The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
Not to mention a recent thread where a political grouping on the Ship were repeatedly tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the late 20th Century.
Whereas other political groupings are routinely tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the early 20th Century. Sauce for the goose, and all that - if one is wrong then both are wrong.
Yes, I clearly remember all those threads where Capitalism was decried by pointing to Mussolini, Hitler and Castro.
I am aware that Johnson and Trump have both been described here as having fascist tendencies, and in Trump's case, racist, but that is in response to things they said or did which pointed in that direction. I don't recall anyone using it to denounce the Tory party as intrinsically fascist. Xenophobia has been raised as a reason for Brexit votes, but again, this is in response to xenophobic views expressed by Brexiteers, and the rise in xenophobic hate crime which followed the Brexit referendum.
In other words, there's a lot of both-sides-ism going on. False equivalence, they call it.
When I see someone arguing in favour of Brexit using facts I'll happily engage seriously with them. Hasn't happened yet.
How about the fact that when Brexit happens we won’t have to follow EU law? Is that not a fact?
More of a tautology. A restating of the definition of Brexit. The only part it can play in an argument hinges on somebody who didn't already know what Brexit was.
When I see someone arguing in favour of Brexit using facts I'll happily engage seriously with them. Hasn't happened yet.
How about the fact that when Brexit happens we won’t have to follow EU law? Is that not a fact?
More a fantasy, seeing as Brexit has already happened and we're still bound by EU law. Plus any future trading relationship will require conforming to EU law indefinitely.
MarvintheMartian The whole point of human rights is that everyone has them. So if freedom of speech is to be considered a human right (which I think it is) then that has to apply to everyone, whatever I personally may think of their views.
Mousethief. From this it does not follow that they must be allowed the use of any and every pulpit. Just because person X has a right under the law to spew bullshit Y doesn't mean group Z has to let them use their facilities, or funds, or good name.
I am very disturbed by the degree of intolerance being expressed in these posts, as exemplified in Mousethief's reaction to Marvin's conventional defence of the right to freedom of speech. If the right exists, there has to be opportunity exercise it.
As I argued earlier, no 'fundamental' right is absolute but should not be lightly abridged. If a shipmate was advocating the extermination of Jews then I doubt whether any of us would wish them to be published on these boards, but anathematising supporters of Brexit to the point of denying them a platform worries me because in or out of the EU is a matter of judgement and sentiment not a moral imperative by a country mile. (I should add that I deeply regret the UK leaving the EU). Leaving the EU, after all, is in line with the criticisms of neo-liberalism, globalisation, and capitalism, that are dominant themes of those same contributors who bemoan Brexit. Furthermore, the coronavirus experience might suggest the UK has become dangerously reliant on foreign-production for supplies of strategic materials, and that this might have to be addressed. If Brexit can't be legitimately discussed here then what can? Additionally, I don't like the kind of language that accuses the expressed of alternative views as "spewing bullshit" and the like, but maybe that's an over-sensitivity on my part.
No-one is denying Brexit supporters a platform here. It's the nature of the beast that they will find their pro-Brexit views challenged, because this is a place all views are challenged.
The irony here is the people complaining about the way conservative views are challenged are the ones championing the right to free speech - which includes the right to challenge views expressed under that right. The right to free speech is not the right to unchallenged speech.
KarlLB: The irony here is the people complaining about the way conservative views are challenged are the ones championing the right to free speech - which includes the right to challenge views expressed under that right. The right to free speech is not the right to unchallenged speech.
I think you had better have a word with Mousethief because he never wants the challenged words to be expressed in the first place. I would be interested to learn where you stand on platform denial etc..
Mousethief: Just because person X has a right under the law to spew bullshit Y doesn't mean group Z has to let them use their facilities, or funds, or good name."
I wonder, also, where the left has got to when it assumes that a defender of free speech is almost inevitably a holder of conservative opinions. If that is the case then the democratic left is utterly lost.
Well, Mousethief is correct that no one has a right to use someone else's platform to espouse certain views.
But that's a separate question from whether the commumity who participate on the platform are well served by ruling out certain viewpoints as worth considering.
To use a simple example...
Is it a violation of my uncle's free speech if I immediately delete his e-mails containing information about some lucrative jobs that I could apply for and probably get?
Answer: No. He has no right to force other people to read his e-mails.
Next question...
If I am unemployed and in dire need of money, is it a stupid move for me to ignore his e-mails?
Answer: Yes, for obvious reasons.
IOW while my uncle can say I have harmed my own livelihood by ignoring his opinions, he can't claim that he has had his right to free speech violated.
I think what has happened is that the right has co-opted the rhetoric of free speech to justify whatever bigotry they're endorsing today. It's a tactic to avoid the substance of the challenge to their expressed ideas and paint themselves as the victims. To reiterate, having your views challenged does not deny your right to free speech. Having your views dismissed out of hand as errant nonsense doss not deny your right to free speech. Refusing to give you a public platform to broadcast your views does not deny your right to free speech. Legally restricting hate speech only abridges your free speech if you're a bigot, and then only to protect the victims of your bigotry, for a net increase in freedom.
The irony of the right wing cant about free speech is that they've rarely had more scope for getting their hate-filled screeds out to the public. They control much of the press, they fill YouTube and Facebook with conspiracy theories and bullshit, they have the President of the US and the PMs of the UK and Australia propagating their nonsense. What views are they concerned are not getting an airing?
No-one is denying Brexit supporters a platform here. It's the nature of the beast that they will find their pro-Brexit views challenged, because this is a place all views are challenged.
The irony here is the people complaining about the way conservative views are challenged are the ones championing the right to free speech - which includes the right to challenge views expressed under that right. The right to free speech is not the right to unchallenged speech.
I think what we have are a couple of different lines of discussion which get a bit entangled.
