> As some one who lives under a blasphemy culture, I think American greatly take for granted their freedoms of speech, and it boggles me that this is not a corner stone of the American Left.

I am not an American, but my own observation as a leftist of the situation there is that there's what I'd call the 'performative left' and the 'real/old school left' if you will with the second camp being mainly about economic issues, class solidarity, foreign policy, freedom of expression etc. (say Chomsky, Richard Wolf), but much smaller than the performative left, (student activists trying to deplatform etc.), which is the one the right loves because they give them so much material to work with.

That part of the right on the other hand claims to be pro free speech but ends up not behaving anything like it, aka Elon Musk.

>what I'd call the 'performative left' and the 'real/old school left'

What you're referring to are known more commonly as Modern Liberalism and Classical Liberalism, respectively.

Modern Liberalism is, well, the Left: Control of speech, adherence of expression, safe spaces, equal results rather than equal opportunity, wealth redistribution, controlled markets, etc.

Classical Liberalism is liberalism as it used to mean originally: Free speech, free expression, free markets, equal opportunity, individual responsibility, etc.

It probably doesn't need to be said that Classical Liberalism is almost never associated with the Left.

Also remember: The word "liberal" and name "liberalism" are derived from the Latin word "liber", from which we also get words such as "liberty". Liberalism is about freedom, something that the Left staunchly argues against.

As a non-American calling liberalism 'left' is so weird. I grew up with the word liberal being a slur for right-winger. But even in an US context painting it as classic vs modern liberalism is wrong. Chomsky is definitely not a liberal, and the US obsession of collapsing every position to the left of conservatism into liberalism is dangerously reductive, and limits the answers for political questions immensely.

As an American I also find it weird. There’s multiple axes getting reduced to just one. It’s impossible to have any proper discussions about political positions of people when you’re collapsing it down and then leaving it up to the reader to decide how they want to split it back out in their heads.

I said I am not American for a reason, I am also familiar with my terms and what you write is somewhat a modern, American-centric distortion of terms as well. You listed what seem like talking points in the so called 'culture war' that I am not interested in fighting as it is very much an American phenomenon, (with some spillover) that in the end doesn't serve interests of anyone but the few profiting off of being spokepersons for one side or the other.

It's very much a modern distortion that leftism doesn't stand for free speech and that classical liberals, (in your context, I understand them to mean right-leaning libertarians), are somehow the only ones that do.

The left intellectuals I am familiar with are very much pro free speech, equal opportunity, (not outcome etc). As for markets, I very much question if such a thing as a free market could ever truly exist, (even without state interference), and if it's such a good thing but that's neither here nor there.

Point is, the left is very diverse, not a single box you can put everything you don't like the sound of in, label it 'the left' and be done with it. Same thing as not everyone on the right being a 'Nazi' if you will.

I wouldn’t have grouped Chomsky in with them though.

If you read the rest of his comment, you’d see that’s not what he was talking about at all.

Despite its etymology, liberalism is not primarily about freedom, it is about individualism. This is what connects "classical" and "modern" liberalism. Freedoms and so-called "human rights" shake out of this foundational idea that the individual is sovereign.

No, I don’t think the analogy works.

People have a freedom of who they associate with and do business with:

Boycott is when you decide not to spend your money someplace because you don’t agree with them. You’re exercising your freedom of association.

Cancellation is when a 3rd party demands that a employee/employer sever their relationship because the 3rd party disapproves of the employee. Here, a 3rd party is imposing on two other parties’ freedom of association.

Also, the substance of the speech is quite different:

- “You are wrong, and here are the reasons why” is debate.

- “You are wrong, and you should become unemployable” is cancellation. Cancellation is technically speech, but it is speech that is focused on imposing a high cost on other speech. Talk about the “paradox of intolerance” argument that the modern left loves to use.

Cancel culture is not boycotting. At least not what most people consider boycotting. Boycotting usually there's to not giving money to a company to try to get the company to change their ways (yes you could argue it is a way to try and cancel the company) cancel culture is trying to get someone fired, or get their event, contact, whatever cancelled. Because you don't like them. It isn't the same thing. Boycotting is telling people "please don't prize company x" while cancellation is going above that person and asking them to remove the person. Totally different concepts. And it is mean and nasty, it is basically giving someone a death sentence for something they may not have even done. And of course you have every right to ask for someone to be cancelled. But you should use that right judicially. And make sure the punishment fits the crime.

