The topic of liberty is not one easily understood. It took a complex, winding path to being the basis for a society. Along the way, the were many tangible examples of how throwing off authoritarian pressures allowed for personal and cultural growth, enabling many to pursue happiness. We have not yet arrived at true liberty, but we are close enough to have thrown off the vast majority of false on-high precepts placed upon us.
Alas, and akin to the title of this blog, the blade was not tempered correctly and has warped. Liberty is ordered chaos. The belief that every individual has a duty to himself and to his community; to pursue what is best while not bringing harm to the world around him. The chaos comes from allowing individuals to act in an individualistic way, finding their own path, and dictating their own priorities. The order demanded from liberty is that a disciplined approach to pursue life in an individualistic way does not prevent others from doing the same. This small societal law ensures we can each seek to better ourselves and our place without depriving others of the same opportunity; liberty does not, however, dictate that we must all take the same path.
Surely reading this makes it clear that my description of liberty here are not very well represented in our culture at large. I did start off the previous paragraph with a note of how we seem to have wandered away from the principles of liberty. The individualistic drive is innate in all of us, but to survive as a culture or a community, it must be mindful, disciplined, and aware. Conversely, taking the individualistic drive and divorcing it from sensibility, and one is left with anarchy. Unchecked hyper-individualism is unconcerned about consequences to others by way of one's own actions.
In short, liberty is ordered chaos. Anarchy is chaos ordered. There is a call within anarchy to not just be focused wholly on the self, but to do so in a manner that is callous towards the outcomes for others. Ironic in that anarchy is supposed to operate without order, but the philosophy of anarchy orders its adherents act in a manner that is devoid of order.
Marrying these lukewarm coffee thoughts with what has been a personal motto of mine (we are two steps out of the jungle, not from utopia), I have come to the conclusion that liberty--as it should--has allowed for a perversion of itself to operate. It is not just that we have the freedom granted to us by liberty, but that there are some of us who have thrown liberty to the side in the name of individualistic principles. The loss of structure, either through out-dated punitive measures brought about by authoritarian rule or by the well disciplined mind, has created pockets of moral failings and cultural anarchy on one end and the return of authoritarian lust on the other.
Liberty now lives in the gray area of having failed us but not. Moral education and awareness fosters liberty; promising freedom without morality ensures chaos. In the name of liberty, it should be a greater focus of society at large to educate young people in morality and the meaning of liberty (I may appear to be enacting my own law on myself, but hold off on that for a moment). There is no dogmatism here, however, unless we view liberty, perhaps the highest of human philosophical achievements, as being a dogmatically held belief. By teaching the virtues of self-discipline and the spectrum of human morality, we can hope to develop a world where we have tougher minds and softer hearts.
There is much more to be said about this, and I am sure I will continue to write on the matters of liberty, freedom of speech, and of the failures of understanding those principles by society (and the damage that it causes). For now, though, I am out of coffee.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Friday, September 18, 2015
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Post 52 -- Why write?
What seems to be an all too often occurrence is the emphasis on presentation over substance. A point of fact or rhetorical musing can only be good if presented well. It seems to me a failing of our education and systems which encourage personal growth, develop empathy, and foster an inquisitive mind.
Take TED Talks for example: given the same speaker with the same education and the same break throughs and put him or her on a street corner, would people listen as intently and applaud on cue? I am reminded of a 60 Minutes special looking at the immense strides in neurological oncology at Duke University, where physicians and researchers have been using the Poliovirus to infect and kill glioblastoma, a brutal malignant cancer in the brain that knows no age, race, or gender restrictions. In the report (at 5:25), Scott Pelly states: "As it turns out, when you're one of the world's leading cancer doctors, you can wear what you like." Pelly is referring directly to the Deputy Director of the Poliovirus Clinical Trials Dr. A. Henry Friedman. For those not interested in watching, Dr. Friedman was dressed in a Duke sweatshirt, jeans, and runners. The perception of an accomplished doctor leading a bleeding edge medical trial dressed as a Sunday Ticket bum had to be squared with a quip by the report to assure people of Dr. Friedman's credentials. In other words, Dr. Friedman's presentation was not, in of itself, good enough to make his point.
Now, most people reading this will look at what I've just written and say, 'That's preposterous!' But consider my original reference to TED Talks: would you listen to a person like that if they were in a less organized venue and dressed casually? Simply put, the answer is no.
This bothers me. Not enough to change the whole world, but enough to sit down and put some words to it. Poorly structured on some no-name blogging site which is mostly frequented by bots and my parents. My presentation is poor and boring and does not even have much support outside of my linking it on my Twitter feed on occasion. (Okay, after every post, at least once.) Does that mean the points I make here are worthless or too weak to be considered? I'd like to think not. Not because of some small self-assured part of me, but because of the process by which I come to my conclusions.
The title for this particular post is something of an insight into the slow process of writing for me. There are large gaps in my post frequency. There are rants and there are posts where I read them over slowly to be sure to eliminate as many errors, logical inconsistencies, and unnecessary tangents as I can. I write because I want to write well. I won't write well without going through a long process of writing poorly. Editing. Reading better writers than myself. Writing more. Reading more. And so forth.
I write because I have ideas that I want to put down in some venue that someone might glean some information from. By no means am I an authority on some matters, but that does not mean all points made here are moot. The act of writing improves my future writing. Writing with purpose now will eventually lead to something resembling good writing in the future. I have the topics which I enjoy most: ethics, morality, anti-theism, contrarian approaches to some matters, and the occasional personal insight. I can grow from there, pruning out items that are no longer interesting or pressing to me.