First there is a general (some might say philosophical) question about free speech, whether it's an unlimited right (or, indeed a right at all). In my view, I support free speech but with two conditions. One, as @KarlLB has said, free speech works both ways and so we're free to challenge what others say and do. The other is that rights always include responsibilities, I don't believe that anyone has the right to speak irresponsibly (that includes telling deliberate lies or knowingly endangering others - the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theatre", even if we're forgetting what a crowded theatre is like). In many other areas of life we have rights that can be curtailed if exercised irresponsibly (I have a right to drive my car, but if I regularly do so irresponsibly by driving too fast or in a dangerous manner I can expect that right to be withdrawn) and I think that irresponsible exercise of free speech can rightly result in a curtailing of rights to speak (eg: gagging orders, or even imprisonment). We can all debate where the lines of irresponsible speech lie, and what sanctions should be imposed where people speak irresponsibly - but, probably on another thread as I don't think it's directly relevant to where the Ship is going.
Second, there's a question of Ship policy, guidelines and commandments. Again, this should probably be pursued in the Styx. But, from my perspective we don't have any rules that would ban very many opinions for discussion here - our rules are mostly about how those views are expressed. Whether it's possible to present an opinion that people with less melanin are inherently superior to those with more in a manner that doesn't come across as being a jerk and attacking a lot of people is an interesting academic question, I've certainly not seen it happen.
Finally, which is where I think the direction of the Ship is centred, there's the question of the community response to ideas that aren't banned in any official manner but that differ significantly from the majority view. Of course, that means that there is a majority view, and it's not obvious that there needs to be such a large majority on many issues (on some it is obvious, we are a basically Christian site and so followers of other religions or none are going to be in the minority. But, it's not as obvious why we don't have more supporters of the Conservative Party compared to Labour or Greens - at least among those who express their views), so there's a question of why other opinions are not expressed by as many people. I do think there is a community problem there, with too many opinions being pushed beyond the point of reasonable discussion when a few individuals don't consider some opinions worth discussing and, rather than simply keep quite, come out either attacking the idea with excessive force or state "that's a stupid idea not worth discussing". But, even without a few people responding to a view with hostility there's still a dynamic caused by the numbers - if someone was to express a view contrary to the majority opinion even if all the responses were very civil and reasonable the number of different people responding can be off-putting.
Over the years I've personally benefited from having my views challenged by those who think otherwise. It's forced me to think, which can never be a bad thing. The Ship will be a much poorer place if the dynamics of this place result in the loss of those differing views and opinions which challenge us all. It is a poorer place already as many of those who challenge us have moved on and not been replaced.
Over the years I've personally benefited from having my views challenged by those who think otherwise. It's forced me to think, which can never be a bad thing. The Ship will be a much poorer place if the dynamics of this place result in the loss of those differing views and opinions which challenge us all. It is a poorer place already as many of those who challenge us have moved on and not been replaced.
An excellent post Alan with which I totally agree. And that last section is very true for me, I've found the Ship to be a formative place especially when trying to steer my thinking on onev or two Dead Horse issues.
I think, though, that Kwesi upstream has a point: it's not the disagreeing that's a problem (in fact that's what we're here for), but the way in which that disagreement is expressed. To my mind an ad hominem approach is sometimes being implied even if it isn't being actually stated. There is also the point that something written can't contain all the nuances of face-to-face conversation; so a comment which, if made in person, would obviously be a bit tongue-in-cheek comes over here with a force that isn't really intended.
Yes, we can - and should - be passionate in our discussion. But I sometimes find the language that is being used either somewhat offensive or too much of a "put-down". Mind you, I'm not expecting the covert dagger-in-the-back approach of some academics either!
When I see someone arguing in favour of Brexit using facts I'll happily engage seriously with them. Hasn't happened yet.
How about the fact that when Brexit happens we won’t have to follow EU law? Is that not a fact?
I’ve no intention of rehashing any of the arguments here. All I’m doing is pointing out that what I just said is a fact, and one that was used to argue in favour of Brexit. Whether you think it’s a good thing or not is a matter of opinion, not fact.
Not precisely true.
Actually, as has been pointed out, it's quite literally the definition of Brexit.
It is pretty demonstrable that it will have a negative effect on a fair amount of people. Already has. So as close to objectively not good as that can get.
Those are arguments against. That there are arguments against does not negate the fact that there are arguments in favour.
It is not exactly an intelligent thing to vote for something that will give one no benefit whilst causing one harm.
You're only thinking economically. Is it so hard to understand that there are some people for whom things other than personal financial wellbeing are important?
If someone believes that their sense of national pride or their national independence/self-determination is more important than their personal financial wellbeing then who are you to say those things are not a benefit to them?
No-one is denying Brexit supporters a platform here. It's the nature of the beast that they will find their pro-Brexit views challenged, because this is a place all views are challenged.
Sure. They're free to make pro-Brexit points, on an appropriate thread, and you're entirely free to express your view that Brexit is a totally stupid self-destructive idea, on an appropriate thread.
What I think is at issue here is a behaviour where somebody posts something like "that's as stupid as Brexit" on a thread that has nothing much to do with Brexit at all.
Which tends to alienate Brexit supporters (who are a non-negligible proportion of the population).
I think Ricardus had it right - it's not about not being free to express an opinion, it's about treating a valid opinion as "a priori indefensible".
It only needs a couple of people to do that and nobody to challenge them, to create what comes across as a hostile environment.
I'm not a supporter of Godwin's Law. I think it's really useful in debate to be able to counter false arguments by considering how they would apply to something that everyone agrees is bad.
Brexit is not in that category. Neither is Donald Trump. However much you might want to live in a world where that was so.
All good preachers know not to risk alienating sections of their congregation unless it's really essential.
I'd like to agree with every word of Alan's post from beginning to end.
Also with Baptist Trainfan.
As someone who stopped posting here some years ago and then registered again because of the lockdown meaning more time on my hands it played a big part in why I stopped posting while still reading most days.