Cancel culture == swatting. Same thing, abusing the system to get what they see as justice. Heavy cancellation usually involves stretching the truth or outright lies; an employer is very likely to drop a (male) employee based on an anonymous sexual assault tip for example, even if it turns out to be unsubstantiated depending on how high profile the employee/business is sometimes they'd rather play it safe & fire them anyway.

As easy as it is for one of the many Indian scam centers to take your grandmothers money, it is just as easy for a wide-eyed innocent figure to tell you lies about someone and have you believe them. I don't think most people realise how many biases we all carry.

I dont think it's so much that the right likes them more. I think it's mainly that the non performative left can basically only really get noticed by appearing on, say, PressTV or RT.

They dont tend to own or control TV stations and the people who do control popular "left" media megaphones trend neoliberal and are overtly hostile towards them.

Hence why there's no hike in the minimum wage or single payer healthcare still but you can pick your pronouns at work now :/

I think your example inadvertently proves why there is no left representation in America at all. Picking pronouns isn't some policy that was signed into law, it's just that the far right wants to make it illegal. The difference lies in the political figures touted as "left" in America have no left leaning policies, just watered down versions of the American right's agenda.

Getting the working class to fight over performative wedge issues to divide and disempower them is entirely deliberate.

That is, until Russian bots grab $500,000 of Facebook ads and a crowbar and join in the fun.

Ideally the growing resentment against capitalism and push for strong unions takes off even further. Blaming whatever minority is at best a band-aid on the gaping holes in the ruling class's narrative.

The right does not want to make the picking of pronouns illegal. Where did you get that? Nobody cares what annyone identifies as.

The right’s position is that you are free to identify however you wish, but you still have to abide by certain things based on your biological birth when it directly affects other people.

Right or wrong, don’t create a straw man.

I have a large conservative circle. That isn't their stance. They do not want trans people to exist at all.

What do you mean by they don't want trans people to exist at all? Same way trans people do not want conservatives to exist at all, or something more sinister? Because I have many conservative friends and they may not agree with different life choices, but that doesn't mean they won't tolerate it.

If you have a circle of people who want to eradicate trans people, I would not label them as conservatives first, they are psychopaths and I would not let them in my circle.

If you are not familiar with the local/state laws going into effect which legislate official identification and presentation in ways that impact trans people, they're particularly easy to Google. The differences between the positions of cannot exist in public view and cannot exist at all are insignificant in practice.

Shifting the goalpost.

No. In practice they are the same.

Yes. They are not the same, and you know this. These social pressure tactics do little but turn people against your cause at this point. The difference is in intent. While it is possible they look the same from the outside, one intends to protect what they love, while the other intends to hurt what it hates.

Making these people out to be the same serves to turn people who might be convinced to help you into your worst enemies instead. No one likes being made out to be a bad person simply for seeking to protect what is important to them. The two are not the same, and too many people screeching that they are, and that conservatives all hate trans people is the issue in the first place. It's weird.

Can you restate? Are you saying "cannot exist in public view" and "cannot exist in practice" are not really the same?

Which one intends to protect what they love, and what is "what they love?"

> conservatives all hate trans people

Not all conservatives, but lots of them don't want trans people to exist.

I'm saying that they have different motivations behind their views, and should therefore be argued against in different ways. Lumping them together like that is not helpful, it is shameful.

I know all about not being allowed to exist, just for being who you are, trust me, I do. I also know a lot about convincing people to LET you exist, rather than choosing between crushing your enemy, subjugating yourself to them, or running away. There is usually a better way. That seems to have been forgotten in modern days, but it certainly still exists.

It starts with following the site guidelines of arguing in good faith and assuming the best out of your opponents. In your view, "cannot exist in public view" and "cannot exist in practice" are one and the same. In their view it is not.

What you are doing is ASSERTING your reality over someone else. That's not a very nice thing to do, whether you're right or not. You WILL have pushback. If you want to convince people of the veracity of your views, you cannot hold that pushback against them. Certainly react to it, certainly defend yourself, but don't hold a grudge against people just for daring to fight you in the first place.

They might be wrong and you might be wrong. In this case, I'm inclined to agree with your view here, but that doesn't mean that people who don't are bad people. Just misguided.

If you want people to show compassion for you and your plight, start by showing compassion for them and theirs. Anything else is quite frankly a waste of time.

I'm not familiar with that, give me a link or Google search term to use so I can see for myself.

Easy to search for "anti-trans laws US" and do your research here.

