I must have missed this thread from the other night. Too bad, because mixed in there somewhere is an interesting set of questions about PC, self-censorship, and free speech. More on that in a moment, but first let me get something out of the way.
Has .@conor64 ever described PC norms as a free speech issue?
Yes, absolutely. In this incident, which he says fits the "dictionary definition" of PC, Conor argues that some social norms pose a "chilling effect" and are a "clear threat to free inquiry".
Yes, absolutely. In this incident, which he says fits the "dictionary definition" of PC, Conor argues that some social norms pose a "chilling effect" and are a "clear threat to free inquiry".
Note well that there is no suggestion in this piece of any formal sanction. On the contrary, the principal concern here, according to the person involved, is that failure to be PC will result in her losing "credibility with a number of film and Women/Gender studies colleagues."
I grabbed this piece because I remembered it as Conor's clearest articulation of what he means by PC, but I don't believe it is exceptional. Regardless, he was asking repeatedly for an example in which he characterizes PC norm enforcement as a free speech issue. Now he has one.
Conor also asks for examples of people who have been duped along the lines Will describes here. There are too many to count, but for a start, I'd point to the proliferation of student groups that are inviting racists to campus in order to challenge PC.
When Dave Rubin chose to sit down with Stefan Molyneux, it was because he believed that PC norms against racism threaten free speech.
And it's why the Berkeley Patriots invited Milo during Free Speech Week.
newyorker.com/magazine/2018/…
And it's why the Berkeley Patriots invited Milo during Free Speech Week.
newyorker.com/magazine/2018/…
Hell, it's why Robert Mercer bankrolled Milo in the first place!
businessinsider.com/robert-mercer-…
businessinsider.com/robert-mercer-…
And it seems, by all accounts, to be the guiding ethos of the Columbia University College Republics. May they never live it down.
columbiaspectator.com/news/2018/01/1…
columbiaspectator.com/news/2018/01/1…
.@willwilkinson says that "It's a big problem that so many of us have been duped into a false choice between (a) defending free speech and (b) fighting hate speech."
I have a hard time seeing how he's wrong.
I have a hard time seeing how he's wrong.
But all of this is rather boring and petty. What's perhaps a bit more interesting is the distinction Conor draws between "good PC" and "bad PC". Because he's not opposed to PC in general, just PC that targets speech containing a "truth proposition".
What does this mean? I'm not quite certain, though Conor is confident that consensus on whether a statement contains a truth proposition can be easily achieved.
Anyway, we can imagine the basic contours. Something like: a norm against a statement, no matter how bigoted that statement might be, is bad PC if that statement contains a synthetic claim. That's because synthetic claims can (and therefore should?) be refuted with speech.
There are a couple of unsupported moves in that argument, but I believe it describes a popular view. It is pregnant in the maxim that the best remedy for bad speech is more speech, an idea so bracingly optimistic that Brandeis could only have written it before the Holocaust.
What is there to say about this theory that isn't already obvious? That it's dangerously naive? That it lacks empirical foundations? That it draws impractical and ambiguous conceptual distinctions? Yes, yes, and yes. But what else?
Most of all, that it calls for the enforcers of PC norms to stand down at precisely the moment when they are most needed. Because the greatest danger to our society doesn't come from racial slurs. It comes from those who attempt to make racism attractive. Who attempt to persuade.
That's it.
