This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yes, but the US is the only country where they believe that "free speech" == "a negative right not to have the government specifically compel or forbid your speech". And that works, kind of, except when it doesn't. But from where I'm standing it seems super, super limited. My employers and my social groups have far more influence over my daily life.
If I define "liberty" as "a negative right to never have the government interfere with your person" then it's totally internally consistent to say that a man has his liberty while he's locked up in Josef Fritzl's basement. But most would consider that a pretty anaemic version of liberty.
If you had said that the US has "protection from speech-related legislation" and the UK has "protection from being fired for your speech" then I'd be with you. But to blithely say 'the US believes in free speech and Europe doesn't' is to my mind frankly ridiculous.
Ultimately my conception of free speech comes down to this: can somebody speak their sincere mind without fear?
Note:
In practical terms, it seems to me that both countries regularly fall short of their concept of free speech.
The US' conception of free speech does not permit the government to harass social networks to censor political opponents, but it does. It does not permit the government to make laws that require employees don't hear things that make them feel uncomfortable (a hostile environment) but it does. And so on.
The UK likewise falls short: arresting journalists for non-violent tweets does not in any way fit in the tradition of UK free speech, and I'm old enough to know. Personally, my experience of the UK's free speech problems is that they came in the wake of Twitter rows and race taboos imported from the US in the latter half of the 2010s, but I won't insist on the point.
The core question we are wrestling with is “what is free speech.”
It seems your view is that free speech is when you cannot be harmed for what you say. But that seems like an impossible standard. For example, if you a lose social standing over speech is that a violation of free speech?
To me, the only coherent internal standard is the American standard whereby the government cannot preclude you from saying certain things and cannot punish you for it.
That does leave risk that of course society could still curtail speech. But I would argue that risk is also present in places where the focus is positive rights. And moreover, it is easier to change society when you cannot be imprisoned for speaking against the cathedral.
In any event, I do agree with you that Euros adopt the latest American leftist approach and then crank it up to 11. I also agree that American free speech (and freedom of association) falls woefully short in practice (I think civil rights laws are terrible).
PS I think you could include within negative rights that someone else cannot kidnap you.
More options
Context Copy link
I would quibble that the real rule is more that the UK claims that. Like supposed union protections or the umbrella of the NLRB in the US, these protections falter fast if the firer is popular or the firee unpopular.
Yes, but that's bad and not how it's supposed to be.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link