It is, of course, anodyne to declare that free speech comes with consequences. Duh. If you say something remotely controversial within public hearing, people have every right to argue, express emotional upset, and even block you on social media if they fiercely disagree and would rather not associate with you. But based on how they're behaving in the real world, this is not what social justice bullies mean by "consequences." No: these radical leftists mean something far more cruel -- something profoundly dangerous to liberal society.
If you cross a cancel-culture aficionado in any way, no matter how mild the offense, they always react in the same extreme manner. They don't simply argue. They don't simply express their distaste. Instead, they seek to completely destroy your ability to make money and/or simply live with dignity. If, for example, you make the "mistake" of attempting to depict a culture that's not your own in your writing, social justice bullies will intimidate you into pulling your work from the publication schedule entirely. This is not a just "consequence"; a just "consequence" would be a refusal on the part of these SJB's to buy your book.
Similarly, if you happen to make a tasteless remark or two in public because, perhaps, you're in a sour mood one day, social justice bullies won't just admonish you for your poor behavior and ask for an apology. Instead, they'll try their hardest to ensure that you'll never be able to work again. And if you do try to make amends (like any good person might), they'll refuse point-blank to forgive.
Essentially, the social justice bully's idea of a "consequence" is utterly incommensurate with the nature of most of the "crimes" they seek to punish.
And I use the scare-quotes here because what these radicals often deem crimes are, in fact, not crimes at all. Regarding my first example above, it's not a crime to write outside your culture. It's risky, granted; you'll have to be very careful in your research and should expect criticism if you fail to get things exactly right. But attempting to stretch your mind and get into the heads of people who aren't like you is, in fact, an admirable endeavor -- not an unconscionable violation.
Likewise, it's not a crime to question any facet of the social justice ideology; indeed, such questioning is essential. Most of that ideological framework is based on demonstrable errors of fact and/or reasoning. It's not scientifically true, for instance, that gender can be completely divorced from biology (though the roles attached to each gender certainly can be altered by cultural and individual circumstances). It's also not indisputably true that the corruption of certain urban police departments necessitates the complete abolition of the professional police forces -- or that the presence of performance gaps on a particular standardized test automatically reveals the racial bias of that test and the inherent "white supremacy" of meritocratic standards in general. It is possible to differ in good faith on these matters no matter how much a social justice bully insists the contrary.
But what the hell: let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the hard left is right about, say, our nation's racial issues and that those of us who happen live somewhere in that wide-open space to the right of Mao have got things wrong. (Stop laughing, reader. I promise I have a point.) Even in that case, it's still abusive to knock us dissidents down and shut us up. Why? Because people are rarely wrong for genuinely evil reasons; most of the time, people are wrong out of ignorance. Even your average Klan member isn't racist just to hurt people; usually, he's embraced awful ideas due to a lack of positive exposure to people who aren't white. So how do you fix that? You expose that Klansman to people who aren't white. You don't further his isolation by driving him out of society completely. You target beliefs, not human beings.
Stiffer punishment is appropriate when people act in a way that's contrary to written law. But if someone has a wrong thought or says a wrong thing, he doesn't deserve to be starved to death, publicly humiliated, or otherwise beaten into compliance with "accepted opinion." So if you don't mind, you new Red Guards, kindly take your "consequences" talk and shove it where the sun don't shine.
ETA: The Reaction to the Harper's Letter Proves It Was Necessary
Similarly, if you happen to make a tasteless remark or two in public because, perhaps, you're in a sour mood one day, social justice bullies won't just admonish you for your poor behavior and ask for an apology. Instead, they'll try their hardest to ensure that you'll never be able to work again. And if you do try to make amends (like any good person might), they'll refuse point-blank to forgive.
Essentially, the social justice bully's idea of a "consequence" is utterly incommensurate with the nature of most of the "crimes" they seek to punish.