It is a bit of a path to being enlightened. Talking to yourself gives no feedback. Posting something online doesn't really, either, with the immense amount of noise, but at least it has the potential. It refines ideas slowly by forcing me to read what my thoughts are. I can conclude whether or not the drive home rant was something of value or just me passing time. Being a good writer will take time. It will pay off, though: good writers are often better able to present their ideas more succinctly and with better flow. Their good points are obviously good, not requiring them to be verbose or their audience equipped with a thesaurus. I can be better at this and I strive to do so. Being a polemic on the way is also enjoyable.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Take TED Talks for example: given the same speaker with the same education and the same break throughs and put him or her on a street corner, would people listen as intently and applaud on cue? I am reminded of a 60 Minutes special looking at the immense strides in neurological oncology at Duke University, where physicians and researchers have been using the Poliovirus to infect and kill glioblastoma, a brutal malignant cancer in the brain that knows no age, race, or gender restrictions. In the report (at 5:25), Scott Pelly states: "As it turns out, when you're one of the world's leading cancer doctors, you can wear what you like." Pelly is referring directly to the Deputy Director of the Poliovirus Clinical Trials Dr. A. Henry Friedman. For those not interested in watching, Dr. Friedman was dressed in a Duke sweatshirt, jeans, and runners. The perception of an accomplished doctor leading a bleeding edge medical trial dressed as a Sunday Ticket bum had to be squared with a quip by the report to assure people of Dr. Friedman's credentials. In other words, Dr. Friedman's presentation was not, in of itself, good enough to make his point.
Now, most people reading this will look at what I've just written and say, 'That's preposterous!' But consider my original reference to TED Talks: would you listen to a person like that if they were in a less organized venue and dressed casually? Simply put, the answer is no.
This bothers me. Not enough to change the whole world, but enough to sit down and put some words to it. Poorly structured on some no-name blogging site which is mostly frequented by bots and my parents. My presentation is poor and boring and does not even have much support outside of my linking it on my Twitter feed on occasion. (Okay, after every post, at least once.) Does that mean the points I make here are worthless or too weak to be considered? I'd like to think not. Not because of some small self-assured part of me, but because of the process by which I come to my conclusions.
The title for this particular post is something of an insight into the slow process of writing for me. There are large gaps in my post frequency. There are rants and there are posts where I read them over slowly to be sure to eliminate as many errors, logical inconsistencies, and unnecessary tangents as I can. I write because I want to write well. I won't write well without going through a long process of writing poorly. Editing. Reading better writers than myself. Writing more. Reading more. And so forth.
I write because I have ideas that I want to put down in some venue that someone might glean some information from. By no means am I an authority on some matters, but that does not mean all points made here are moot. The act of writing improves my future writing. Writing with purpose now will eventually lead to something resembling good writing in the future. I have the topics which I enjoy most: ethics, morality, anti-theism, contrarian approaches to some matters, and the occasional personal insight. I can grow from there, pruning out items that are no longer interesting or pressing to me.
It is a bit of a path to being enlightened. Talking to yourself gives no feedback. Posting something online doesn't really, either, with the immense amount of noise, but at least it has the potential. It refines ideas slowly by forcing me to read what my thoughts are. I can conclude whether or not the drive home rant was something of value or just me passing time. Being a good writer will take time. It will pay off, though: good writers are often better able to present their ideas more succinctly and with better flow. Their good points are obviously good, not requiring them to be verbose or their audience equipped with a thesaurus. I can be better at this and I strive to do so. Being a polemic on the way is also enjoyable.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Post 51 -- Why we must react
It's not that we should react, it is that we must react to those who are showing their unabashed support for Sarah Nyberg. After she confirmed the allegations of her being a pedophile, she went on to claim the victimhood mantle in the same slide. Her personal race to the bottom is to draw attention and support from the dysfunctional progressive movement which has willing and overwhelmingly come to support her. Kluwe, Alexander, and Chu et al. have voiced their uncritical and morally vacuous backing of Nyberg.
I must react to this to not be the complicit fool which the online social justice posse aiding Nyberg have proven themselves to be. It is not as if Nyberg has been slandered here; rather, Nyberg has openly admitted that the chat logs and conversations used by Breitbart journalist Milo Yianopolous are authentic in her own column on Medium. In it, Nyberg attempts to pivot on the accusations of being a pedophile and make the case she was an "edgelord"--a chan culture word for taking morally fringe topics as jokes. This is simply baseless and telling of how morally bankrupt Nyberg is. She not only admitted to being a pedophile, something Milo presented in a detailed manner, she also admitted to sharing pictures of her then 8-year-old cousin which those who received them stated they could see genitals.
This is no longer being edgy. This is the distribution of child pornography. The joke is over and you've gone too far. The reckless attitude she has towards the subject leaves me suspicious of her possessing any morality. Yet, the moral crusaders of the progressive movement wish to tell the general public of how we are failing to be our moral best because we still use gender specific titles and pronouns. To support Nyberg after admitting to sharing what can only be called child porn is to be complicit with Nyberg's actions and the continual actions of all other people who seek to abuse children.
Do not mistake this as hyperbole. Children are a particularly vulnerable part of the population. They rely on adults to show them right from wrong, good from bad, smart from dumb. Children have an implicit trust among their social rings: parents, siblings, family members, close friends, and certain authority figures. When it was found out that the child rape problem within the Catholic church was not simply a few isolated cases but a worldwide effort to harbor and protect child rapists as lead up by the previous Pope, strong Catholics began to question the Church's moral integrity. Priests and Bishops exploited the implicit trust that the children had, abusing them in the most sickening of ways. The Church did not excommunicate a single one of Priests implicated. Now we have the same problem, albeit on a smaller scale, in the social justice progressive movement.
Nyberg did exactly what the child raping Catholic Priests did: used a child's trust in them to get close. Thankfully, Nyberg was unable to abuse her favorite cousin, mostly because of the wise actions by the young girl's parents to never leave Nyberg unsupervised around her. But even after these revelations, people are still supporting Nyberg!
Supporting a person who exploits children for their own sexual gain is supporting a system which there are a tragically large number of people involved. To support Nyberg is to support the Jared Fogles and Jerry Sanduskys. To support them is to support the multitudes of other faceless predators who pray on children's innocence and trust. And just like those Catholics who forgave the Church for its role in protecting child rapists, the social justice community is falling in line as pedophile apologists, simply to protect the ends of the movement.
Here is where we can celebrate free speech, though. If we were to criminalize speaking about child abuse, we would never have learned of the large support base for it in the social justice world. I am sure there are many progressives who are sickened both by Nyberg and by her supporters, but it will likely take a day or two for them to gather their thoughts and write their rebukes against being called pedophile apologists. Until then, those of us who view the progressive movement as a cancer in society can point to yet another example of the moral failings of its core and how it is so willing to justify and means as long as the movement achieves its ends.
