Some argue you must abide offensive speech, because freedom. They also argue you must not use your speech in retaliation, because freedom.
I remain convinced that all sides just want to set their own boundaries on socially acceptable speech, but only one side insists they want to constrain the speech of others in the name of free speech.
There was a time I would argue that side would only socially constrain the speech of others using speech, a tactic I believe to be fair.
But over the last few years, I've realized a tremendous willingness to support the use of state power to constrain speech.
It's ironic to see people call their opponents authoritarians while themselves endorsing laws meant to make certain speech illegal, even in private spaces.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If there was a movement to have Spotify remove sexist or racist content, I'd support it.
The free market can be used for good things too.
Let's see how long before someone comes in and calls me an authoritarian or illiberal... because I support using the free market for something good.
The free market shouldn't only be used for exploiting the poor and marginalized.
I remember one time someone was insisting on his right to use the n-word because rappers do. He then asked if I preferred he boycotted such music. I said "yes, and I'd support you!"
He proceeded to call me names like illiberal and authoritarian.
So now anyone who suggests black students are less qualified for elite schools, or black workers for management jobs, is engaging in racism.
All those who suggest black biological or cultural inferiority are now being racist.
All those who suggest black biological or cultural inferiority are now engaging in racism according to the Anti-Defamation League.
All those who assume black people are less intelligent or capable, are engaging in racism.
I know some like it because it also labels attempt to address the impacts of racism are racist, but they rarely want their assumptions of inferiority to be labeled racism.
Because social race isn't fixed, a person *can* transition between races as socially labeled. If within one social circle a person presents and is racialized as race X and in another circle as race Y, then both labels are concurrently valid socially.
Of course, all of this is built on this truth about social race. It's a label placed upon us that we chose to recognize and others can recognize too
So nothing prevents multiple, even conflicting labels within different circles. Nothing prevents fluidity
Within much of the discussion about free speech is an assumption that there should be a social hierarchy in terms of whose speech is more respected.
The disruption of that hierarchy is seen as an attack on their expected social order.
I personally believe the government should have very little say in public speech. With few exceptions, the public on the other hand should be completely free to speak and react to speech, as long as it's within the law.