Thread by @HoarseWisperer

I reserve a very specific, deep contempt for threads like this one from Bari Weiss on free speech.

It pushes a particular button of mine.

So, let us gather close this eve of Festivus and commence the airing of grievances.

1/

https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1268628680797978625

The thrust of Weiss’ position is that open speech is noble and good no matter the situation or context.

The subtext is “Publishing bad things is good. Only people of weaker mind stray from this truth. I am no such person. For, I, am principled.”

2/

The thing that aggrieves the absolute fuck out of me about arguments like Weiss’ is that they are always a product of three main ingredients:

1) Privilege
2) Arrogance
3) An intellectual weakness mistaken for strength

3/

There is no rule in civil society that is universally sound when applied to every situation.

Killing a person is generally wrong.

It is not wrong when that person was shooting up a school.

Life is complex and human beings are capable of complex decision-making.

4/

Yet, when it comes to speech, Weiss and co. insist it is enlightened to ignore complexity and serve only one principle: more speech is always better.

That position is a quaint holdover from safer times.

Speech isn’t just a tool; it’s a weapon; and we are in danger.

5/

Our country is teetering on the brink of failure thanks in no small part to propaganda, disinformation, and purposeful incitement.

While these are new (at least in this severity) to America, they are by no means new to the world.

6/

What Weiss and co. cannot process is that publication is not always good, helpful or positive.

Ideas don’t meet on the pages of the Times to fight it out and pick a winner.

Propaganda isn’t actually cured by being held up to sunlight alongside a counterpoint.
7/

Propaganda and inciting speech aren’t a virus; they’re a fire.

You don’t put them out by giving them oxygen.

You put them out by smothering them.

8/

Virtually every country that has fallen into the hands of authoritarians already knows this.

That news has yet to reach Bari Weiss or the New York Times...

9/

And the reason it hasn’t reached the Bari Weiss’ and David Brooks’ isn’t because it’s secret or complicated or new.

It’s because it doesn’t *affect them*.

They’re people of privilege insulated from harms and afforded the luxury of “principles” only injurious to others.

10/

Dig through their past writings though and you will invariably find exceptions and carve-outs.

You will find times when their Absolute Principle - that more speech is good speech - wasn’t actually absolute. Times when they thought just the opposite.

11/

And those times were invariably when there was some palpable risk *to them*.

Whether it was when Trump was fostering an environment dangerous to journalists or something else, when the potential harm was personal, they felt differently.

Why isn’t now one of those times?

12/

Because Weiss does not well up with fear when the flashing lights go on in the rear view.

And David Brooks doesn’t get thrown to the pavement out in front of a Barney’s.

So, let us discuss!

To further militarize policing or no?

Gather all, we shall take tea in the salon!

13

There is nothing enlightened or noble about any of that.

It fills me with a deep contempt.

People with privilege - more than anyone - should weigh heavily the injuries to people more vulnerable that might be caused by content they can simply *choose* to not amplify.

14/

Privilege is a responsibility.

Intent vs. impact.

It does not matter if your intent is to further open speech.

If the impact would be harm to people more vulnerable than you - and you know that - well, that’s actually your intent too. You just don’t care.

15/

Being indifferent to harms to people more vulnerable in service of your “principles” doesn’t make you Aristotle.

It makes you an asshole.

And a privileged one at that.

16/16