The ends du jour are those of trans-person rights, something Nyberg is failing to hide behind.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
I must react to this to not be the complicit fool which the online social justice posse aiding Nyberg have proven themselves to be. It is not as if Nyberg has been slandered here; rather, Nyberg has openly admitted that the chat logs and conversations used by Breitbart journalist Milo Yianopolous are authentic in her own column on Medium. In it, Nyberg attempts to pivot on the accusations of being a pedophile and make the case she was an "edgelord"--a chan culture word for taking morally fringe topics as jokes. This is simply baseless and telling of how morally bankrupt Nyberg is. She not only admitted to being a pedophile, something Milo presented in a detailed manner, she also admitted to sharing pictures of her then 8-year-old cousin which those who received them stated they could see genitals.
This is no longer being edgy. This is the distribution of child pornography. The joke is over and you've gone too far. The reckless attitude she has towards the subject leaves me suspicious of her possessing any morality. Yet, the moral crusaders of the progressive movement wish to tell the general public of how we are failing to be our moral best because we still use gender specific titles and pronouns. To support Nyberg after admitting to sharing what can only be called child porn is to be complicit with Nyberg's actions and the continual actions of all other people who seek to abuse children.
Do not mistake this as hyperbole. Children are a particularly vulnerable part of the population. They rely on adults to show them right from wrong, good from bad, smart from dumb. Children have an implicit trust among their social rings: parents, siblings, family members, close friends, and certain authority figures. When it was found out that the child rape problem within the Catholic church was not simply a few isolated cases but a worldwide effort to harbor and protect child rapists as lead up by the previous Pope, strong Catholics began to question the Church's moral integrity. Priests and Bishops exploited the implicit trust that the children had, abusing them in the most sickening of ways. The Church did not excommunicate a single one of Priests implicated. Now we have the same problem, albeit on a smaller scale, in the social justice progressive movement.
Nyberg did exactly what the child raping Catholic Priests did: used a child's trust in them to get close. Thankfully, Nyberg was unable to abuse her favorite cousin, mostly because of the wise actions by the young girl's parents to never leave Nyberg unsupervised around her. But even after these revelations, people are still supporting Nyberg!
Supporting a person who exploits children for their own sexual gain is supporting a system which there are a tragically large number of people involved. To support Nyberg is to support the Jared Fogles and Jerry Sanduskys. To support them is to support the multitudes of other faceless predators who pray on children's innocence and trust. And just like those Catholics who forgave the Church for its role in protecting child rapists, the social justice community is falling in line as pedophile apologists, simply to protect the ends of the movement.
Here is where we can celebrate free speech, though. If we were to criminalize speaking about child abuse, we would never have learned of the large support base for it in the social justice world. I am sure there are many progressives who are sickened both by Nyberg and by her supporters, but it will likely take a day or two for them to gather their thoughts and write their rebukes against being called pedophile apologists. Until then, those of us who view the progressive movement as a cancer in society can point to yet another example of the moral failings of its core and how it is so willing to justify and means as long as the movement achieves its ends.
The ends du jour are those of trans-person rights, something Nyberg is failing to hide behind.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Friday, September 11, 2015
Post 50 -- One more observation on hate speech laws (in Canada)
Self-admittedly, I am prattling on about hate speech laws in Canada. Although, additional reflection and further conversations on the topic illuminate new approaches and ways for which to argue for freedom of offensive and hateful speech.
Laws which aim to restrict our ability to speak openly on any subject harm us at our very core. Not just as the speaker, however, but as the potential audience. A law that designed to tell us as rational, free, and adult people that our sensitivities may be harmed if certain words are spoken is at a minimum condescending and, more likely, infantilizing. This law tells me there are ideas held by others which may be offensive to the point of me experiencing discomfort. A set of guidelines notifying me there are pictures so obscene to me that the only recourse is punitive justice.
While at university at the University of British Columbia, I was made aware of this law existence thanks to a local student feminist group. At the time, I agreed with many of their aims and goals, but was not comfortable agreeing with them on the utility and necessity of using laws to punish people who say rude, offensive, or obscene things to a generalized group. After all, the use of the hard line rhetoric used by student groups dances closely to the edge of falling victim to such a law, a fact which I was never able to impart.
Support of a law simply because it is a law is both foolish and immoral. There have been many laws in the Western world which have been evidently immoral. Take, for example, laws which have clearly stated marriage as being between one man and one woman. Or laws which prohibited the marriage between a black and a white. These were laws; were we, as the lowly citizens in a democracy, supposed to accept them as laws, despite the obvious prejudice and despicable nature? There is disconnect here of those who lack the ability to discern morality from law; a law does not define morality, but morality must inform laws. It was those who operated from this premise that became successful in the fight for marriage equality.
Curtailing speech on the grounds of it being perceived as offensive is no different. It is at this point where people who support free speech falter when it most counts. Offensive speech is not in inherently hateful nor pointless. In most instances, it is the speech which must be most protected. An example of this would be Austria's Holocaust speech laws, which present a mostly inaccurate account of the Holocaust as the only official history and disagreement or dissent is viewed as hate speech, resulting in imprisonment. The law, while recognizing the Holocaust, obfuscates the truth, ceding power to the state to dictate a false history.
In the United States, the approach to assessing free speech from that of other speech offensives (e.g., liable or insider trading) is that of view point neutrality. Take, for example, the Klu Klux Klan marching down streets to show support for the Confederate Flag. The speech, which is hateful, is protected by law, as the majority view on what is good, sensible, or proper has no influence on what can or cannot be said. To block the KKK from speaking or showing signs, the state would deprive those within that community of knowing the size and composition of a racist, evangelical organization. View point neutrality ensures those with dissenting or unpopular views are not discriminated against.
Now, this is an important concept to understand: while the easy majority of individuals look down on the views and beliefs of the KKK, there once was a time when the KKK's views were held by the majority, and it was the views of the Civil Rights pioneers. While today we would call it a stretch to claim "all men are equal" as hate speech against the white majority, history in context would tell us otherwise (look, for example, at modern day preachers who claim they are discriminated against because same-sex marriage is allowed). Without view point neutrality, courts could have issued warrants against members in the Civil Rights movement for disturbing the peace because of their speech and the effects of it.
