When Ebenz recently banned me, I was fairly sure that it was over the California, Aids and Jews thread. I was, of course, fully prepared, upon my return, to send her a private message criticizing her action...only to find, upon my return, that I was banned over an off-hand comment I had made in another thread.
Fair enough. Obviously, I disagree with the decision, but fair enough.
Imagine my further shock when, after posting nothing in the interim, I find myself banned yet again by Sherman for the California, Aids and the Jews thread, and find the thread locked.
To be clear, this thread is not a criticism of either moderator action. Such a criticism would be pointless, and frankly, the idea of wasting on criticizing the actions of either of these people is beneath my contempt.
Rather, I wish to use this occasion as an illustration of my oft-repeated claim: Liberalism is dead. Nobody actually believes in it.
The core doctrine of liberalism, in the classical sense, is laissez faire (let it be). Liberalism is tolerance. Liberalism is the political doctrine that, though I may find what other people think, say, and, to a real extent, do, to be abhorrent, nonetheless, I shouldn't intervene, because it could well be the case that people who think differently may think the same about me.
My tolerance of others gives me, in turn, a right to be tolerated. Not endorsed. Not accepted. But certainly tolerated.
The old cliches come to mind: "Swing your umbrella as much as you like, so long as you don't strike my nose," and again, "I may disagree with what you say, I should defend to my death your right to say it."
Of course, liberty has clear boundaries and restrictions. The right to free speech should be absolute...save where that speech constitutes a clear and present infringement against the rights of another. Direct incitements to violence must be forbidden, and it is for good reason that libel and slander, strictly construed, are civilly actionable.
When, however, speech does not constitute infringement upon the rights of others, it must be permitted, and this, for a multitude of reasons. First, if you deny me the right to express my opinions, then you have no grounds upon which to object when you yourself are denied the right to express yours. Second, if my opinions are so obviously incorrect, then allowing me to express them is actually a service to your own cause, since I am providing you a chance to refute obviously false opinions. Denying me a right to speak is an active disservice to your own cause.
If anything, the opposite is true: the fact that you had to deny me the right to speak is, in a sense, a proof of the weakness of your own beliefs.
Shutting me down means that your own views aren't strong enough to stand on their own merits in the free marketplace of ideas.
The simple fact, however, is that even though our society is liberal de jure, it is illiberal in practice. Most people are not liberal. 40% of millennial college students believe in hate speech laws. 20% of millennial college students, roughly, think that it's perfectly acceptable to use violence to shut down speech that they deem objectionable. A large percent of Republicans are perfectly fine, even, with legislative crackdowns on the freedom to protest.
But that only tells part of the story.
The simple fact is that most people live in a bubble. Evangelical right wingers have their circles, left wing SJWs have theirs, and so forth and so on.
And how specific and narrow these bubbles are. Consider how strange the TOL bubble is. Right wing economic policy? Great, especially if accompanied by a subtly racist subtext. Foreign military interventions? Yes! Express the view that, perhaps, homosexual conduct merits the death penalty? All day long! Insist that every single undocumented immigrant, even if they came here as babies, have to go back? And even rail against so called "anchor babies"? Naturally!
Say things explicitly critical of Jews, black people, and brown people, even if what you are saying doesn't constitute incitement to violence, slander, libel, etc., and is technically WAY more mild than the things that right wing evangelicals say? NO! The mere mention of the word "Jew" is somehow unacceptable! Talk as much as you want about how practicing homosexuals deserve to die, but don't you DARE explicitly repeat a racial stereotype! :nono:
We live in a de jure "liberal" society full of people who are not liberal, who are wholly uninterested in hearing from the other side, who only consume news and opinions which "verify" their own pre-existing worldviews, and who are chomping at the bit to deny a platform, wheresoever possible, to people who disagree with them.
And let's be honest, TOL: I'm sure that many of you cheered when Trump threatened to deny a license to news media which are critical of him, and when he threatened the NFL over their failure to fire protesting football players, didn't you?
But I'm sure that many of you complain bitterly, on a regular basis, about triggered special snowflakes who try to deplatform right wing speakers on college campuses.
Face the facts: most people in our society, whether left wing or right wing, are triggered special snowflakes (including the moderators of this website) who cannot STAND the thought of taking part in a free and open marketplace of ideas, who pay lip service to freedom of speech and liberty, but deny it in practice.
Liberalism is dead. And none of you deserve it anyway.