I can make common cause with most posters on here on most things, but I suppose I thought my way into them. I thought my way into the Green Party from the soft right - yes we are out there - for example, because of the climate crisis, but it means that I don't share the default socialist assumptions that come with a lot of their other members. I kind of get to the same place on most things, but the reasoning or implied assumptions when worked from the left still make me think "hang on" and make me want to get stuck in on why that's not going to work, or won't be the case, or even just put the other side. But it gets wearing after a while. Also, my wife's got a baby on the way and frankly there are other things to worry about.
Which I accept is my issue.
But I think that somewhere along the line the group think has set in to the extent that it is mostly easier to read than to contribute, because I worry about either being probed or prodded more than I've got time for frankly.
For example, and this might be oversharing but I want to make the point because it might be helpful in explaining why (some) people feel that the boards are interesting but they don't fit in:
I'm remain supporting, PR supporting, Green Party member, totally LGBT accepting/affirming/ally, love steam trains, the BCP, prog rock, English folk music etc - I can read most posts on here and think, "I'd go for a pint with them"
But:
I'm an ex public schoolboy and don't want to close them all down, I'm pro HS2, I'm a freemason (and I think probably the only one left on the boards?), I am proud to have been in the armed forces and would do it again tomorrow (were I of that age again - I've got no wish to actually rejoin tomorrow!) I don't think the Tories are evil, or even necessarily wrong about a lot of things, I'm a pragmatist on Brexit who despite voting for remain doesn't feel particularly exercised about rejoining, etc. I'd say I was culturally relatively conservative, and English nationalist in an SNP sort of way.
Like a lot of people, I suppose, a mess of contradictions, but overall happy in my skin.
I feel like the ship really ought to be for me - I agree with almost everything Karl says, although am continually reflexively enraged by his attitude to ties! On the other hand, I do miss IngoB, for example, although I rarely agreed with him.
But at the same time I'm always a bit aware, maybe too aware, that I'm outside the group. And, it does come across I'm afraid that there is a group. I'm sure there isn't, but it's not what it often looks like from the outside.
So having painted that target on myself, I'll just say that we're out there. So if we're out there, reading but not contributing, then the Trump fanatics and jolly Brexiteers must be out there too.
It is not exactly an intelligent thing to vote for something that will give one no benefit whilst causing one harm.
You're only thinking economically. Is it so hard to understand that there are some people for whom things other than personal financial wellbeing are important?
If someone believes that their sense of national pride or their national independence/self-determination is more important than their personal financial wellbeing then who are you to say those things are not a benefit to them?
What issues of national pride were at stake in the Brexit debate, not counting ones(eg. will we have more money to spend on health-care?) that also related to economics?
I would say I'm outside "the group" too, judging from this thread. I'm just to the left of it rather than the right. From my perspective the "both sides" stuff is the fallacy of the excluded middle.
So having painted that target on myself, I'll just say that we're out there. So if we're out there, reading but not contributing, then the Trump fanatics and jolly Brexiteers must be out there too.
If it's any consolation, Betjemaniac, I'm in your group too (except for the freemasonry). And I read but don't contribute for exactly the same reasons.
Another conservative Green here too. I tend to stay out of the overtly political threads because I am not good enough at arguing to cope with the inevitable long and involved conversation. In my defence I'm a mathematician so speech isn't my first language.
What issues of national pride were at stake in the Brexit debate, not counting ones(eg. will we have more money to spend on health-care?) that also related to economics?
This really isn't the place to have those arguments again - all I'm doing is pointing out that such issues did and do exist. Most here can't see them because they disagree with the axioms on which they're based, and so assume - as you just did - that they don't or can't exist.
I think the problem is that Trump, Johnson and Brexit are indefensible and so supporters of them will not last long on any serious discussion site where they're expected to explain their reasoning and provide evidence for their assertions.
I think the problem is simply assuming that they are indefensible and thus immediately discounting any attempt to defend them.
Personally I think at least one of those things, and probably 2 of them, are quite defensible. Whether or not I choose to defend them.
But social media in general is becoming more and more about quick and instant reactions. Because in general the quickest and loudest and most easily digestible reaction gets rewarded. I've listened to a quite fascinating podcast episode about 'outrage' and how it gets rewarded online.
One of the great strengths of the Ship has been its capacity to avoid too much of that kind of reaction.
What's alarming to me in recent times is the seeming increase in cases where people state a particular kind of position and seem to just assume that it won't be up for debate in any way. That it can just be taken as a given. Especially when that position is that something or someone is irredeemably bad.
The great problem with having so many things that are just irredeemably bad is that you then lose all capacity for nuance or degree. If they're all as bad as possible, then they're all equally bad.
I mean, it genuinely worries me when various right-wing leaders are portrayed as if they're all exactly the same. Because they're not. As much as I lean left and would disagree with the policies of many right-wing governments, to say that they're all behaving and performing in exactly the same way and can all just be dumped into the same basket with incredibly broad, generic descriptions of how uniformly bad they are strikes me as a serious lack of the kind of thoughtful critique I expect on the Ship. Every time that people mention Trump, Johnson and our own Morrison in the same breath as if they're carbon copies of each other, I actually wince.
The main thing that Trump, Johnson and Brexit have in common is the apparent willingness of Shipmates to lump them together as being essentially the same markers of acceptable positions. Well sorry to break it to you, but my views on those 3 things are not all the same. So you're just going to have to decide whether only finding 1 of those 3 things to be incapable of defence puts me on the correct side of the line or not.
@Marvin the Martian - there are some perfectly cogent arguments for leaving the European Union, one of which I am actually sympathetic towards. I've just not heard anyone make them here: they've been the usual crypto-racist, anti-immigrant, neo-nationalist and/or revisionist historical tripe that gets wheeled out in lieu of cogent thinking.
Kindly provide a list of acceptable arguments and we promise to try to make them for you.