If one can argue that the speech of the KKK must be silenced because it is heinous, harmful, and retards an inclusive society, then he must also be willing to accept that he is arguing against the voices of the minority on what may be viewed as a contentious issue in the modern context. We were brave in fighting for same-sex marriage, but will we silence those who now argue for legal polygamy/polyandry? I would hope not; rather, we ought to listen to their arguments (which are nearly identical to those used by same-sex marriage proponents, something Justice Roberts clearly pointed out) and judge them on their merits and not on their popularity. Hitchens said it best when he said ,"Do not take comfort in the false consensus of the majority."
The law tells us what is moral (i.e., being offensive and hateful is worthy of punishment, thus is not moral) without being able to justify its position. It is unable to do so because of the subjective nature of what can be defined as hateful. Well, there is a law that says there is some speech which is hateful after all--but we run into the same problem: because there is a law that says some speech is hateful, does that truly mean there can be some speech which is inherently hateful, regardless of context? And hateful to the point of inciting hatred against others? No, there is no such power vested in any law.
Morals imposed through law is a fool's errand. There is no way to ensure people will act civil and 'proper' simply because there are laws, codes, or policies which demand it. Most people see the value in being polite, respectful, and tactful in their daily lives, while others choose the freedom to express themselves as they wish and are comfortable with the consequences of doing so. Freedom of speech allows for both paths and places no moral judgement on either choice. A hate speech prohibition might seem like a positive step to ensure safe spaces or a more polite society, but enforcing such a law will undermine the view point neutrality while passing a moral judgement on what the state deems to be offensive.
Moreover, hate speech laws would not be applied equally. If the citizenry held a specific disdain for a particular group which the governing bodies also shared, even hateful speech which incites violence would be allowed (e.g., Muslim protests in Pakistan following the publishing of the Danish cartoons caricaturing the prophet Mohammad). Further problems arise when you have individuals representing a movement using divisive and hateful language as part of their rhetoric, as is the case of the Black Lives Matter movement. One such 'spokesperson' for BLM lamented that she had to push through "a crowd of white racists", relegating all persons of Caucasian decent to being inherently racist. In a land where hate speech laws exist and freedom of speech does not protect minority voices, this protester--and likely anyone associated with her on that day--would be charged with hate speech crimes.
The BLM example is probably the clearest there is when it comes to understanding why freedom of speech is vital to social and civil development. Not all elements of the BLM movement are as heinous as the example above, but all those who associate with the movement would be targets of hate speech laws if there were any in the United States. Not because of white supremacy, but simply because of how such a law can be wielded capriciously by those in power who disagree.
In the end, freedom of speech is what protects minority voices more than any series or prohibitions on speech ever could. While a prohibition or law may seem well intended, it will eventually be used as a means of shutting down the very people the law was intended to protect. The only guarantee of protection comes from the freedom to say what we want and to engage in the discussion that comes from an open environment. Not only a discussion to clarify statements, but to further develop ideas and challenge ourselves to better understand and justify what we believe. Freedom of speech must be protected in its entirety without any erosion in the form of codes, policies, or hate speech laws in order grow as a society--the death of free speech is the end of a free society.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Laws which aim to restrict our ability to speak openly on any subject harm us at our very core. Not just as the speaker, however, but as the potential audience. A law that designed to tell us as rational, free, and adult people that our sensitivities may be harmed if certain words are spoken is at a minimum condescending and, more likely, infantilizing. This law tells me there are ideas held by others which may be offensive to the point of me experiencing discomfort. A set of guidelines notifying me there are pictures so obscene to me that the only recourse is punitive justice.
While at university at the University of British Columbia, I was made aware of this law existence thanks to a local student feminist group. At the time, I agreed with many of their aims and goals, but was not comfortable agreeing with them on the utility and necessity of using laws to punish people who say rude, offensive, or obscene things to a generalized group. After all, the use of the hard line rhetoric used by student groups dances closely to the edge of falling victim to such a law, a fact which I was never able to impart.
Support of a law simply because it is a law is both foolish and immoral. There have been many laws in the Western world which have been evidently immoral. Take, for example, laws which have clearly stated marriage as being between one man and one woman. Or laws which prohibited the marriage between a black and a white. These were laws; were we, as the lowly citizens in a democracy, supposed to accept them as laws, despite the obvious prejudice and despicable nature? There is disconnect here of those who lack the ability to discern morality from law; a law does not define morality, but morality must inform laws. It was those who operated from this premise that became successful in the fight for marriage equality.
Curtailing speech on the grounds of it being perceived as offensive is no different. It is at this point where people who support free speech falter when it most counts. Offensive speech is not in inherently hateful nor pointless. In most instances, it is the speech which must be most protected. An example of this would be Austria's Holocaust speech laws, which present a mostly inaccurate account of the Holocaust as the only official history and disagreement or dissent is viewed as hate speech, resulting in imprisonment. The law, while recognizing the Holocaust, obfuscates the truth, ceding power to the state to dictate a false history.
In the United States, the approach to assessing free speech from that of other speech offensives (e.g., liable or insider trading) is that of view point neutrality. Take, for example, the Klu Klux Klan marching down streets to show support for the Confederate Flag. The speech, which is hateful, is protected by law, as the majority view on what is good, sensible, or proper has no influence on what can or cannot be said. To block the KKK from speaking or showing signs, the state would deprive those within that community of knowing the size and composition of a racist, evangelical organization. View point neutrality ensures those with dissenting or unpopular views are not discriminated against.
Now, this is an important concept to understand: while the easy majority of individuals look down on the views and beliefs of the KKK, there once was a time when the KKK's views were held by the majority, and it was the views of the Civil Rights pioneers. While today we would call it a stretch to claim "all men are equal" as hate speech against the white majority, history in context would tell us otherwise (look, for example, at modern day preachers who claim they are discriminated against because same-sex marriage is allowed). Without view point neutrality, courts could have issued warrants against members in the Civil Rights movement for disturbing the peace because of their speech and the effects of it.
