Thread by @Yascha_Mounk

We need to oppose four core principles that are silencing speech:

1) Disagreements threaten personal safety

2) It's possible to be contaminated by association

3) Intent doesn't matter

4) If in doubt, get the authorities involved

@EmilyYoffe.

[Thread]
persuasion.community/p/a-taxonomy-o…

The process by which sinners are punished and apostates expelled can seem random, @EmilyYoffe argues @JoinPersuasion.

But understanding the ways in which speech is being silenced can help us stand up to the illiberalism of this moment.

So here's her incisive taxonomy of fear.

1) The Perils of Safety

Confronted with ideas they dislike, a growing number of people are asserting that they are in danger of suffering psychological or even bodily harm.

The result is a narrowing of public discussion and an inability to teach ever more ideas and books.

For example, some students now believe teaching rape laws is too traumatic. But it is sexual assault victims who will be hurt if lawyers do not learn about the subject.

In practice, safetyism can make some of the most vulnerable people in our society less safe.

2) Contamination by Association

According to this principle, people can't just be made unsafe by the beliefs or statements of their colleagues; they can also be made unsafe by those with whom their friends or colleagues associate.

If we accept the principle of “contamination by association,” people will soon be answerable for the work of those with whom they have appeared on a panel, those they talk to on a podcast, and countless others with whom they share the most tenuous of professional connections.

Under the rules of contamination, any affiliation with anyone else means everything they've said is your responsibility.

So any rational person will think of everyone else as a potential landmine. Better to draw the circle of your friends and associates as narrowly as possible.

3) Intent Is Irrelevant

More and more often, organizations and politicians declare that "intent is irrelevant."

But to understand someone’s intent should be just as crucial to our social functioning as it is to proceedings in criminal courts.

If we decline to understand why others act the way they do, or to take into account whether they intended any harm, we multiply the number of violations we perceive—and often end up treating benign people as wrongdoers.

This makes it impossible for our institutions to function.

4) Report to the Authorities

More and more things are a threat to safety. We are responsible for the ideas of anyone with whom we associate. Intentions don't matter.

And what happens when a statement is criticized in one of these myriad ways?

The authorities get involved.

Some things do need to be reported.

But when you live in a society in which people disclose all discomfort to the authorities, trust and goodwill quickly erode.

As @glukianoff and @JonHaidt write, “life in call-out culture requires constant vigilance, fear and self-censorship.”

America has become hyper-punitive. This has resulted in mass incarceration, causing the destruction of millions of lives and of entire communities.

But many of the same people who abhor the excesses of our criminal justice system applaud the new forms of social ruin.

The result that awaits if we don't push back on these four principles?

@EmilyYoffe puts it better than anyone:

"Dread settles in. Challenging books go untaught. Deep conversations are not had. Friendships are not formed. Classmates and colleagues eye each other with suspicion."

Please do read and share @EmilyYoffe's whole piece @JoinPersuasion.

I promise it will help you understand this political moment, and how to improve it, better than anything else you might read today.

persuasion.community/p/a-taxonomy-o…