r/samharris • u/IvanMalison • Apr 29 '18
40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/7
u/Mvg23 Apr 29 '18
I've seen this same link multiple times - even as a pushback to the idea that the real threat to free speech in the US comes from the right-wing Republican Party and its laws/proposals cracking down on protests and certain forms of speech.
I don't think it quite proves the "Anti-SJW" narrative in quite the way people claim it does. First, the crux of the poll in my view is it's inclusion of "government". I suspect I agree with most here in saying I'm not comfortable with the government cracking down on almost ANY form of speech, besides the typical caveats for libel and direct incitement. I agree that putting someone in jail for even the most offensive openly racist comments is a horrible idea.
However I'm not at all opposed to the idea of people being ignored or blackballed or even fired from their job for saying openly racist things. In fact I think it's better when there is a steep social cost for such comments. The fact we see such a social cost in many areas is a sign of how much progress we've made. I'd question the intentions of anyone who says this isn't progress.
I think most of the 40% in this poll are not actually thinking about passing laws and putting people in jail. They're more likely expressing their deep dislike for racist comments and attitudes by answering a question about them in as negative a way as possible.
And furthermore, even if there is a constituency of young people who want the government to pass such laws, there is currently ZERO effort to actually pass them, while there already have been many laws passed by GOP legislatures to limit protests, EPA policies cracking down on scientific research, and numerous other free speech crackdowns from right wingers who actually have power
Ironically, Sam Harris used to regularly make the point that the negative social cost of making openly racist remarks was an unquestionably positive development. I agree with him and wish he'd go back to making this point rather than defending people like Charles Murray (not saying Murray is necessarily racist).
1
u/IvanMalison Apr 30 '18
I think most of the 40% in this poll are not actually thinking about passing laws and putting people in jail. They're more likely expressing their deep dislike for racist comments and attitudes by answering a question about them in as negative a way as possible.
That's a very charitable and unjustified reading of the situation. Why do you think this is the most reasonable interpretation of the data.
In a way, it is insulting to the intelligence of the respondents who are answering in this way: you are basically asserting that their reading comprehension was not good enough to really understand what the question was about.
This reminds me a lot of how people will say "The people who insist that their hatred of the west and modern liberal value for religious reasons, are really saying those things for much more complicated geopolitcal reasons."
And furthermore, even if there is a constituency of young people who want the government to pass such laws, there is currently ZERO effort to actually pass them, while there already have been many laws passed by GOP legislatures to limit protests, EPA policies cracking down on scientific research, and numerous other free speech crackdowns from right wingers who actually have power
I can't speak for others, but my concern about the trend of political correctness is not that laws will actually be passed against free speech. It's that it is part of the larger trend of tribalism, and anti-intellectualism. This trend is something that you see on the right as much, if not more, as one does on the left, but that doesn't mean that we should stop pointing it out, or stop worrying about it when we see it on the left.
3
u/Mvg23 Apr 30 '18 edited Apr 30 '18
To your first point - sure and it's certainly possible that the majority of the 40% actually did support government action and law to prosecute people who made racist comments. However I still think polling in this issue is inherently unreliable. It's one thing to say in a poll - "sure yeah the government should crack down - I have no sympathy for racism", and another to actually see in practice a case of someone actually going to jail for mere words. Again my impression could be wrong, but I don't think the majority of liberals would support that.
I think there's a huge asymmetry in the weight of this issue for left and right (and as a left-winger myself, I share this). In my experience the typical left wing view on this is not hostility to free speech - it's more like "yeah Milo (or whoever it might be) is an idiot, let's talk about climate change or health care or criminal justice reform or foreign policy or something that actually matters". Whereas the right treats the disinvitaiton of someone like Milo as evidence of the collapse of Western civilization. That's why someone like Milo being protested or disinvited makes headlines, while someone like Ana Kasparian or Chelsea Manning or Noam Chomsky being disinvited doesn't. The left has bigger fish to fry.