Personally I think it was people on the Ship who helped convince me the Euro was a lousy idea. And yes, I know the UK doesn't use the Euro as currency.
It seems to me that assumptions are both necessary to have any sort of conversation that doesn't disappear into minutiae, and there to be challenged. Don't agree with an assumption? Challenge it.
The whole point of human rights is that everyone has them. So if freedom of speech is to be considered a human right (which I think it is) then that has to apply to everyone, whatever I personally may think of their views.
From this it does not follow that they must be allowed the use of any and every pulpit. Just because person X has a right under the law to spew bullshit Y doesn't mean group Z has to let them use their facilities, or funds, or good name.
That seems palpably correct to me. As I said earlier, I guess I have the right to lecture on Keats to the engineering dept of UCL, but for some reason, they won't honour this. I am deplatformed!
Personally I think it was people on the Ship who helped convince me the Euro was a lousy idea. And yes, I know the UK doesn't use the Euro as currency.
Hey, it's a great idea!
(Sorry. Irrelevant here; I know. I understand it's economic madness but there are other benefits, honest).
It seems to me that assumptions are both necessary to have any sort of conversation that doesn't disappear into minutiae, and there to be challenged. Don't agree with an assumption? Challenge it.
An excellent theory. In practice, I don't have the time and energy to leap into every single conversation that lumps all right-wing folk together in an undifferentiated lump. Because there are so many of them.
. From this it does not follow that they must be allowed the use of any and every pulpit. Just because person X has a right under the law to spew bullshit Y doesn't mean group Z has to let them use their facilities, or funds, or good name.
I am very disturbed by the degree of intolerance being expressed in these posts, as exemplified in Mousethief's reaction to Marvin's conventional defence of the right to freedom of speech. If the right exists, there has to be opportunity exercise it.
Do you really mean that in other circumstances?
For example, is the Daily Mail required to respect Polly Toynbee's right of free speech by printing any article she chooses to send them? If a right-wing columnist bangs on in the Daily Mail about Muslims "nobody is allowed to say that Muslims (insert blank text)", is the Daily Mail violating the right of free speech by not giving Muslims a position of equal prominence from which to reply?
(One might think it would be a good thing if it did, or even that it's morally objectionable that it doesn't under those circumstances; the question is, is it violating the right of free speech by not doing so.)
Mousethief is perfectly correct: the right to free speech is like the right to work. No third party is allowed to prevent people from offering you a job or offering you the opportunity to express your opinions, but nobody has the power to compel anyone else to offer you a job or the opportunity to express your opinions
There may be circumstances in which it is desirable to give as many voices as possible the opportunity to be heard, and a discussion board is probably one of them. But that's nothing to do with the right to free speech.
It seems to me that assumptions are both necessary to have any sort of conversation that doesn't disappear into minutiae, and there to be challenged. Don't agree with an assumption? Challenge it.
An excellent theory. In practice, I don't have the time and energy to leap into every single conversation that lumps all right-wing folk together in an undifferentiated lump. Because there are so many of them.
I don't correct every post that relies on assumptions I don't share either, but I can't expect other people to self-censor to make up for it.
Mousethief is perfectly correct: the right to free speech is like the right to work. No third party is allowed to prevent people from offering you a job or offering you the opportunity to express your opinions, but nobody has the power to compel anyone else to offer you a job or the opportunity to express your opinions.
The right to work is an interesting parallel. Because it's all well and good saying that nobody can compel anyone else to offer someone a job, but if every single employer declines to hire a certain subset of humanity then the end result is that their right to work may as well not exist.
ETA that to extend the parallell a little, some on this thread would presumably say that as the government isn't legally banning them from working then their right to work has not been infringed.
. From this it does not follow that they must be allowed the use of any and every pulpit. Just because person X has a right under the law to spew bullshit Y doesn't mean group Z has to let them use their facilities, or funds, or good name.
I am very disturbed by the degree of intolerance being expressed in these posts, as exemplified in Mousethief's reaction to Marvin's conventional defence of the right to freedom of speech. If the right exists, there has to be opportunity exercise it.
Do you really mean that in other circumstances?
I suspect that Kwesi's difficulty - as mine - is not that uncomfortable and differing views are being expressed. It's the vehemence and language of the opinions which sometimes disturbs me.
It seems to me that assumptions are both necessary to have any sort of conversation that doesn't disappear into minutiae, and there to be challenged. Don't agree with an assumption? Challenge it.
An excellent theory. In practice, I don't have the time and energy to leap into every single conversation that lumps all right-wing folk together in an undifferentiated lump. Because there are so many of them.
I don't correct every post that relies on assumptions I don't share either, but I can't expect other people to self-censor to make up for it.
At what point in my argument did any notion of self-censoring come into it???
If you seriously think that people being asked to recognise that their views aren't self-evident and inarguable is asking for "self-censoring" then Dear God, you really are more symptomatic of the problem than I thought.
That is exactly the kind of talk of someone who wants their views to be incapable of challenge. And who certainly doesn't want to be asked to examine those views themselves.
@Marvin the Martian - there are some perfectly cogent arguments for leaving the European Union, one of which I am actually sympathetic towards. I've just not heard anyone make them here: they've been the usual crypto-racist, anti-immigrant, neo-nationalist and/or revisionist historical tripe that gets wheeled out in lieu of cogent thinking.
Kindly provide a list of acceptable arguments and we promise to try to make them for you.
Personally I think it was people on the Ship who helped convince me the Euro was a lousy idea. And yes, I know the UK doesn't use the Euro as currency.
I'm thinking of the Bennite anti-capitalist, anti-globalist arguments. (Young Master Tor is a proponent, and yes, he puts his points over cogently and compellingly.)
@Marvin the Martian - there are some perfectly cogent arguments for leaving the European Union, one of which I am actually sympathetic towards. I've just not heard anyone make them here: they've been the usual crypto-racist, anti-immigrant, neo-nationalist and/or revisionist historical tripe that gets wheeled out in lieu of cogent thinking.