Newsflash, trans people have always been a thing. Since like, recorded history. Some people in the US just decided to start caring about this now.

Thanks for asking me to clarify. I mean it in the literal sense: they want a world without trans people. I'm not interested really in getting into my subjective views on the harm I believe that leads to, but Ill answer and say no, I don't believe very many people want direct violence against trans people.

I don't know if you can group trans people into a political category where you can say they all don't want conservatives to exist??? I literally know trans conservatives who voted for trump (you'd not be able to tell they are trans).

> they may not agree with different life choices

I don't know what you intended, but phrasing it that way is a literal denial of the existence of trans people. Transitioning is a realization of who the person has always been, not a "life choice" to suddenly be someone different.

Denying the existence of something and not wanting something to exist are not exactly the same thing, but there is a lot of overlap. Again, I don't know what you intended, but many people pointedly use the word "choice" around this topic. Your phrase would be more accurate if it said "they may not agree with different life experiences" or "they may not agree with different lived realities". Those are decidedly more cutting than the phrasing you used.

Phrasing it the way you are is a literal denial of the existence of conservative people, because having conservative viewpoints is a realization of who the person has always been, not a life choice.

The person has always been a trans person. Like a gay person has always been gay. If conservatives don't believe that, them being wrong isn't a denial that conservatives exist.

So do I but I would not characterize the conservative position on trans individuals that way at all.

I think the conservative opposition is more directed at how early the modern left wants to introduce the concept to children. Primarily in schools and the desire by some on the modern left for educators to have private conversations about the topic with their children without the parent’s knowledge. Also, the notion of government funding any transitional medical procedure is opposed, but that is less a bias agains Trans individuals and more a standard conservative position on any sort of elective medical procedure receiving public funds.

There is not a single conservative that I know who cares one iota what a trans adult does, identifies as, or believes about themselves as long as the trans individual isn’t using taxpayer money to make the transition.

The laws being brought into effect by The Party beg to differ. They forbid the use of terms of "gender identity" among others. This is pretty obviously only being enforced against trans individuals. They also have restricted access to gender affirming healthcare even in the private sector.

>They forbid the use of the terms gender identity among others

Please cite the laws where this term is legally forbidden to be used. And please don’t give us examples where a government agency that might just use a different term, because that is not the same thing. Pleas give us so e specific laws where it’s use is overtly forbidden.

> They also have restricted access to gender affirming healthcare even in the private sector

You are making a blanket generalized statement here but how about you give us what “they” are actually restricting and what their argument as to why they are restricting it actually is and why that argument is wrong.

Not knowing what specifics you are referring to, but my suspicion is the what is the use of puberty blockers and the who is young children. That would make your statement lack some important nuance. It’s also not necessarily an unusual or even controversial stance for conservatives to act conservatively in regards to supporting novel medical treatments on children. Especially treatments that are even polarizing within medical circles and can have a lifelong impact.

I included more than enough information for anyone with basic reading comprehension to be able to generate their own Google search terms. Laws are public record.

No offense but it’s lazy to just give partisan generic talking points and tell people to “go Google”.

I think the conservative positions that are specific to trans and gender issues seem to center around children. At least from the conversations I have had with conservative friends on the topic that has been the concern they have. If that is not the case, provide something to prove me wrong. You do your argument a disservice if you cannot provide depth beyond generics.

You have not given any sources in your comments, this person is just operating in the mode you set them up for. Where is the left pushing these policies on children? Is there any substance to your claims?

I made no claims other than conversations I have had with conservatives that I know personally and am not arguing the merits of the policies for or against.

"I think the conservative opposition is more directed at how early the modern left wants to introduce the concept to children"

Do you really think that needed sources cited? Literally the most publicly prominent piece of legislation that was specifically passed by the GOP on this topic was in Florida last year with HB 1557. That legislation specifically created public education prohibitions about the topic with children aged 6 to 10 and had parental notification rights in it as well. The left opposed it vehemently and it was literally all over the news for months in the spring. Disney even fired a CEO over the fallout caused from his choice to publicly voice opposition to it.

For what it’s worth, here is your source, if you can think of a more public piece of legislation than this that expands prohibitions for trans topics beyond children, post it.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...

Because the GOP passes a law prohibiting something doesn't mean that thing is happening. Does that make sense to you?