If one can argue that the speech of the KKK must be silenced because it is heinous, harmful, and retards an inclusive society, then he must also be willing to accept that he is arguing against the voices of the minority on what may be viewed as a contentious issue in the modern context. We were brave in fighting for same-sex marriage, but will we silence those who now argue for legal polygamy/polyandry? I would hope not; rather, we ought to listen to their arguments (which are nearly identical to those used by same-sex marriage proponents, something Justice Roberts clearly pointed out) and judge them on their merits and not on their popularity. Hitchens said it best when he said ,"Do not take comfort in the false consensus of the majority."
The law tells us what is moral (i.e., being offensive and hateful is worthy of punishment, thus is not moral) without being able to justify its position. It is unable to do so because of the subjective nature of what can be defined as hateful. Well, there is a law that says there is some speech which is hateful after all--but we run into the same problem: because there is a law that says some speech is hateful, does that truly mean there can be some speech which is inherently hateful, regardless of context? And hateful to the point of inciting hatred against others? No, there is no such power vested in any law.
Morals imposed through law is a fool's errand. There is no way to ensure people will act civil and 'proper' simply because there are laws, codes, or policies which demand it. Most people see the value in being polite, respectful, and tactful in their daily lives, while others choose the freedom to express themselves as they wish and are comfortable with the consequences of doing so. Freedom of speech allows for both paths and places no moral judgement on either choice. A hate speech prohibition might seem like a positive step to ensure safe spaces or a more polite society, but enforcing such a law will undermine the view point neutrality while passing a moral judgement on what the state deems to be offensive.
Moreover, hate speech laws would not be applied equally. If the citizenry held a specific disdain for a particular group which the governing bodies also shared, even hateful speech which incites violence would be allowed (e.g., Muslim protests in Pakistan following the publishing of the Danish cartoons caricaturing the prophet Mohammad). Further problems arise when you have individuals representing a movement using divisive and hateful language as part of their rhetoric, as is the case of the Black Lives Matter movement. One such 'spokesperson' for BLM lamented that she had to push through "a crowd of white racists", relegating all persons of Caucasian decent to being inherently racist. In a land where hate speech laws exist and freedom of speech does not protect minority voices, this protester--and likely anyone associated with her on that day--would be charged with hate speech crimes.
The BLM example is probably the clearest there is when it comes to understanding why freedom of speech is vital to social and civil development. Not all elements of the BLM movement are as heinous as the example above, but all those who associate with the movement would be targets of hate speech laws if there were any in the United States. Not because of white supremacy, but simply because of how such a law can be wielded capriciously by those in power who disagree.
In the end, freedom of speech is what protects minority voices more than any series or prohibitions on speech ever could. While a prohibition or law may seem well intended, it will eventually be used as a means of shutting down the very people the law was intended to protect. The only guarantee of protection comes from the freedom to say what we want and to engage in the discussion that comes from an open environment. Not only a discussion to clarify statements, but to further develop ideas and challenge ourselves to better understand and justify what we believe. Freedom of speech must be protected in its entirety without any erosion in the form of codes, policies, or hate speech laws in order grow as a society--the death of free speech is the end of a free society.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Post 48 -- Cultural Libertarians
Cultural Libertarian is not a new ideal but it is a new term. A term which aims to classify those who support freedom of speech and expression for all--no exceptions.
Most of us who have supported freedom of speech and expression has been doing so for years, willing to engage in debates and discussions on any topic without fear of harm. Time has shifted this approach, as we now an increasing number of people who are unable to entertain ideas without ascribing to them or to see an idea as separate from the holder of that idea. This rigidity in thinking has lead to increased polarization between people. Take, for example, gamers and the media portrayal of them: many people believe, without any evidence, that gamers are sexist, racist, and/or homophobic. That is to say, if you play a video, then you are sexist, racist, and/or homophobic.
That is, of course, nonsense. There is no evidence to date that gamers are at a higher risk to commit violence or view others as lesser because of their hobby. The polarization that takes place is nothing more than a simplification to categorize groups of people into the black-and-white world of good and evil. I play video games and have my whole life, but I am also a humanitarian and egalitarian. A gamer and a humanist? So I hate women but I also strongly support equality for women? Clearly there is a problem with the simplistic approach to labeling people on a single idea.
Allum Bokhari of Breitbart UK has written an excellent article on cultural libertarianism. A great read worth everyone's time. Central to all of this is the need for everyone to be allowed to express themselves. Equally, I would add the need for people to hear the opinions of others to expose them to new ideas and world views so that they my find challenge themselves. Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) writes to this point very well in his book Unlearning Liberty. Hugboxes and echo chambers protect people from new information and views, which harms more than helps. Without new information people lose perspective on issues outside of the scope of knowledge, forcing them to simplify complex issues.
This is a bit of a ranty post about the topic. One of those steps one sometimes must take to better understand their own position on a matter. There is no doubt that I identify with the core set of principles which Allum has laid out in his article. What's next is expanding on those ideas in a consistent and thoughtful manner.
All of this does rely on freedom of speech. Every creative aspect of our society relies on freedom of speech. Cultural libertarians are the front line against those who demand certain topics and words be censored from discussion. We may be few currently, but our numbers are far larger than most people think. As long as censorship isn't affecting someone, they will not protest; as soon as censorship comes down on them, they will quickly fall into the mindset of a cultural libertarian.
Anyways, enough of this stream of madness. This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Most of us who have supported freedom of speech and expression has been doing so for years, willing to engage in debates and discussions on any topic without fear of harm. Time has shifted this approach, as we now an increasing number of people who are unable to entertain ideas without ascribing to them or to see an idea as separate from the holder of that idea. This rigidity in thinking has lead to increased polarization between people. Take, for example, gamers and the media portrayal of them: many people believe, without any evidence, that gamers are sexist, racist, and/or homophobic. That is to say, if you play a video, then you are sexist, racist, and/or homophobic.
That is, of course, nonsense. There is no evidence to date that gamers are at a higher risk to commit violence or view others as lesser because of their hobby. The polarization that takes place is nothing more than a simplification to categorize groups of people into the black-and-white world of good and evil. I play video games and have my whole life, but I am also a humanitarian and egalitarian. A gamer and a humanist? So I hate women but I also strongly support equality for women? Clearly there is a problem with the simplistic approach to labeling people on a single idea.