Kindly provide a list of acceptable arguments and we promise to try to make them for you.
Personally I think it was people on the Ship who helped convince me the Euro was a lousy idea. And yes, I know the UK doesn't use the Euro as currency.
I'm thinking of the Bennite anti-capitalist, anti-globalist arguments. (Young Master Tor is a proponent, and yes, he puts his points over cogently and compellingly.)
Hmm. Problem is, I suspect it's quite easy to take many 'anti-globalist' comments and paint them as 'anti-immigrant'.
There are lots of things I'm sure about but they don't prevent me at least spending some time considering other people's opinions. Not just because I'm a Host here. My assurance can be misplaced. I can get things wrong.
There are issues on which I have a closed mind. Such as my unalterable belief that xenophobia, homophobia, racism, slavery are wronger than any wrong thing that is wrong. I'm just a little reluctant to apply those wrongnesses as a permanent feature of any person's character purely on the basis of an isolated comment (or post). People make mistakes in conversations all the time. And they can correct, learn, reform their understanding. As can I.
Some people do seem to me to be incorrigible. Minds so closed that there's nothing conversation can do to help them open up a bit. Sometimes we just need to give up trying. For me, that comes pretty late in the day.
It seems to me that assumptions are both necessary to have any sort of conversation that doesn't disappear into minutiae, and there to be challenged. Don't agree with an assumption? Challenge it.
An excellent theory. In practice, I don't have the time and energy to leap into every single conversation that lumps all right-wing folk together in an undifferentiated lump. Because there are so many of them.
I don't correct every post that relies on assumptions I don't share either, but I can't expect other people to self-censor to make up for it.
At what point in my argument did any notion of self-censoring come into it???
The point when you were complaining that other people expressing their opinions was somehow preventing contrary opinions being expressed.
I've no problem with my ideas being challenged. I have a problem with being told I shouldn't express some of them because people are reluctant to challenge them.
Dafyd: Do you really mean that in other circumstances?
For example, is the Daily Mail required to respect Polly Toynbee's right of free speech by printing any article she chooses to send them? If a right-wing columnist bangs on in the Daily Mail about Muslims "nobody is allowed to say that Muslims (insert blank text)", is the Daily Mail violating the right of free speech by not giving Muslims a position of equal prominence from which to reply?
Well, Dafyd, I routinely buy and read the Guardian and Daily Mail. Though I would welcome journalists from these newspapers having access to each other's columns, Polly Toynbee does at least get ample opportunity to have her say. I have no such opportunity, unless in my vanity I jostle with others to get a censored letter printed.
Regarding your defence of Mousethief's support for censorship, I accept that the right of free speech and its realisation is curtailed by the practicalities of media ownership and control. The danger of leaving it there, however, is that one could claim there is free speech in a society where The Party monopolises all the publishing outlets. Its disappointing, coming especially from someone like yourself, to find the thrust of your argument dwells not on the increasing concentration of media ownership in the hands of a small number of private individuals, but on their right to minimise the opportunities for a wider variety of views to be heard and debated. To argue this is nothing to do with the right of free speech seems to me rather strange. Mousethief, IMO, is advocating a course of action for the ship no better than that espoused by Rupert Murdoch and Fox News in their domains. He is no Milton.
Good analogy from Dafyd. I don't have the right to work at the Daily Mail. It made me think of publishing, where again I don't have the right to be published. In fact, publishers quite often pull out, although if there is a contract, there may be compensation. Of course, today I can self-publish or write a blog.
I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint, along with virtue signalling, political correctness, etc. Toby Young has set up a Free Speech organization, and probably sees the lock down as infringing civil liberties, which it is.
I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint, along with virtue signalling, political correctness, etc. Toby Young has set up a Free Speech organization, and probably sees the lock down as infringing civil liberties, which it is.
Yet I wager that whatever his theoretical convictions, he'll never materially go to bat for Anjem Choudary.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
@Marvin the Martian - there are some perfectly cogent arguments for leaving the European Union, one of which I am actually sympathetic towards. I've just not heard anyone make them here: they've been the usual crypto-racist, anti-immigrant, neo-nationalist and/or revisionist historical tripe that gets wheeled out in lieu of cogent thinking.
Kindly provide a list of acceptable arguments and we promise to try to make them for you.
Personally I think it was people on the Ship who helped convince me the Euro was a lousy idea. And yes, I know the UK doesn't use the Euro as currency.
I'm thinking of the Bennite anti-capitalist, anti-globalist arguments. (Young Master Tor is a proponent, and yes, he puts his points over cogently and compellingly.)
Hmm. Problem is, I suspect it's quite easy to take many 'anti-globalist' comments and paint them as 'anti-immigrant'.
I can think of at least one blogger in Canada who started out posting garden-variety left-nationalist stuff against globalization(ie. it's a tool of the US to force American domination on the world), then started musing about how war-induced migration is being provoked by the globalist elites to bankrupt welfare systems(which might have seemed okay because he was blaming the US, not the migrants themselves), and then went whole-hog alt-right and started singing the praises of Viktor Orban's government in Hungary for defending "Europe's economy and culture."
Granted, he's just one guy, but from what I've seen, he is typical of the people who calls themselves "anti-globalist" these days. Helpful hint: if the person you're arguing with insists on bringing George Soros into the discussion on flimsy pretexts, you're probably in red-brown territory.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west and so there isn't a field that needs a team (or army?) on it.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance? If there is anything to be learned more generally from the Trump Presidency, it is the degree to which all our freedoms are based not so much on constitutions and laws, but generally accepted social norms. When society polarises, bad things happen.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
When a man can refer to gay men as "bum boys" and still become PM, much less be prosecuted, I don't think we have to worry that the free speech of homophobes is under threat. What I presume you mean is that they can't be homophobic and transphobic and avoid getting called on it. By that measure my free speech is under threat because if I call for a left wing government I get called a trot.