Sure, except…that particular bill was a response to specific real situations that happened in Florida related to educators not informing parents and specifically using age inappropriate materials in the classroom. Additionally, the coordinated opposition wasn’t arguing that it was unnecessary, but rather the prohibition would not allow educators to do it.

Can you give me examples of those things happening in Florida?

> Primarily in schools and the desire by some on the modern left for educators to have private conversations about the topic with their children without the parent’s knowledge.

You'll have to substantiate this, because I'm not aware of "the left" pushing these policies.

If there isn't a "problem" with trans people, what's wrong with kids knowing about them, similar to gay people? I'm not saying educators should say "hey, did you consider if you're really a boy?!?!" but avoiding the topic altogether, which is what it seems like the right wants to do (have you looked up "trans social contagion" at any time? this talk is EVERYWHERE).

They think there is a problem, and it is only natural to not want problems to exist. There is a gradient, but most conservatives, in my view, do not want trans people to be a thing - they think there is a problem with it.

I am aware of people in my circles thinking trans people is a disease or a medical condition and want it to go away.

> There is not a single conservative that I know who cares one iota what a trans adult does, identifies as, or believes about themselves

Does this extend to them using bathrooms, or whatever, as well as the "women need their own private spaces!!" narrative? I'd certainly say that caring what bathroom a person uses falls in the "caring about what they do" category.

Some might be genuinely trans, but others are just making a mockery of women and women's issues, e.g.

https://twitter.com/LabelFreeBrands/status/16031779022916853...

https://twitter.com/WomenReadWomen/status/145376090877835673...

https://twitter.com/MYST_MX9/status/1607401871739879429

Why should anyone support these men and their misogyny? Why should they be allowed into any space for women?

It's basically equivalent to white men wearing blackface in terms of offensiveness, yet we're expected to go along with the pretence that all of these guys are women.

If the trans movement wants to gain support across the board, they need some serious gatekeeping to exclude these type of men from parasiting the wider activism.

Uh, how is this related to school policies? I don't see things through the same lens you do, so it would be helpful if you could explain it to me.

> It's basically equivalent to white men wearing blackface in terms of offensiveness, yet we're expected to go along with the pretence that these guys are women.

You have to break this down for me! Do you think this applies to all trans people? Or just trans people who want to be stars on social media by acting like everyone else does on social media? I think it is often cringe too, but I don't think it's b/c they are trans, I just think social media is cringe. Maybe your problem is partially with social media?

Like, maybe you're not familiar - but the guy whistlindiesel was constantly talking about how he's going to go to Hawaii and drive on sacred land there as a joke b/c it pisses off Hawaiians. That was super cringe, but I didn't take his views and suggest that all white dudes, or white conservatives, or [WHATEVER] are supporting or pushing similar policies (tho my younger cousins watch this shit and they do learn from him and seem to lack maturity b/c of this). Great conversation about this here, interesting perspective, and I think we can BOTH agree with the "social media influencers want attention" take! https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualConversation/comments/ozsska/...

BTW men taking hormones DO get cramps, believe it or not! This is documented: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/can-trans-women-ge...

Trump has had a lot of controversial guests at the WH has well, remember!

> Does this extend to them using bathrooms Since the primary argument behind that is related to concerns about child safety, so I’d say it falls within their primary fears.

I am not arguing that their concerns are valid or not BTW, but just what my understanding of what they are. However, I feel like much of the approach the left has taken towards the conservative position in this debate has been ineffective because they don’t work to address the concerns but instead obfuscate behind slogan, sound bite, and generalizations.

And only because like religious circles, conservative circles need to be the _only_ ones to have private conversations with their children; how else are they to be brainwashed into hating everyone that isn't the same colour/sexuality/traditional gender roles like them and their mammy & daddy and grandpappy & grand-mama going back generations.

You were making sense until your Musk hatred came out. Name someone who is doing more for free speech right now than Musk?

Musk's free speech crusade is in the process of being ambushed by reality.

How so?

Musk supports speech that Musk likes; that isn't freedom. For example, Musk is against speech that criticizes Twitter or Elon; some are intimidated and harassed (e.g., called pedophiles), and some are silenced (or 'canceled') including journalists and others.

I think you are spot on, but I have one small quibble. You use the word "performative" to mean something like "just for show", or "primarily concerned with symbols". Performative is a technical term from linguistics which means something quite different (and interesting!):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_utterance

For some reason, that word has become widely used for your meaning. But I think it's not the right term! We should say something like "theatrical", as in security theatre.

