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 an outstanding piece. Your critique of "consequences" masking deliberate punishment really resonates. It dovetails with my own article about how this rhetoric enables callous pile-ons that destroy empathy.
"you are tacitly condoning violent, punitive or censorious responses to speech you find abhorrent while distancing yourself from the authoritarianism of that. You yourself would not do such a thing but think it is quite understandable that others do?" This has, quite disturbingly, been a major focus of so many social media posts since September 10th. I've tried, unsuccessfully, to try and reason people out of this but the hostility is so entrenched.
Thanks for the article. I always enjoy your insights!
Being offended is chosen. The acceptor of offence is the person accountable for his/her own mental state. Is it a good idea to surrender my mental state to arbitrary others?
I’ve been thinking a lot about “cancel culture” lately and I’d appreciate your thoughts on the following three scenarios:
1. Activists successfully lobby a venue to get a meeting of gender critical feminists shut down.
2. A woman sends a letter to the editor of a national newspaper, announcing that she intends to cancel her subscription because the paper is platforming an opinion writer with mysoginist views.
3. Customers stop buying a brand because they disagree with political statements issued by that business.
To my mind, 1. is a blatant example of cancel culture while 3. is not.
But I’m really not sure about 2. While it certainly has a cancel culture flavour to it, it’s not actually demanding that the opinion writer be deplatformed.
Yeah, I’d say that the woman in 2. has an attitude contrary to that which values viewpoint diversity and believes that the best way to beat bad ideas is with better ones. She may not be very liberal in her principles (I am assuming that she is not because you invented her as a censorious-minded person). But she does what we ask people to do - take herself away without shutting down anybody else - and she says that she is doing this, which she has every right to do. She is exercising her own freedoms in ways we might wish she wouldn’t, but she’s not interfering with anybody else’s.
Excellent! Thank you again!
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!
This is an outstanding piece. Your critique of "consequences" masking deliberate punishment really resonates. It dovetails with my own article about how this rhetoric enables callous pile-ons that destroy empathy.
https://substack.com/@slipperyslopes/note/p-174302220?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=pcm1s
"you are tacitly condoning violent, punitive or censorious responses to speech you find abhorrent while distancing yourself from the authoritarianism of that. You yourself would not do such a thing but think it is quite understandable that others do?" This has, quite disturbingly, been a major focus of so many social media posts since September 10th. I've tried, unsuccessfully, to try and reason people out of this but the hostility is so entrenched.
Thanks for the article. I always enjoy your insights!
Phenomenally well reasoned. And so necessary nowadays. Thank you!
Spot on. Again!
Being offended is chosen. The acceptor of offence is the person accountable for his/her own mental state. Is it a good idea to surrender my mental state to arbitrary others?
Thank you Helen for another well-argued piece.
I’ve been thinking a lot about “cancel culture” lately and I’d appreciate your thoughts on the following three scenarios:
1. Activists successfully lobby a venue to get a meeting of gender critical feminists shut down.
2. A woman sends a letter to the editor of a national newspaper, announcing that she intends to cancel her subscription because the paper is platforming an opinion writer with mysoginist views.
3. Customers stop buying a brand because they disagree with political statements issued by that business.
To my mind, 1. is a blatant example of cancel culture while 3. is not.
But I’m really not sure about 2. While it certainly has a cancel culture flavour to it, it’s not actually demanding that the opinion writer be deplatformed.
What do you think?
Yeah, I’d say that the woman in 2. has an attitude contrary to that which values viewpoint diversity and believes that the best way to beat bad ideas is with better ones. She may not be very liberal in her principles (I am assuming that she is not because you invented her as a censorious-minded person). But she does what we ask people to do - take herself away without shutting down anybody else - and she says that she is doing this, which she has every right to do. She is exercising her own freedoms in ways we might wish she wouldn’t, but she’s not interfering with anybody else’s.
Unfortunately I didn’t invent the woman in 2. It was me 30 years ago before gender ideology turned me into a free speech absolutist LOL
Just FYI the audio version isn’t actually pay gated because you can press the play button on this version
Feels like I’m stealing
But not in my dulcet tones, right?
The AI reader voice has become pretty damn near tolerable