And I use the scare-quotes here because what these radicals often deem crimes are, in fact, not crimes at all. Regarding my first example above, it's not a crime to write outside your culture. It's risky, granted; you'll have to be very careful in your research and should expect criticism if you fail to get things exactly right. But attempting to stretch your mind and get into the heads of people who aren't like you is, in fact, an admirable endeavor -- not an unconscionable violation.
Likewise, it's not a crime to question any facet of the social justice ideology; indeed, such questioning is essential. Most of that ideological framework is based on demonstrable errors of fact and/or reasoning. It's not scientifically true, for instance, that gender can be completely divorced from biology (though the roles attached to each gender certainly can be altered by cultural and individual circumstances). It's also not indisputably true that the corruption of certain urban police departments necessitates the complete abolition of the professional police forces -- or that the presence of performance gaps on a particular standardized test automatically reveals the racial bias of that test and the inherent "white supremacy" of meritocratic standards in general. It is possible to differ in good faith on these matters no matter how much a social justice bully insists the contrary.
But what the hell: let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the hard left is right about, say, our nation's racial issues and that those of us who happen live somewhere in that wide-open space to the right of Mao have got things wrong. (Stop laughing, reader. I promise I have a point.) Even in that case, it's still abusive to knock us dissidents down and shut us up. Why? Because people are rarely wrong for genuinely evil reasons; most of the time, people are wrong out of ignorance. Even your average Klan member isn't racist just to hurt people; usually, he's embraced awful ideas due to a lack of positive exposure to people who aren't white. So how do you fix that? You expose that Klansman to people who aren't white. You don't further his isolation by driving him out of society completely. You target beliefs, not human beings.
Stiffer punishment is appropriate when people act in a way that's contrary to written law. But if someone has a wrong thought or says a wrong thing, he doesn't deserve to be starved to death, publicly humiliated, or otherwise beaten into compliance with "accepted opinion." So if you don't mind, you new Red Guards, kindly take your "consequences" talk and shove it where the sun don't shine.
ETA: The Reaction to the Harper's Letter Proves It Was Necessary
I think the biggest problem is the the Internet in general and Twitter in specific has made it vastly easier for "mobs" of vigilantes to form. Mobs are famous for their ability to quickly accept false accusations, and vigilantes are generally motivated by a desire to make themselves feel good (aka virtue signaling).
ReplyDeletePeople have always been vulnerable to this kind of thing, but the existence of respected newspapers and responsible family elders kept it in check most of the time. And, except for periods like the Salem Witch Trials, most people didn't get the opportunity to join mobs very often, so they never got addicted to the experience of being a vigilante.
The good thing about Twitter mobs is that they don't have any real power if people are smart enough to just ignore them. That's hard to do, though. Until you've had the experience of being attacked by a couple of hundred people repeating each other's lies about you until they believe they're true and impervious to anything you say to them, it's hard to understand just how upsetting it is. And I'm retired and financially independent; vigilantes can't write to Microsoft and tell them to quit paying me dividends. Someone with a life and a career is going to really be upset--especially if their boss or customers actually believe any of the noise.
This is why rulers in China say they don't see how to make freedom of speech work. Yes, it's nice to hold authorities accountable, but if 99% of the times the masses get upset are the result of some vigilante's lies, it's not worth it.
I wish I could see how to fix this. The best I can think of is that over time people we get used to it and not overreact. Sort of like how the Hindenburg disaster wasn't really that big a deal, but the public wasn't used to seeing such things, and the overreaction ended Zeppelin travel, even though today we accept that life includes some number of disasters. Just as we "grew up" and learned to cope with explicit news of disasters, maybe we'll eventually grow up and ignore Twitter mobs. Or even quit participating in them.
Phrasing it as "consequences" allows them to pretend it's a natural result of things they disapprove of-- rather than having to defend their own behavior and/or reactions.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a direct result of a person saying "males and females are biologically different" for them to be fired, much less for a relative of theirs to be assaulted. That is (bad) behavior on the part of someone who objects to those words, but choses not to respond with words.