As an aside, I think a Marxist would describe the divide as idealism vs materialism (both technical terms in Marxism).

> We should say something like "theatrical", as in security theatre.

How about "hypocrite"? If I understand correctly, in Greek, that originally meant "actor". So when Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, he was saying that their religion was just theater - it was just for show.

> As some one who lives under a blasphemy culture, I think American greatly take for granted their freedoms of speech, and it boggles me that this is not a corner stone of the American Left.

It absolutely was a cornerstone value for American liberals in the past.

A documentary about the director of the ACLU, back before the ACLU abandoned it's principles, looks at how far the organization went to protect the speech of literal Nazis. The ACLU winning a Supreme Court case for their right to hold a public protest march was widely celebrated by those on the left.

>[The First] Amendment assures that even the most odious among us (with “odious” being the term that we apply to those we loathe, but who might view us as odious) the right to express themselves either orally, in writing, or by demonstrating or marching.

It was the freedom to march that caused a major flare-up back in the late 1970s, when members of the American Nazi Party, in uniform and bedecked with their decorative swastikas and stormtrooper boots, applied for a permit to march through the town of Skokie, Illinois...

To Glasser and the ACLU leadership, including David Goldberger, who headed the local Illinois chapter, freedom of speech is meaningless if it is not accorded across-the-board to all those along the ideological spectrum.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/2020/10/22/mighty-ira-a...

Do you think MIT should be forced to allow Nazi's to march through their campus?

Exactly. It’s really this simple. The American rights inability to reconcile their love of “free speech at all time for everyone” with “businesses have the right to refuse to associate with anyone they don’t like regardless of anti discrimination laws” is probably the front cover for American Hypocrisy.

You think the ACLU in the 70's was staffed by people on the right?

Has everyone forgotten that America used to do things like imprison anti-war protestors?

You fight for free speech for everyone because you may find that you are the person being targeted by the state for unpopular speech.

The cognitive dissonance of this reply is astounding. Do you really not understand the difference between free speech and forcing people to platform views they don't want to? Why does your cohort want to force MIT to allow Nazis to march through their campus, but not force a baker to bake a cake for a gay couple?

See my previous comment on why.

> Why does your cohort want to force MIT to allow Nazis to march through their campus, but not force a baker to bake a cake for a gay couple

Honestly, there are many possible reasons to justify making such distinctions. The most obvious is that campuses are explicitly intended to be venues for free speech and debate among diverse views, while a bake shop is intended as a venue for the free expression of only the baker.

> Why does your cohort want to force MIT to allow Nazis to march through their campus, but not force a baker to bake a cake for a gay couple?

Compelled action, versus compelled inaction. One requires you to force someone to do labour to further a cause they disagree with, the other requires you to stand aside and not physically prevent people from expressing themselves the way they want.

Seems pretty clear cut and easy if you ask me.

>Has everyone forgotten that America used to do things like imprison anti-war protestors?

Basically yes. The left has now become the war party, it’s the right that has more anti-war protestors so it’s totally cool to censor them now.

Both parties are very much so the war party. If you're saying the left supports war bc Ukraine that is really tough to swallow. There was not a conflict under trump, but it is not hard to find tweets from him celebrating our military capability. Plenty of conservative politicians in the last eight years have statements of "war mongering" if you want to call it that.

I don't know why Ukraine is a tough pill to swallow, the US has no interest in a proxy war with Russia, no matter what the mainstream media tells you. The left fully supports this to the tune of $100 billion so far and counting. $100 billion that could be used to build up our own infrastructure, combat homelessness and mental illness, hire more teachers, etc.

We all have opinions, but seems that it is in the best interests of the US to support Ukraine.

The main reasons I've heard for this is that we are weakening one of our main enemies for a measly $100 billion and counting, without having to put boots on the ground.

Another is that we should support democracies everywhere. This coming from the super power that has meddled with other countries and overthrown more democratically elected governments than any other.

These are really BS reasons. Why do you feel it is in the best interest of the US? Especially considering that Ukraine is way more important to Russia than it is to the West, they are willing to fight tooth and nail for it, and possibly risk nuclear war. Is it really worth it?

No use arguing with someone who doesn't understand the geopolitical ramifications of a Putin-entrenched Ukraine.

typical

Typical of what?

No offense, but it is a really unnuanced situation, so I feel that your "either or" statements are really framing the conversation poorly.

It doesn't have to be either or, multiple of these arguments can apply or partially apply.

> Why do you feel it is in the best interest of the US?