Allum Bokhari of Breitbart UK has written an excellent article on cultural libertarianism. A great read worth everyone's time. Central to all of this is the need for everyone to be allowed to express themselves. Equally, I would add the need for people to hear the opinions of others to expose them to new ideas and world views so that they my find challenge themselves. Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) writes to this point very well in his book Unlearning Liberty. Hugboxes and echo chambers protect people from new information and views, which harms more than helps. Without new information people lose perspective on issues outside of the scope of knowledge, forcing them to simplify complex issues.
This is a bit of a ranty post about the topic. One of those steps one sometimes must take to better understand their own position on a matter. There is no doubt that I identify with the core set of principles which Allum has laid out in his article. What's next is expanding on those ideas in a consistent and thoughtful manner.
All of this does rely on freedom of speech. Every creative aspect of our society relies on freedom of speech. Cultural libertarians are the front line against those who demand certain topics and words be censored from discussion. We may be few currently, but our numbers are far larger than most people think. As long as censorship isn't affecting someone, they will not protest; as soon as censorship comes down on them, they will quickly fall into the mindset of a cultural libertarian.
Anyways, enough of this stream of madness. This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Monday, August 24, 2015
Post 47 -- GamerGate at SPJ AirPlay; GamerGate as an example of free speech
SPJ AirPlay and Koretzky
SPJ AirPlay was a success for conveying GamerGate's intent and story, but still had issues. Most notably was host Michael Koretzky's seeming unwillingness to not listen to the wider story which builds an understanding of GamerGate. Instead, Koretzky wanted a simple, linear story that describes why GamerGate is important and why non-gamers should care. By pruning off the vital branches of cronyism, dogmatic narratives, activist journalists, and censorship, GamerGate is left as only a stump of itself. Will do my best to speak on two things here: AirPlay and GamerGate's complex nature attempting to be explained as well as freedom of speech and GamerGate as an example of it.
What is GamerGate? Well, if you let me finish...
"We're not here to talk about feminism", Koretzky was caught saying several times during the afternoon panel. Well, in a sense, we are not; the focus ought to be on GamerGate and how to journalism should approach online controversies like it. GamerGate is unique in this way as it can be the precedent setting case--if it isn't already--for large online movements and poor media portrayal. Alas, the approach to understanding GamerGate goes further back than the Zoe Post and Gamers are Dead articles. While either of those events can be considered to be flashpoints, we must assume there had to be conditions in place which would have allowed the spark of the Zoe Post to start the inferno which followed.
Most obvious was the corruption and cronyism, both of which were at least suspected, if not known, prior to the Zoe Post. Gamers are Dead articles came out 11 days after the Zoe Post, which, at a minimum, had a curious timing. A major bombshell revelation came when Brietbart journalist Milo Yiannopolous released the GameJournoPros email list, a connected group of gaming journalists who communicated with each other. Inherently, this is not bad to be connected to other reporters or journalists from other news agencies. The issues arises when this interconnected clique is used to bully and blacklist journalists who fail to tow the line. House Whips for major legislative voting are comparable to the influence of the GameJournoPros list.
Suspicions confirmed, those who have been asking questions about the games journalism industry for years had their voices amplified. For many of those prominent voices, they were soon silenced on all major platforms of discussion on the topic of GamerGate: Reddit, The Escapist, and even 4chan banned large discussion threads in the name of "preventing harassment". The drive to censor the discourse on corruption is where my focus has been for the past year, both around GamerGate and in other topics.
It is not easy to summarize GamerGate quickly. As I mentioned, it covers corruption, cronyism, dogmatism, censorship, and activist journalism. Those elements culminated in the gaming universe into the singularity we now simply call GamerGate. Teasing apart any specific thread is nearly impossible without fraying the whole story. The most we can do is give examples to describe the issues we see, but it remains that even an single example still exists within the whole tapestry.
To a concrete example, consider the reaction by the journalists in the Gamers are Dead articles: claims that game developers are inherently misogynistic in their game crafting and claiming the desire to play such games is to express a shared misogynistic view point. This is a mix of activist journalism, dogmatism to the feminist/social justice philosophy, and cronyism. Teasing these apart is possible: activist journalism is to ignore objectivity in reporting on an issue or to willfully misinform the target audience with falsities, cherry picked facts, or information without context. By doing so, the slant of the activist-journalist can be concocted with seemingly overwhelming evidence; but how can someone be an activist-journalist? Simply by adhering dogmatically to a specific philosophy and possess a drive to maintain that philosophy. This, of course, is not unique to the gaming world, and can be seen on (almost) every major news outlet.
The dogmatism exists prior to the writing of these articles, which drives the activist-journalist to contort stories in such a way as to not break from the faith. Any precept works here, whether it is insane conspiracy theories on the moon landing fakery, religious claims of Satanic possession and ritual sacrifice, or, as with the gaming journalism issues, feminist social justice doctrine. The dogmatic share one thing in common here: ends can justify the means. The means being the willingness to slander and shame their own audiences to 'raise consciousness', 'bring awareness', or purge the hobby of the scum may be allowed as long as it follows the dogmatically held beliefs.
Keeping these people in line, however, requires more than the self-discipline of the faithful. Cronyism, and by extension collusion, are wonderfully helpful tools to prevent dissent within the larger group. GameJournoPros was such a tool, used to black list those who disagreed with the demeaning of the gamer identity or failing to push the social justice narrative. Alister Pinsof was a victim of this tactic; labeled a "problem child", Pinsof was black listed from the major gaming journalism industry. Those who ask too many questions in the inner sanctum are deemed heretics and must be dealt with accordingly, often through purging and character execution.
I hope the above example of the interconnectedness of the core points of GamerGate shows how GamerGate cannot simply be about a single topic like ethics. Now to attempt to summarize GamerGate in less than a minute...