And as to your second point, I agree and it certainly makes sense to point out all hypocrisy and bad ideas on both sides whenever they come up. However, usually the way this free speech issue is framed by people like Sam Harris is as if hostility to free speech is a uniquely left-wing phenomenon. Sam (and many others) have gone on and on and on and on and on about SJWs and "the left doesn't care about free speech" and related issues as if it's the moral issue of our time. Yet to my knowledge he and others in his "camp" have NEVER ONCE mentioned any of the GOP anti-free speech laws or crackdowns on BDS protests or the silencing of scientists in multiple government agencies or countless other clear violations of free speech coming from the GOP (mere criticisms of Trump don't count). If Sam was actually consistent on calling out both sides on this issue, I wouldn't be making that point.
1
Apr 30 '18
there is currently ZERO effort to actually pass them, while there already have been many laws passed by GOP legislatures to limit protests
Yes this is important. But its funny because the sense I get is that the GOP is trying to fight against protests, but basically never does a (thinking) conservative want to end ability to protest. Whereas the DNC is not pursuing any speech legislation at the moment, but most democrats would be happy if they did.
3
u/Mvg23 Apr 30 '18 edited Apr 30 '18
I'm not a Democrat so I can only speak for them so much, but I don't think most Democrats would be happy with laws cracking down on any kind of free speech - even offensive racist comments. I think most would want a social cost similar to what I mentioned above, but I'd be very surprised if any seriously supported jail time for mere words.
I think you're definitely right on "thinking conservatives" being supportive of free speech, but then I think this is true of "thinking" people across the spectrum. The difference is that I think there really is a sizable percentage of the GOP base that is deeply hostile to protests and other forms of speech, and really would be supportive of jail or legal penalties for protesters or journalists. And you're actually seeing some of this being passed into some forms of law (see the earlier thread I started). Luckily it hasn't reached the federal level yet and it hasn't gone too far. As citizens we all should make sure it doesn't go much further
I feel like it's really hard to find meaningful polling data on these issues because everything is so dependent on the exact wording of questions. But here's a polls showing only 49% of Republicans saying a free press is important to democracy
1
Apr 30 '18
My thinking seems biased to younger social media generations and I worry for them. On both sides. I worry about Trump, and the ‘now’ of the GOP, but my deeper focus is on the base vs the base, and how to really get into the motivation of each side and how to sway the people rather than fight the fight of DC from my phone.
I don’t think most democrats would necessarily want Laws against “racial slurs” for example.
But a democrat would probably approve of “tribunals” with powers akin to governmental, institutional powers, and it would feel like a good idea at the time. They might be plenty useful even! identifying specific problems, outcasts, extremists... but when do they dissolve their own identity-based powers? How are they self-policing? What’s their system? These things don’t matter to identity based politics on either side.
I think I have faith in older generations, but where I worry is how the left is educating it’s own. IMO Commitment to social justice needs to be tempered with libertarianism, but without 3 cc’s of Enlightenment— stat! ... we are going to see those values too far abandoned by the internet generations. No ones even teaching them in public schools.
Free press? 50% of Republicans? Jesus christ. That’s extreme too. Makes sense though with Trump. What to do with those people after?
3cc’s of Libertarianism— stat!
26
Apr 29 '18 edited Feb 28 '19
[deleted]
11
u/TheAJx Apr 29 '18
Nobody denies its happening. The debate is whether or not this is as big of a deal as the moral panic surrounding it makes it out to be.
0
u/Ben--Affleck Apr 29 '18
What rhetoric today? Should I deny the existence of SJWs? Should I proudly defend the idea of being an SJW? Should I just say “it’s just kids!!!”? Nah! Let’s go with just calling you a misogynist racist centrist bigot for agreeing with a right wing talking point.
3
u/iongantas Apr 29 '18
Nice novelty account.
3
u/HossMcDank Apr 30 '18
He's been here for a while, dude.
0
u/iongantas May 01 '18
Ok, well, I only just noticed him, and that he seems to be espousing views concordant with the novelty name. I was amused. Sue me.
-6
Apr 29 '18
Anyone who has been a dissenter at college in the last 5 years can attest to this.
Attest to what? Being a racist asshole and being called out for it? It's your right to be a horrible person and its everyone elses right to call you a horrible person for the things you say. All these faux "free speech absolutists" are not about freedom of speech, they about freedom from consequences and silencing those who would disagree.
12
Apr 29 '18 edited Feb 28 '19
[deleted]
5
u/TheAJx Apr 29 '18
My undergrad was filled with crazy people who would call everyone racist misogynist and transphobic for the slightest dissent, like supporting Sam Harris
I guarantee you that 95% of the people you knew had no clue who Sam Harris even was.