I mostly agree with the state department, their statement can be found here: https://www.state.gov/united-with-ukraine/

To summarize what I think is important:

- We should support sovereignty, as you said. As the US should be against slavery today though they were for it in the past, poor decisions don't make you a hypocrite when you take the correct course of action in the future.

- Ukraine is a somewhat ally of the US, though not in NATO. You support your allies.

- A weaker Russia is good for the US, especially a weaker Putin. Putin and Russia are not neutral with their actions against the US.

- Appeasement doesn't work. You may be correct that Ukraine is more important to Russia than Ukraine is to the west, but it was the same with Poland and Germany during WW2. Things change, but appeasement doesn't work. And before you say that was a long time ago, appeasement already did not work with Russia with Crimea.

- The US did win the cold war. The soviet union failed. This was much due to the same tactics being used today with Ukraine: containment and deterrence.

- Not good to encourage countries to invade each other.

This dude didn't say left or right. You need to remove your blinders my friend.

> This dude didn't say left or right.

"The American right's inability"

Wow, I read that completely wrong. Apologies. Wish I could delete the comment.

To clarify,

free speech !== discrimination

The argument is, as I understand it, self-expression even in the form of discrimination is protected. If it's not, then that leaves 1A venerable.

The foundation left by the Founders is complicated. Yes, sometimes that looks like hypocrisy. Similar is the left's anti-gun / pro-abortion stances.

Wait, you think anti-gun and pro abortion aren’t logically consistent? Is it because you erroneously believe embryos are people?

No. But it stops at disallowing groups who incite real violence instead of „hurtful language“.

How can we know the difference between speech that insights real violence and mere hurtful language? I fully admit I lost the thread on what any of this is about years ago, and that's why I only have questions now. I don't really expect that to change either, but maybe one day I'll learn enough to start asking the right questions at least.

Case by case. Generally, if they commit to no violence then they should be supported, even protected by police. Uncomfortable conversations should be allowed to happen.

For speech to be illegal, the legal standard is that it needs to incite specific lawless action and be likely to succeed.

For instance, Indiana locked up an anti-war protestor:

>The case involved an antiwar protest on the campus of Indiana University Bloomington. Between 100 and 150 protesters were in the streets. The sheriff and his deputies then proceeded to clear the streets of the protestors. As the sheriff was passing Gregory Hess, one of the members of the crowd, Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct.

The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because Hess' statement, at worst, "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time."

In addition, Hess' speech was not directed at any particular person or group. As a result, "it cannot be said that he was advocating, in the normal sense, any action."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana

In Supreme Court terms, 1973 is eons ago - there has been a consistent and very fruitful effort to change its thinking on a range of subjects since then, and as a result, I no longer really understand much of their previous rulings as having much relevance today.

You asked about drawing a line between speech and violence, not whether the supreme court's ruling is legally relevant today. The only relevant question is whether the argument the OP described clarifies your confusion on where and how to draw that line, ethically, not legally.

Ethically speaking, I think there are all sorts of things that just shouldn't be said, regardless of legality. I'm not sure if my personal sense of ethics is relevant though?

Firstly, "things that shouldn't be said" include matters of etiquette and not just ethics, so just be clear about the line between being a good/ethical person vs. being a polite person.

Secondly, your personal ethics are absolutely relevant because ethics advances by persuasion in rational debate. Everyone's views on such matters are relevant, if not persuasive.

Well, personally, if I attended or worked at MIT, I would not want Nazis on campus and would accept banning them.

Great, you're free to not want them, but everyone has to justify their actions, so an action like banning a group still requires justification. If that justification is sound and based on accepted ethical principles, it should arguably become an ethical rule. I personally haven't seen an argument that satisfies the requirements.

I don't think I've ever met a human who was incapable of justifying their actions.

They're all capable of attempting to justify their actions, but rarely is that justification sound. "Justification" here means a deductive argument from principles, sort of like what you'd find in a court of law based on except based on ethical rather than legal principles.

Not just inciting violence, but a credible and immediate incitement to violence. "Hurtful" describes a feeling felt by the listener. Would people have felt hurt by someone opposing racial preferences in admissions [1]? Maybe: their feelings are their own, and I'm not going to tell someone their feelings are wrong. But it's unambiguously not a credible and specific incitement to violence. The questions to ask are: is the speech calling for an immediate act of violence [2]? And is the speech calling for violence against a specific identifiable person or group?