The ethical violations which took place in gaming journalism were not simply because of unethical actors, but because of a larger culture of systematic corruption, collusion, and cronyism, all of which were predicated on the basis of a dogmatic adherence to the social justice ideals which are mirrored in modern feminism. Censorship of discussion surrounding the topics of GamerGate only served to bring greater interest. Without wide spread censorship at the problem sites' forums, all of which was justified under the guise of 'harassment prevention', which, in of itself, comes from the social justice doctrine, and enforced through collusion and cronyism, many people would not have had their interests piqued.
Let's focus on the censorship: why censor? What is gained by preventing people to speak? A favourite meme for GamerGate involves Game of Thrones' character Tyrion Lannister, regarding silencing those who you do not agree with: "When you tear out of a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." Shrouding the censorship under the cloak of "harassment", using language such as traitor, racist or misogynist, indicates all speech to be censored comes from shameful people. Simplifying all opposition to your world view to boring, flat labels only serves to harm the discourse, which both explains why it is done and the situation which was born out of the flashpoints to GamerGate.
GamerGate is a shining example of free speech
Censorship, in this manner, is cowardly. A blatant tactic to avoid the debate on the actions taken by the would be censor is, without argument, fearful of the truth. The flight from the debate and desire to save face is what can be concluded when we see the censorial acts of labeling the opposition with emotionally loaded terms. Of interest to me is the response to censorial acts: first, for the most part, people enjoy fair and respectful spaces. I could guess most people are comfortable with discussion rules which involve restrictions such as not sharing personal information or not being unnecessarily profane (to avoid ad hominums). Few people would want debates where it is nothing by shit-slinging; second, playing off of most people's desire to have civil discussions on all topics, enforcing ambiguous and subjective community standards to prevent some people in the discussion from speaking only ever serves one side--even when there are multiple view points at the table.
In all of this, there is a recognition of people being aware of the value of free expression. Denying free expression results in a visceral reaction, which can often serve the censors' needs in continuing to silence further discourse. Why do we have such a reaction to being prevented to speak? Why is censorship so roundly thought to be harmful? For me, it seems simple, even if it requires a complex explanation: free expression is objectively moral. It serves to allow all people to express themselves as they wish without the threat of being denied who they are. Any infringement on being allowed to express who you are is immoral, and includes the policing of language, expression, and even thoughts. Someone who is unable to express themselves will become discontent. The expression of self where it may contradict with the beliefs or ideas of others is not harmful, despite the censors' justifications.
When I disagree with an idea, I am not disagreeing with who or what the holder of that idea is. The person with the idea is only sharing the idea, even if he or she wholly believes in it as core and central to their being. There is no logical link between disagreeing with an idea and being opposed to the individual as a whole. This is where the objectively moral nature of free expression can be seen with greater clarity: disagreeing with an idea is an expression of the individual. The possessor of the idea is not harmed or censored by the disagreement. If the individual is prevented from disagreeing, which is simply expressing an idea which is contrary to another idea, then the individual is harmed, a act which in immoral in this context. We do not need equally footing here to make judgements, either; a politician can hold an opinion which I disagree with, but that politician having a national platform to share his or her view does not harm me as compared to me having the reach of only the few people around me. In other words, as long as one is not being prevented from speaking--even if they cannot be heard in the moment--then there is no violation of that individual's expression.
A second layer to the morality of free expression is found in the opposition to a censor. Accepting censorship means one's willingness to accept into their minds a judge other than themselves. A second mind which knows what is and is not offensive to the them. When an enthusiast website shuts down a discussion and deletes posts to prevent harassment, those who agree with the actions accept those moderators as judges into their minds; those actors prevent you from seeing what they--not you--have deemed to be inappropriate. I could not imagine allowing someone to tell me what I will find offensive or hateful. This insult is only made worse by being prevented entirely from experiencing it. It is up to me what I will see, not others to censor information coming my way.
It has been argued before that freedom of speech is like freedom of movement: it is permissible right up until your fist meets my face. That is to say there are words out there which exist within the realm of free speech which are violent by their nature. Take the fuck, derived from the Germanic fuk meaning "to strike". This word describes an action, but when uttered as "fuck you" some people take that state as a willingness to inflict harm. The words-as-violence argument is incredibly fragile, however, and has yet to survive any debate. If someone where to speak a phrase in another language foreign to you, would you know the impact of that language? Considering you do not speak that language, I would guess not. It does not matter if the phrase used was hostile or complimentary (or both, when it comes to cat-calling, apparently). Where is the violence if you do not understand the words? Better yet, where is the violence if you do not understand the context from which known words are coming from?
We are only as tough as we allow ourselves to be. There are stoic men who remain calm and controlled when dealing with profound loss or suffering, but who express deep emotions when listing to music or watching a film. There is a choice we can make when confronted with challenging language; in fact, it is a choice we must make. We must choose to not be so easily offended and to ask questions of the speakers. Why do you hold that view? is far more disarming than the actions of any censor.
Freedom of speech is an important right for us all. It is the underpinning of most every other right we have. Core to the human experience, free speech allows us to express ourselves through our actions, passions, and words. Allowing a censors to operate is an abdication of our responsibilities and of our integrity. GamerGate found the censorial actions of journalists, editors in chief, and the sites which they operate at as suspect and harmful. It controlled the speech and created a vacuum of information, which resulted in the uncritical claims of gamers being misogynistic, sexist, harassers, and a litany of equally socially negative titles in both games media and mainstream media. SPJ's AirPlay and Michael Koretzky did a great service to GamerGate and the future of how to cover online activism. The platform for free speech provided killed the falsehood of gamers being harassers of women and replaced it with a group of iconoclastic hobbyists looking for better representation.
SPJ AirPlay was a victory for GamerGate, it was a victory for free speech, and it was a victory for ethics. GamerGate is not done, though, as there are many things that still need correcting. Hopefully with the success of AirPlay, more GamerGate's goals will be made clear to the general public and the harmful stereotype of the sexist and violent gamer can be put down for good.
A final note: I would like to personally thank Koretzky for his work in setting up AirPlay. I wrote on the event prior to it taking place, laying out my hopes for it. Koretzky did a great service to all gamers and to journalism by hosting this event, despite the many attempts to shut it down, including several bomb threats which eventually stopped the event.