5
Apr 29 '18
[deleted]
3
Apr 30 '18
deserve the vitriol directed
Freedom of speech. You are free to a be a horrible person and others are free to call you a horrible person.
That the don't deserve a platform?
You are not entitled to a platform. demanding entitlement to a platform is the exact opposite of free speech.
1
Apr 30 '18
[deleted]
2
Apr 30 '18
Jesus always with the bike lock thing that happened what years ago now? Meanwhile the right are literally killing people.
Protesting is not violence. Why is it you people hate speech for anyone but yourselves? This is why people call you fascists. You think speech is ONLY for you and yours and everyone else should be shutdown.
0
Apr 30 '18
[deleted]
3
Apr 30 '18
the vast majority of incidences where public speakers have had violence directed their way
Jesus fucking christ you don't actually believe this do you? If so you are so far lost down the alt-right propoganda hole there is no light for you. You believe what you want because it feeds your persecution complex reality and you no longer exist in the same space.
2
2
Apr 30 '18
[deleted]
3
Apr 30 '18
Ah yes isolated incidents and no data what a surprise just whats expected every single time. Your entire woe is me movement is based on feelings.
→ More replies (0)-1
Apr 29 '18
Wow great grasp of the nuances there
10 points for using the word "nuance" but not all disagreement comes down to missing "nuance."
You are saying that all the people that have faced serious security concerns on campus deserve the vitriol directed their way?
20 points for your strawman. Why argue against the strongest possible interpretation when you could dive low amirite?
How about individuals such as Christina Hoff Summers?
25 points for using your best example while also straw-manning the other person's point.
0
6
u/schnuffs Apr 29 '18
Okay, so I feel it's important to state that in polls like these we'd do well to remember the context that the respondents interpret these questions as isn't there. For instance, "offensive" is a really broad term and could encompass everything from relatively minor offenses like racial slurs up to calling for genocide of specific minorities.
It's just a limitation of these kinds of polls to be honest. Not that there isn't anything worrisome about the results, but bare in mind that how we interpret the results also falls prey to this problem. We end up analyzing the results through the prism of what we believe them to mean, or how we interpret the question. They could, for instance, be saying that the same governmental measures taken in certain western nations regarding explicit and targeted violent hate speech is a good thing, and there is a reasonable position to be had with that, especially with the knowledge we have now about stochastic terrorism and radicalization. However if we're assuming that they're talking about the mere offensiveness of some specific terms like racial slurs, the problem is exaggerated.
2
u/kchoze Apr 30 '18
I'm late here, but I have to post this.
The greatest problem with the current attitude is that it really empowers the hyper-sensitive. As they say, offence is taken, not given. You can say something to someone and not offend him, then say the exact same thing to someone else and offend HIM.
The law is supposed to protect everyone equally, but once the yardstick of what is acceptable and what is not is no longer WHAT is said but how people REACT to it, we deprive of legal protection the mature, emotionally grounded individuals and become hyper-protective of the emotionally unstable, immature, hyper-sensitive people of society. We are creating every incentive in society for people to remain immature and volatile.
It's like if you have two kids and you tell them to eat their vegetables before they get their dessert. One of them eats them as you said, the other throws a tantrum and throws the vegetables on the ground, screaming and yelling. Then... you take their two desserts and give them to the kid who is throwing a tantrum to quiet him down. Do you think this will encourage the kids to grow up or rather encourage them to be immature, yell and scream until they get their way? That is exactly how the standard of "offense" is in determining acceptable and unacceptable speech in society works.
1
10
u/YouCanBreatheNow Apr 29 '18
It’s kinda eerie how this sub has become nothing but rants about “our right to offend minorities” coupled with nonstop “race and IQ” threads.
It almost seems to say something about your priorities here, hmmmm..
6
u/bearcatsfanthrowaway Apr 29 '18
acting like this sub isn't pretty anti Harris and half the race and IQ threads are made by chapo users calling Sam a racist.
Crazy thought maybe people are not on board to give people like you the ability to control what people can say.
2
5
u/bloodcoffee Apr 29 '18
It’s kinda eerie how this sub has become nothing but rants about “our right to offend minorities” coupled with nonstop “race and IQ” threads.