Comments
In other words, there's a lot of both-sides-ism going on. False equivalence, they call it.
More of a tautology. A restating of the definition of Brexit. The only part it can play in an argument hinges on somebody who didn't already know what Brexit was.
I'm just glad that someone mentioned those Trotskyite wreckers.
More a fantasy, seeing as Brexit has already happened and we're still bound by EU law. Plus any future trading relationship will require conforming to EU law indefinitely.
I am very disturbed by the degree of intolerance being expressed in these posts, as exemplified in Mousethief's reaction to Marvin's conventional defence of the right to freedom of speech. If the right exists, there has to be opportunity exercise it.
As I argued earlier, no 'fundamental' right is absolute but should not be lightly abridged. If a shipmate was advocating the extermination of Jews then I doubt whether any of us would wish them to be published on these boards, but anathematising supporters of Brexit to the point of denying them a platform worries me because in or out of the EU is a matter of judgement and sentiment not a moral imperative by a country mile. (I should add that I deeply regret the UK leaving the EU). Leaving the EU, after all, is in line with the criticisms of neo-liberalism, globalisation, and capitalism, that are dominant themes of those same contributors who bemoan Brexit. Furthermore, the coronavirus experience might suggest the UK has become dangerously reliant on foreign-production for supplies of strategic materials, and that this might have to be addressed. If Brexit can't be legitimately discussed here then what can? Additionally, I don't like the kind of language that accuses the expressed of alternative views as "spewing bullshit" and the like, but maybe that's an over-sensitivity on my part.
The irony here is the people complaining about the way conservative views are challenged are the ones championing the right to free speech - which includes the right to challenge views expressed under that right. The right to free speech is not the right to unchallenged speech.
I think you had better have a word with Mousethief because he never wants the challenged words to be expressed in the first place. I would be interested to learn where you stand on platform denial etc..
Mousethief: Just because person X has a right under the law to spew bullshit Y doesn't mean group Z has to let them use their facilities, or funds, or good name."
I wonder, also, where the left has got to when it assumes that a defender of free speech is almost inevitably a holder of conservative opinions. If that is the case then the democratic left is utterly lost.
But that's a separate question from whether the commumity who participate on the platform are well served by ruling out certain viewpoints as worth considering.
To use a simple example...
Is it a violation of my uncle's free speech if I immediately delete his e-mails containing information about some lucrative jobs that I could apply for and probably get?
Answer: No. He has no right to force other people to read his e-mails.
Next question...
If I am unemployed and in dire need of money, is it a stupid move for me to ignore his e-mails?
Answer: Yes, for obvious reasons.
IOW while my uncle can say I have harmed my own livelihood by ignoring his opinions, he can't claim that he has had his right to free speech violated.
The irony of the right wing cant about free speech is that they've rarely had more scope for getting their hate-filled screeds out to the public. They control much of the press, they fill YouTube and Facebook with conspiracy theories and bullshit, they have the President of the US and the PMs of the UK and Australia propagating their nonsense. What views are they concerned are not getting an airing?
First there is a general (some might say philosophical) question about free speech, whether it's an unlimited right (or, indeed a right at all). In my view, I support free speech but with two conditions. One, as @KarlLB has said, free speech works both ways and so we're free to challenge what others say and do. The other is that rights always include responsibilities, I don't believe that anyone has the right to speak irresponsibly (that includes telling deliberate lies or knowingly endangering others - the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theatre", even if we're forgetting what a crowded theatre is like). In many other areas of life we have rights that can be curtailed if exercised irresponsibly (I have a right to drive my car, but if I regularly do so irresponsibly by driving too fast or in a dangerous manner I can expect that right to be withdrawn) and I think that irresponsible exercise of free speech can rightly result in a curtailing of rights to speak (eg: gagging orders, or even imprisonment). We can all debate where the lines of irresponsible speech lie, and what sanctions should be imposed where people speak irresponsibly - but, probably on another thread as I don't think it's directly relevant to where the Ship is going.
Second, there's a question of Ship policy, guidelines and commandments. Again, this should probably be pursued in the Styx. But, from my perspective we don't have any rules that would ban very many opinions for discussion here - our rules are mostly about how those views are expressed. Whether it's possible to present an opinion that people with less melanin are inherently superior to those with more in a manner that doesn't come across as being a jerk and attacking a lot of people is an interesting academic question, I've certainly not seen it happen.
Finally, which is where I think the direction of the Ship is centred, there's the question of the community response to ideas that aren't banned in any official manner but that differ significantly from the majority view. Of course, that means that there is a majority view, and it's not obvious that there needs to be such a large majority on many issues (on some it is obvious, we are a basically Christian site and so followers of other religions or none are going to be in the minority. But, it's not as obvious why we don't have more supporters of the Conservative Party compared to Labour or Greens - at least among those who express their views), so there's a question of why other opinions are not expressed by as many people. I do think there is a community problem there, with too many opinions being pushed beyond the point of reasonable discussion when a few individuals don't consider some opinions worth discussing and, rather than simply keep quite, come out either attacking the idea with excessive force or state "that's a stupid idea not worth discussing". But, even without a few people responding to a view with hostility there's still a dynamic caused by the numbers - if someone was to express a view contrary to the majority opinion even if all the responses were very civil and reasonable the number of different people responding can be off-putting.
Over the years I've personally benefited from having my views challenged by those who think otherwise. It's forced me to think, which can never be a bad thing. The Ship will be a much poorer place if the dynamics of this place result in the loss of those differing views and opinions which challenge us all. It is a poorer place already as many of those who challenge us have moved on and not been replaced.
I think, though, that Kwesi upstream has a point: it's not the disagreeing that's a problem (in fact that's what we're here for), but the way in which that disagreement is expressed. To my mind an ad hominem approach is sometimes being implied even if it isn't being actually stated. There is also the point that something written can't contain all the nuances of face-to-face conversation; so a comment which, if made in person, would obviously be a bit tongue-in-cheek comes over here with a force that isn't really intended.
