” to the bad guys, while you remain unimpacted
[FYI: I agree with Helen - just pushing the ideas further]
Phenomenally well reasoned. And so necessary nowadays. Thank you!
A brilliant case made for non-collective-punishment of disagreeable speech - and why.
And a reprimand and warning to us all about not obliquely excusing violence in response to speech.
Nice piece. Another argument that has been making the rounds on X recently is that 'game theory' tells us that we should not be principled in our defence of free speech but engage in calibrated tit-for-tat. This drives me crazy, partly because the argument misapplies game theory and partly because it is being made in bad faith. I ranted about it here: https://x.com/ObhishekSaha/status/1969332639120150759?t=RoJrAeKgSaDrHXV7ugNrYQ&s=19
Please make this into a comment on Substack so I can share it!
I'm glad you did that. People have been telling me I don't understand game theory and my understanding of it is limited but not so much that I can't recognise that they're talking bollocks.
Ok I will try!
Well said Helen.
My Substack is dedicated to saving civilisation from Islamisation.
All articles are free.
Please subscribe.
https://hellish2050.substack.com/archive
I have written 20+ books.
https://hellish2050.substack.com/p/book-catalogue
This is a strong piece, and it gets at something I’ve been wrestling with too — how do we rebuild a shared sense of reality when truth has become a tribal project? I just wrote an essay on that question and would really value your perspective: https://frankreagan.substack.com/p/why-truth-doesnt-belong-to-you
Thank you for so artfully articulating the always difficult idea of putting principles over party (or tribe or team or whatever your preferred in group vs out group framing may be.)
I heard a great quote on this recently:
"You must stand up to those with whom you agree on behalf of those with whom you disagree."
Timeless lessons for the eternal struggle!
I found some of the things he said completely odious. And bringing up Dei as the cause of deaths of people was absolutely terrible when he was talking about a tragedy. But he does not deserve to be shot. There were some problems but the idea that he was a Nazi or anything else those go to the people that don't get mentioned like project 2025 and the as James Lindsay calls them the woke right. Which I just call them the right wing because I really can't tell the difference
Hi Helen. Related...here's a reply I made to a friend who's on political TV a bit....would love to know how you think im doing now as a liberal advocate...
I agree it would be decent of Defend Our Juries to choose to cancel thir protest today. I disagree where you are implying that your sense of decency determines whether a protest should take place. The necessity of freedom - for the establishment and maintenance of a non-totalitarian society, and defining freedom's limits - is a concept that has become poorly understood and confused, generally. I agree the murder was anti-semitic and terrorist. I stand with British Jews. But while the protest is distasteful or abhorrent, you don't ban protests on the grounds of some vague notion of 'not decent' by some decision-maker. That itself would be over-reach by whoever is in power at the time. We must grit our teeth to support diversity of views. What we do ban for, must be more specific. True liberalism is equal for both sides - constitutional not partisan. This 'liberal' view, says a ban is imposed when there is incitement/encouragement to immediate and material harm.
So, feelings of offence are no justification for a ban. That leads to totalitarianism as anyone in power can define 'offence' however they like. We must allow offence. Let the cost to them be reputational for that.
But we've allowed protests recently that do include incitement to immediate and material harm - and we should not have. And the Police have failed, by instruction, to prosecute where appropriate in some protests and not others.
We should judge the Defend our Juries protest on this basis, not on some innate, vague sense of decency (even though I find its timing and intention anything but decent). So yes, ban, but only where it constitutes incitement/encouragement to immediate material harm. Which it may.
Finally, this definition of liberalism is not pacifism or suicidal tolerance. In this construct, you don't have to give exaggerated freedom to those who would not offer you the same equality and freedom in return, once they are in power over you.
What you do have to do, is defend democracy and to educate the voters (and voters-to-be) about the necessity to constantly defend freedom from those who would take it from you. Trojan Horses abound.
Agree?
Absolutely! Beautiful job!
Thank you. I'm improving! Grateful and appreciated, Helen. It's funny how we have no choice but to amplify. Maintaining democracy takes civic effort!
Thank you so much! You are so insightful! :)
Those who often employ the “what did you expect?” argument fail to see that they would reject this reasoning in another context e.g the abuse of a woman wearing revealing clothing. They confuse unjust, yet regrettably expected consequences, with deserved consequences.
La ringrazio per la precisione e la chiarezza ,mentre leggevo,mi è venuto in mente ,a proposito di "conseguenze " dei nostri pensieri il grande Philip Dick .
Minority Report : il marito pensa di uccidere la moglie ,ma,tra il pensiero e l'azione c'è sempre il libero arbitrio ,che,fino all'ultimo minuto ti permette di cambiare idea e non commettere il fatto.
Continui così e
Cordiali saluti
Lovely. Even expression of the most vile opinions must be protected. Agreed. It's smarter to maintain a society in which we can more readily stay aware of what people honestly think. The only rub is the prospect of allowing those dim enough to film themselves celebrating a murder to continue in positions with authority over individuals too young or otherwise too mentally compromised to defend themselves from indoctrination, mental abuse, etc. (Or must parents hand over their impressionable children for education by state employees whose good judgement leads them to film themselves baying for blood and post it online for all to see and hear?)
And I am wondering where freedom of association fits in with this, which I think probably must include the freedom to shun. And also, what about trust and respect, the social lubrication large populations require for strangers to more easily transact with each other. Trust and respect must either be earned via repeated one-on-one encounters or knowledge of past virtuous behavior, or might be assumed by virtue of a stranger who avoids signaling he indulges in cultural taboos and perhaps enjoys the imprimatur of an organization or institution that has been able to build over time, and maintain, a reputation as an association of respectable and trustworthy individuals who police their own standards of behavior and adherence to a common set of principles. But wouldn't there be some disagreement about whether an organization that chooses to end its association with a member/employee for expressing deeply unpopular ideas is cravenly kowtowing to a mob's demands or merely living up to its responsibility to preserve its reputation?
Based