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html

2. Sometimes people will try to argue for an indirect threat of violence. E.g. that opposing trans men in female sports amounts to a call of violence because it reduces respect for trans people, which in turn increases likelihood of violence perpetrated against them. But this is a very indirect relationship. As a general rule of thumb, if someone is making a claim that some speech is probabilistically increasing violence, it's not a incitement to violence.

Are there examples of such speech, incitement to violence, that you see as appropriately prosecuted?

On a side note, since it seems to be the question of our era, what do you think the appropriate sports league for trans men would look like?

I don't know of any off the top of my head, but you can dig into the case history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

What I think is going to inevitably happen in sports is that the gender segregated (but not sex segregated) women's leagues will become dominated by trans women, and cis women will leave and form their own female-only league.

Another alternative is for women to refuse to participate in such competitions en masse, or to threaten to. Basically taking strike action against unfair conditions.

It came close to this in a British cycling race back in March: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/mar/30/trans-cyclist-...

"The UCI's decision came amid a growing backlash from within the sport, with the Guardian understanding that a number of female riders were talking about boycotting the event in Derby because they felt that Bridges, who was on the Great Britain Academy programme as a male rider until being dropped in 2020, had an unfair advantage."

> Are there examples of such speech, incitement to violence, that you see as appropriately prosecuted?

Yes, but Americans often don’t like them very much. In Germany, we routinely punish people for wanting to forcibly overthrow our government.

> How can we know the difference between speech that incites real violence and mere hurtful language

Easy. Speech that is hurtful aims at portraying someone as lesser compared to other people, speech that incites actual violence tells you to do something about it.

Me disagreeing with gay marriage (I would never, but let’s entertain that notion) is very different from me saying we need to forcibly imprison homosexuals as criminals.

Many people have had the idea that fascism will only be able to make entrance into America under a different name and guise. And most likely then disguised as anti-fascism.

And currently it seems fairly clear.

I don't think most of the historical left should be equated with the modern left. To me it seems a different beast altogether. The modern left is mostly created or lead on by the upper classes, spreading divisiveness and authoritarianism in the ranks of the less fortunate, with the rather obvious goal to keep and expand power and control.

And the conservatives aren't lead by the upper class to the same degree?

Remember, the only politicians calling for campaign finance reform in the US (I'd argue this is the problem you have?) are key liberals. No conservatives advocate for this.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul wanted campaign finance reform in the complete other direction - basically no laws.

I've always heard fascism in the US would carry a cross and a US flag. That has been the vector historically. Let's not rewrite history here.

That’s just a clever quip. It comes from a time and a place.

Nobody is rewriting history, because (1) this conversation is about the current and the future and (2) it’s intellectually dishonest to essentialalize the content of quip.

That has been my experience. It’s astonishing to see folks advocate for fascist theocracy when that’s Jesus taught pretty much the opposite.

We can see the religious right openly backing repression and those who try to seize power, and that they have the support of one of the two major parties, and continue to have people and advocates in the most powerful positions in the country (President, congressional leaders, Supreme Court, leading news commentators such as Tucker Carlson).

Who on the left is doing that and has that power?

just because someone says that doesn’t mean it’s some objective truth. Fascism also isn’t the only authoritarian form of government.

liberal != left. Trust that there are those of us who take just as much umbridge with Clinton/Obama/Biden as trump/bush et al.

The blue/red differential isn't a right/left matter. Each party is responsible for bringing one of the two large cultural groups in line with the banks and capitalism.

I've heard rumors that the US has only one party (with two right wings).

They call that than "democracy".

The minority of the historical left that were marxists replaced class struggle with identity struggle and found a much wider base to take over the current left. In that sense it is indeed the same left but in the sense that the cancer has metastasized and overrun the host.

Left-wing authoritarianism is by definition not fascism. It lacks the ethnonationalist and patriotic elements for it. Fascism is exclusively pushed by the far-right.

The left very much cares about freedom of speech, they are just culturally focused on certain speech and expression right now, such as gay and trans rights. I feel like these freedoms are very related.

they're too focused on compelling speech rather than protecting speech

What speech do they want to compel?

I'm not sure if this was asked in earnest, but you could look into the recent Canadian laws around preferred pronoun use, applications and enforcement in universities there, as an example. Googling "compelled speech 2022" will yield many articles worth reading for further examples.