Yes, we can - and should - be passionate in our discussion. But I sometimes find the language that is being used either somewhat offensive or too much of a "put-down". Mind you, I'm not expecting the covert dagger-in-the-back approach of some academics either!
Actually, as has been pointed out, it's quite literally the definition of Brexit.
Those are arguments against. That there are arguments against does not negate the fact that there are arguments in favour.
You're only thinking economically. Is it so hard to understand that there are some people for whom things other than personal financial wellbeing are important?
If someone believes that their sense of national pride or their national independence/self-determination is more important than their personal financial wellbeing then who are you to say those things are not a benefit to them?
Sure. They're free to make pro-Brexit points, on an appropriate thread, and you're entirely free to express your view that Brexit is a totally stupid self-destructive idea, on an appropriate thread.
What I think is at issue here is a behaviour where somebody posts something like "that's as stupid as Brexit" on a thread that has nothing much to do with Brexit at all.
Which tends to alienate Brexit supporters (who are a non-negligible proportion of the population).
I think Ricardus had it right - it's not about not being free to express an opinion, it's about treating a valid opinion as "a priori indefensible".
It only needs a couple of people to do that and nobody to challenge them, to create what comes across as a hostile environment.
I'm not a supporter of Godwin's Law. I think it's really useful in debate to be able to counter false arguments by considering how they would apply to something that everyone agrees is bad.
Brexit is not in that category. Neither is Donald Trump. However much you might want to live in a world where that was so.
All good preachers know not to risk alienating sections of their congregation unless it's really essential.
Also with Baptist Trainfan.
As someone who stopped posting here some years ago and then registered again because of the lockdown meaning more time on my hands it played a big part in why I stopped posting while still reading most days.
I can make common cause with most posters on here on most things, but I suppose I thought my way into them. I thought my way into the Green Party from the soft right - yes we are out there - for example, because of the climate crisis, but it means that I don't share the default socialist assumptions that come with a lot of their other members. I kind of get to the same place on most things, but the reasoning or implied assumptions when worked from the left still make me think "hang on" and make me want to get stuck in on why that's not going to work, or won't be the case, or even just put the other side. But it gets wearing after a while. Also, my wife's got a baby on the way and frankly there are other things to worry about.
Which I accept is my issue.
But I think that somewhere along the line the group think has set in to the extent that it is mostly easier to read than to contribute, because I worry about either being probed or prodded more than I've got time for frankly.
For example, and this might be oversharing but I want to make the point because it might be helpful in explaining why (some) people feel that the boards are interesting but they don't fit in:
I'm remain supporting, PR supporting, Green Party member, totally LGBT accepting/affirming/ally, love steam trains, the BCP, prog rock, English folk music etc - I can read most posts on here and think, "I'd go for a pint with them"
But:
I'm an ex public schoolboy and don't want to close them all down, I'm pro HS2, I'm a freemason (and I think probably the only one left on the boards?), I am proud to have been in the armed forces and would do it again tomorrow (were I of that age again - I've got no wish to actually rejoin tomorrow!) I don't think the Tories are evil, or even necessarily wrong about a lot of things, I'm a pragmatist on Brexit who despite voting for remain doesn't feel particularly exercised about rejoining, etc. I'd say I was culturally relatively conservative, and English nationalist in an SNP sort of way.
Like a lot of people, I suppose, a mess of contradictions, but overall happy in my skin.
I feel like the ship really ought to be for me - I agree with almost everything Karl says, although am continually reflexively enraged by his attitude to ties! On the other hand, I do miss IngoB, for example, although I rarely agreed with him.
But at the same time I'm always a bit aware, maybe too aware, that I'm outside the group. And, it does come across I'm afraid that there is a group. I'm sure there isn't, but it's not what it often looks like from the outside.
So having painted that target on myself, I'll just say that we're out there. So if we're out there, reading but not contributing, then the Trump fanatics and jolly Brexiteers must be out there too.
What issues of national pride were at stake in the Brexit debate, not counting ones(eg. will we have more money to spend on health-care?) that also related to economics?
...
This really isn't the place to have those arguments again - all I'm doing is pointing out that such issues did and do exist. Most here can't see them because they disagree with the axioms on which they're based, and so assume - as you just did - that they don't or can't exist.
The main one is independence/self-determination.
I think the problem is simply assuming that they are indefensible and thus immediately discounting any attempt to defend them.
Personally I think at least one of those things, and probably 2 of them, are quite defensible. Whether or not I choose to defend them.
But social media in general is becoming more and more about quick and instant reactions. Because in general the quickest and loudest and most easily digestible reaction gets rewarded. I've listened to a quite fascinating podcast episode about 'outrage' and how it gets rewarded online.
One of the great strengths of the Ship has been its capacity to avoid too much of that kind of reaction.
What's alarming to me in recent times is the seeming increase in cases where people state a particular kind of position and seem to just assume that it won't be up for debate in any way. That it can just be taken as a given. Especially when that position is that something or someone is irredeemably bad.
The great problem with having so many things that are just irredeemably bad is that you then lose all capacity for nuance or degree. If they're all as bad as possible, then they're all equally bad.
I mean, it genuinely worries me when various right-wing leaders are portrayed as if they're all exactly the same. Because they're not. As much as I lean left and would disagree with the policies of many right-wing governments, to say that they're all behaving and performing in exactly the same way and can all just be dumped into the same basket with incredibly broad, generic descriptions of how uniformly bad they are strikes me as a serious lack of the kind of thoughtful critique I expect on the Ship. Every time that people mention Trump, Johnson and our own Morrison in the same breath as if they're carbon copies of each other, I actually wince.