I would have no sympathy if each and every one of you were forced by the government to bake a gay wedding cake at some point in your life.
You deserve it.
Hail victory!
Fair enough. Obviously, I disagree with the decision, but fair enough.
Imagine my further shock when, after posting nothing in the interim, I find myself banned yet again by Sherman for the California, Aids and the Jews thread, and find the thread locked.
To be clear, this thread is not a criticism of either moderator action. Such a criticism would be pointless, and frankly, the idea of wasting on criticizing the actions of either of these people is beneath my contempt.
Rather, I wish to use this occasion as an illustration of my oft-repeated claim: Liberalism is dead. Nobody actually believes in it.
The core doctrine of liberalism, in the classical sense, is laissez faire (let it be). Liberalism is tolerance. Liberalism is the political doctrine that, though I may find what other people think, say, and, to a real extent, do, to be abhorrent, nonetheless, I shouldn't intervene, because it could well be the case that people who think differently may think the same about me.
My tolerance of others gives me, in turn, a right to be tolerated. Not endorsed. Not accepted. But certainly tolerated.
The old cliches come to mind: "Swing your umbrella as much as you like, so long as you don't strike my nose," and again, "I may disagree with what you say, I should defend to my death your right to say it."
Of course, liberty has clear boundaries and restrictions. The right to free speech should be absolute...save where that speech constitutes a clear and present infringement against the rights of another. Direct incitements to violence must be forbidden, and it is for good reason that libel and slander, strictly construed, are civilly actionable.
When, however, speech does not constitute infringement upon the rights of others, it must be permitted, and this, for a multitude of reasons. First, if you deny me the right to express my opinions, then you have no grounds upon which to object when you yourself are denied the right to express yours. Second, if my opinions are so obviously incorrect, then allowing me to express them is actually a service to your own cause, since I am providing you a chance to refute obviously false opinions. Denying me a right to speak is an active disservice to your own cause.
If anything, the opposite is true: the fact that you had to deny me the right to speak is, in a sense, a proof of the weakness of your own beliefs.
Shutting me down means that your own views aren't strong enough to stand on their own merits in the free marketplace of ideas.
The simple fact, however, is that even though our society is liberal de jure, it is illiberal in practice. Most people are not liberal. 40% of millennial college students believe in hate speech laws. 20% of millennial college students, roughly, think that it's perfectly acceptable to use violence to shut down speech that they deem objectionable. A large percent of Republicans are perfectly fine, even, with legislative crackdowns on the freedom to protest.
But that only tells part of the story.
The simple fact is that most people live in a bubble. Evangelical right wingers have their circles, left wing SJWs have theirs, and so forth and so on.
And how specific and narrow these bubbles are. Consider how strange the TOL bubble is. Right wing economic policy? Great, especially if accompanied by a subtly racist subtext. Foreign military interventions? Yes! Express the view that, perhaps, homosexual conduct merits the death penalty? All day long! Insist that every single undocumented immigrant, even if they came here as babies, have to go back? And even rail against so called "anchor babies"? Naturally!
Say things explicitly critical of Jews, black people, and brown people, even if what you are saying doesn't constitute incitement to violence, slander, libel, etc., and is technically WAY more mild than the things that right wing evangelicals say? NO! The mere mention of the word "Jew" is somehow unacceptable! Talk as much as you want about how practicing homosexuals deserve to die, but don't you DARE explicitly repeat a racial stereotype! :nono:
We live in a de jure "liberal" society full of people who are not liberal, who are wholly uninterested in hearing from the other side, who only consume news and opinions which "verify" their own pre-existing worldviews, and who are chomping at the bit to deny a platform, wheresoever possible, to people who disagree with them.
And let's be honest, TOL: I'm sure that many of you cheered when Trump threatened to deny a license to news media which are critical of him, and when he threatened the NFL over their failure to fire protesting football players, didn't you?
But I'm sure that many of you complain bitterly, on a regular basis, about triggered special snowflakes who try to deplatform right wing speakers on college campuses.
Face the facts: most people in our society, whether left wing or right wing, are triggered special snowflakes (including the moderators of this website) who cannot STAND the thought of taking part in a free and open marketplace of ideas, who pay lip service to freedom of speech and liberty, but deny it in practice.
Liberalism is dead. And none of you deserve it anyway.
I would have no sympathy if each and every one of you were forced by the government to bake a gay wedding cake at some point in your life.
You deserve it.
Hail victory!