Yes. Anyway, the Canada bills don't mention pronouns at all. That Google search did not give me much. I can't find any law enforcement getting involved in Canada at universities regarding pronouns. General articles about what compelled speech is but no laws. Reading those articles tho is interesting bc I'm not sure what I think you are describing is compelled speech anyway. It bans a certain type of speech potentially but doesn't force you to interact with someone. I'm also talking about the US not Canada. Where do you get your news?

I've taken some time to look at your other comments and don't have faith that any amount of information will sway you in the slightest. Your bias is very strong, and while there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, I don't have interest in continuing.

It looks like the opposite: Can you provide evidence of your claims?

Well, I'll tell you that they will if you give me any data. At least, I will read it and tell you my opinion of it. If that is not worth your time, ok.

I promise you that I have changed my opinion about things after learning more about them :)

For example, if you could substantiate that certain policies are being enforced by the government in Canada, likely I would agree that they should not be enforced that way! (I just can't find that anywhere someone was arrested for misgendering a person).

Please remember that Google strongly prefers to rank search results according to what Google's däa indicates the known-or-probable user seems to prefer. This can result in a "bubble" of search results, effects of which can include that user finding more of what that user already knows/expects, while another user performing the same search receives substantially different results.

To avoid this, one possibility is using StartPage.com or eu.StartPage.com (which use Google search results while presenting all users to Google as a single user). Another option may be duckduckgo.com (which uses primarily Bing search results in similar fashion). A new option is kagi.com, which I haven't used much yet, but offers ad-free search for erther a low number of searches per month or a monthly fee.

That's a very fair point. I'll remember that moving forward

> it boggles me that this is not a corner stone of the American Left

In my memory as a kid who grew up in the US south in the 80s, this was a cornerstone of the left. Maybe my perception was wrong back then, or maybe my memory of it is wrong, but that’s what I recall.

I suspect this is a pendulum. Maybe those who are in power devalue freedom of thought / expression and those who are out of power champion it. The incentives for such an effect are pretty clear.

Anyway, I tend to be libertarian (classical liberal) for this among other reasons. It’s not because it’s “the best” political philosophy, but rather because I dislike the holes in other philosophies more than the holes in this one.

> I suspect this is a pendulum. Maybe those who are in power devalue freedom of thought / expression and those who are out of power champion it. The incentives for such an effect are pretty clear.

Those who are in power value freedom of thought/expression for themselves, and devalue it for those out of power. Those who are out of power value it for themselves, and to get it, they sometimes advocate it for all, rather than just for those out of power.

The classical liberals stand out by advocating freedom of thought and expression for all, even when they themselves were in power. The current American left... not so much.

Yup, I remember the 80s. The moral majority types were the biggest supporters of censorship and threat to free speech. It was the young and the artists etc protesting for free speech.

Thank you for sharing this. I remember a while back there was a major social justice controversy at Basecamp which started with a senior exec using some insensitive language. An employee then shared the “pyramid of hate” with “biased attitudes” at the bottom and…you guessed it, “genocide” at the top. This annoyed me at the time.

I thought what you described is the perfect antidote to that argument, with “speech policing” at one end and “mob lynching” at the other, or even worse.

One thing Americans do not have much experience with, is how the exercise policing speech eventually becomes the exercise of policing coded speech.

People will always get around speech rules by speaking in code. China has probably some of the richest history of speech suppression followed by very clever subversive speech. The most recent example being the use of empty white sheets of paper to get around censorship algorithms.

So the censors now must police coded speech as well, and this is where things get extremely dangerous. Because one can take great liberties in defining what contains encoded wrong speak. You already see this in the left's frequent accusation of something being a "dog whistle" for something else.

During the cultural revolution, people were persecuted by the metaphors supposedly hidden within their speech. A setting sun? That's code for the downfall of Mao, who was frequently compared to the sun.

These days you can be attacked based on etymology of your chosen words. Not prosecuted, but people definitely can make your life harder.

It seems odd to oppression by religious conservatives in Pakistan to the American left.

> it boggles me that this is not a corner stone of the American Left

It is. Freedom of speech is not simple: When the powerful continually intimidate and harass the vulnerable into silence, the vulnerable do not have freedom of speech.

People like Musk advocate not freedom, but anarchy. Anarchy gives more power to the powerful, as protections of the vulnerable and their speech are removed. Look at Musk threatening people with online mobs, which are actively riled up and encouraged with these so-called votes, including calling people pedophiles.

Freedom of speech must be more than ten wolves and a sheep debating what's for dinner.