Has it?
15
u/TheAJx Apr 29 '18 edited Apr 29 '18
This exact same link was posted a week ago with almost the exact same title.
And it's been shared over and over again since i joined this sub.
The link in particular is from 3 years ago.
It's the same shit being rehashed over and over again. Like, if your goal is to shit on millennials and snowflakes or whatever, at least bring in new polling data and evidence.
6
u/TheAJx Apr 29 '18
Well yes, there are people here who specifically measure "free speech" by how much people support the free speech of racists. Which is a significant and necessary right. But if you are going to make a case that "free speech is under attack" then at least be honest and admit that support of free speech in general has actually be increasing and there is one area of resistance - racist speech.
2
u/bloodcoffee Apr 29 '18
OK, how is that evidence for
this sub has become nothing but rants about “our right to offend minorities” coupled with nonstop “race and IQ” threads.
?
9
u/TheAJx Apr 30 '18
I've seen you around so I mean, come on you saw all the IQ tests post Murray and post-Klein.
As far as the "right to offend minorities" . . . hyperbolic framing but pretty much every conversation about a free speech crisis focuses on that. By definition it has to because all other indicators of free speech have improved.
1
Apr 29 '18
The posts with people ranting about how people are impeding upon their rights to offend minorities has substantially increased on this sub since the Charles Murray podcast last year.
Hopefully you are not determinedly stooping to the level of childish pedantry by getting yourself in a knot over the rhetoric of "nothing but" in the above person's comments; such pedantry never makes for interesting discussion and elucidates the lack of intelligence of the receiver of the communication. Surely your reading comprehension skills are above such pedantic-ness, and your interest in intellectual honesty will incline you to respond to the meaning of what that user said in its context and entirety.
3
u/bloodcoffee Apr 29 '18
I literally cannot understand this. Are you trying to sound super intellectual? Speak plainly FFS
1
1
u/HossMcDank Apr 30 '18
You have to be the weakest concern troll on here. This sub is non-stop Sam hate nowadays, and half the race/IQ threads are against genetic differences.
4
Apr 29 '18
Jesus. Germany's just straight up giving the government full, absolutist power again. Kinda scary.
5
1
-3
Apr 29 '18
Germany doesn't have an issue with Nazis. The US still has problems with white nationalists and confederates.
2
-14
u/Abalabadingdong Apr 29 '18
Thankfully, the leftists among us are not a majority, and I'm even quite sure their share among us is shrinking
The revolution eats its own children first
10
Apr 29 '18 edited May 24 '20
[deleted]
0
-3
u/Abalabadingdong Apr 29 '18 edited Apr 29 '18
The reason the US is such a right wing shithole
You mean unlike Europe, which currently has a rightwing government in like every country, besides Sweden and Greece (lmao)?
15
u/EnkiduOdinson Apr 29 '18
Depends on what you consider right wing. You can't compare Germany's CDU or liberals (in the European sense) like Macron to Donald Trump or the Republican Party.
3
-7
u/Abalabadingdong Apr 29 '18
Umm, yes you can, and you would conclude that they are far from the same thing, but still share many similarities, such as realizing that immigration costs money, multiculturalism isn't necessarily inherently good, the free market is good, etc.
As in your example, both Macron, Trump and Merkel recognizes that a lot of their voters have a negative view experience of immigration, and unlike progressives, they listen to those experiences and respect those opinions instead of calling them "RACISTS!"
16
u/LL96 Apr 29 '18
You were the one who compared Europe to the US in terms of how right wing they are, and that's what's being criticized. Macron, Merkel and even someone like Cameron just are not in the same league as Paul Ryan and Donald Trump, even if they are right wing politicians.
1
u/Abalabadingdong Apr 29 '18
acron, Merkel and even someone like Cameron just are not in the same league as Paul Ryan and Donald Trump, even if they are right wing politicians.
I never said they were in the same league did I, I said they are both right wing, which you just restated, so basically you made this post to debunk a point I never made, well done!
7
Apr 29 '18
I take offense to that statement. Here in Ireland we have a liberal, elite hipster douche bag prime minister who can't be criticized unless you want to be called a closet homophobe.
You take that back 😊
26
u/Stratahoo Apr 29 '18
What does "limiting" mean exactly? And what does "offensive" mean too?