The main thing that Trump, Johnson and Brexit have in common is the apparent willingness of Shipmates to lump them together as being essentially the same markers of acceptable positions. Well sorry to break it to you, but my views on those 3 things are not all the same. So you're just going to have to decide whether only finding 1 of those 3 things to be incapable of defence puts me on the correct side of the line or not.
Kindly provide a list of acceptable arguments and we promise to try to make them for you.
Personally I think it was people on the Ship who helped convince me the Euro was a lousy idea. And yes, I know the UK doesn't use the Euro as currency.
That seems palpably correct to me. As I said earlier, I guess I have the right to lecture on Keats to the engineering dept of UCL, but for some reason, they won't honour this. I am deplatformed!
(Sorry. Irrelevant here; I know. I understand it's economic madness but there are other benefits, honest).
An excellent theory. In practice, I don't have the time and energy to leap into every single conversation that lumps all right-wing folk together in an undifferentiated lump. Because there are so many of them.
For example, is the Daily Mail required to respect Polly Toynbee's right of free speech by printing any article she chooses to send them? If a right-wing columnist bangs on in the Daily Mail about Muslims "nobody is allowed to say that Muslims (insert blank text)", is the Daily Mail violating the right of free speech by not giving Muslims a position of equal prominence from which to reply?
(One might think it would be a good thing if it did, or even that it's morally objectionable that it doesn't under those circumstances; the question is, is it violating the right of free speech by not doing so.)
Mousethief is perfectly correct: the right to free speech is like the right to work. No third party is allowed to prevent people from offering you a job or offering you the opportunity to express your opinions, but nobody has the power to compel anyone else to offer you a job or the opportunity to express your opinions
There may be circumstances in which it is desirable to give as many voices as possible the opportunity to be heard, and a discussion board is probably one of them. But that's nothing to do with the right to free speech.
I don't correct every post that relies on assumptions I don't share either, but I can't expect other people to self-censor to make up for it.
The right to work is an interesting parallel. Because it's all well and good saying that nobody can compel anyone else to offer someone a job, but if every single employer declines to hire a certain subset of humanity then the end result is that their right to work may as well not exist.
ETA that to extend the parallell a little, some on this thread would presumably say that as the government isn't legally banning them from working then their right to work has not been infringed.
At what point in my argument did any notion of self-censoring come into it???
If you seriously think that people being asked to recognise that their views aren't self-evident and inarguable is asking for "self-censoring" then Dear God, you really are more symptomatic of the problem than I thought.
That is exactly the kind of talk of someone who wants their views to be incapable of challenge. And who certainly doesn't want to be asked to examine those views themselves.
I'm thinking of the Bennite anti-capitalist, anti-globalist arguments. (Young Master Tor is a proponent, and yes, he puts his points over cogently and compellingly.)
Hmm. Problem is, I suspect it's quite easy to take many 'anti-globalist' comments and paint them as 'anti-immigrant'.
There are lots of things I'm sure about but they don't prevent me at least spending some time considering other people's opinions. Not just because I'm a Host here. My assurance can be misplaced. I can get things wrong.
There are issues on which I have a closed mind. Such as my unalterable belief that xenophobia, homophobia, racism, slavery are wronger than any wrong thing that is wrong. I'm just a little reluctant to apply those wrongnesses as a permanent feature of any person's character purely on the basis of an isolated comment (or post). People make mistakes in conversations all the time. And they can correct, learn, reform their understanding. As can I.
Some people do seem to me to be incorrigible. Minds so closed that there's nothing conversation can do to help them open up a bit. Sometimes we just need to give up trying. For me, that comes pretty late in the day.
The point when you were complaining that other people expressing their opinions was somehow preventing contrary opinions being expressed.
I've no problem with my ideas being challenged. I have a problem with being told I shouldn't express some of them because people are reluctant to challenge them.
Well, Dafyd, I routinely buy and read the Guardian and Daily Mail. Though I would welcome journalists from these newspapers having access to each other's columns, Polly Toynbee does at least get ample opportunity to have her say. I have no such opportunity, unless in my vanity I jostle with others to get a censored letter printed.
Regarding your defence of Mousethief's support for censorship, I accept that the right of free speech and its realisation is curtailed by the practicalities of media ownership and control. The danger of leaving it there, however, is that one could claim there is free speech in a society where The Party monopolises all the publishing outlets. Its disappointing, coming especially from someone like yourself, to find the thrust of your argument dwells not on the increasing concentration of media ownership in the hands of a small number of private individuals, but on their right to minimise the opportunities for a wider variety of views to be heard and debated. To argue this is nothing to do with the right of free speech seems to me rather strange. Mousethief, IMO, is advocating a course of action for the ship no better than that espoused by Rupert Murdoch and Fox News in their domains. He is no Milton.
I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint, along with virtue signalling, political correctness, etc. Toby Young has set up a Free Speech organization, and probably sees the lock down as infringing civil liberties, which it is.
Yet I wager that whatever his theoretical convictions, he'll never materially go to bat for Anjem Choudary.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
I can think of at least one blogger in Canada who started out posting garden-variety left-nationalist stuff against globalization(ie. it's a tool of the US to force American domination on the world), then started musing about how war-induced migration is being provoked by the globalist elites to bankrupt welfare systems(which might have seemed okay because he was blaming the US, not the migrants themselves), and then went whole-hog alt-right and started singing the praises of Viktor Orban's government in Hungary for defending "Europe's economy and culture."
Granted, he's just one guy, but from what I've seen, he is typical of the people who calls themselves "anti-globalist" these days. Helpful hint: if the person you're arguing with insists on bringing George Soros into the discussion on flimsy pretexts, you're probably in red-brown territory.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west and so there isn't a field that needs a team (or army?) on it.
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
When a man can refer to gay men as "bum boys" and still become PM, much less be prosecuted, I don't think we have to worry that the free speech of homophobes is under threat. What I presume you mean is that they can't be homophobic and transphobic and avoid getting called on it. By that measure my free speech is under threat because if I call for a left wing government I get called a trot.