Thank you Koretzky. Thank you SPJ. Thank you Milo, Ms. Young, Ms. Sommers, Mr. Ceb, Ms. Schow, Mr. Bokhari, Mr. Smart, Ms. Walsh, and Mr. LaForme. Also, and I will write something separate on this matter, a special thanks to Oliver Campbell for his leadership.
SPJ AirPlay was a success for conveying GamerGate's intent and story, but still had issues. Most notably was host Michael Koretzky's seeming unwillingness to not listen to the wider story which builds an understanding of GamerGate. Instead, Koretzky wanted a simple, linear story that describes why GamerGate is important and why non-gamers should care. By pruning off the vital branches of cronyism, dogmatic narratives, activist journalists, and censorship, GamerGate is left as only a stump of itself. Will do my best to speak on two things here: AirPlay and GamerGate's complex nature attempting to be explained as well as freedom of speech and GamerGate as an example of it.
What is GamerGate? Well, if you let me finish...
"We're not here to talk about feminism", Koretzky was caught saying several times during the afternoon panel. Well, in a sense, we are not; the focus ought to be on GamerGate and how to journalism should approach online controversies like it. GamerGate is unique in this way as it can be the precedent setting case--if it isn't already--for large online movements and poor media portrayal. Alas, the approach to understanding GamerGate goes further back than the Zoe Post and Gamers are Dead articles. While either of those events can be considered to be flashpoints, we must assume there had to be conditions in place which would have allowed the spark of the Zoe Post to start the inferno which followed.
Most obvious was the corruption and cronyism, both of which were at least suspected, if not known, prior to the Zoe Post. Gamers are Dead articles came out 11 days after the Zoe Post, which, at a minimum, had a curious timing. A major bombshell revelation came when Brietbart journalist Milo Yiannopolous released the GameJournoPros email list, a connected group of gaming journalists who communicated with each other. Inherently, this is not bad to be connected to other reporters or journalists from other news agencies. The issues arises when this interconnected clique is used to bully and blacklist journalists who fail to tow the line. House Whips for major legislative voting are comparable to the influence of the GameJournoPros list.
Suspicions confirmed, those who have been asking questions about the games journalism industry for years had their voices amplified. For many of those prominent voices, they were soon silenced on all major platforms of discussion on the topic of GamerGate: Reddit, The Escapist, and even 4chan banned large discussion threads in the name of "preventing harassment". The drive to censor the discourse on corruption is where my focus has been for the past year, both around GamerGate and in other topics.
It is not easy to summarize GamerGate quickly. As I mentioned, it covers corruption, cronyism, dogmatism, censorship, and activist journalism. Those elements culminated in the gaming universe into the singularity we now simply call GamerGate. Teasing apart any specific thread is nearly impossible without fraying the whole story. The most we can do is give examples to describe the issues we see, but it remains that even an single example still exists within the whole tapestry.
To a concrete example, consider the reaction by the journalists in the Gamers are Dead articles: claims that game developers are inherently misogynistic in their game crafting and claiming the desire to play such games is to express a shared misogynistic view point. This is a mix of activist journalism, dogmatism to the feminist/social justice philosophy, and cronyism. Teasing these apart is possible: activist journalism is to ignore objectivity in reporting on an issue or to willfully misinform the target audience with falsities, cherry picked facts, or information without context. By doing so, the slant of the activist-journalist can be concocted with seemingly overwhelming evidence; but how can someone be an activist-journalist? Simply by adhering dogmatically to a specific philosophy and possess a drive to maintain that philosophy. This, of course, is not unique to the gaming world, and can be seen on (almost) every major news outlet.
The dogmatism exists prior to the writing of these articles, which drives the activist-journalist to contort stories in such a way as to not break from the faith. Any precept works here, whether it is insane conspiracy theories on the moon landing fakery, religious claims of Satanic possession and ritual sacrifice, or, as with the gaming journalism issues, feminist social justice doctrine. The dogmatic share one thing in common here: ends can justify the means. The means being the willingness to slander and shame their own audiences to 'raise consciousness', 'bring awareness', or purge the hobby of the scum may be allowed as long as it follows the dogmatically held beliefs.
Keeping these people in line, however, requires more than the self-discipline of the faithful. Cronyism, and by extension collusion, are wonderfully helpful tools to prevent dissent within the larger group. GameJournoPros was such a tool, used to black list those who disagreed with the demeaning of the gamer identity or failing to push the social justice narrative. Alister Pinsof was a victim of this tactic; labeled a "problem child", Pinsof was black listed from the major gaming journalism industry. Those who ask too many questions in the inner sanctum are deemed heretics and must be dealt with accordingly, often through purging and character execution.
I hope the above example of the interconnectedness of the core points of GamerGate shows how GamerGate cannot simply be about a single topic like ethics. Now to attempt to summarize GamerGate in less than a minute...
The ethical violations which took place in gaming journalism were not simply because of unethical actors, but because of a larger culture of systematic corruption, collusion, and cronyism, all of which were predicated on the basis of a dogmatic adherence to the social justice ideals which are mirrored in modern feminism. Censorship of discussion surrounding the topics of GamerGate only served to bring greater interest. Without wide spread censorship at the problem sites' forums, all of which was justified under the guise of 'harassment prevention', which, in of itself, comes from the social justice doctrine, and enforced through collusion and cronyism, many people would not have had their interests piqued.
Let's focus on the censorship: why censor? What is gained by preventing people to speak? A favourite meme for GamerGate involves Game of Thrones' character Tyrion Lannister, regarding silencing those who you do not agree with: "When you tear out of a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." Shrouding the censorship under the cloak of "harassment", using language such as traitor, racist or misogynist, indicates all speech to be censored comes from shameful people. Simplifying all opposition to your world view to boring, flat labels only serves to harm the discourse, which both explains why it is done and the situation which was born out of the flashpoints to GamerGate.
GamerGate is a shining example of free speech
Censorship, in this manner, is cowardly. A blatant tactic to avoid the debate on the actions taken by the would be censor is, without argument, fearful of the truth. The flight from the debate and desire to save face is what can be concluded when we see the censorial acts of labeling the opposition with emotionally loaded terms. Of interest to me is the response to censorial acts: first, for the most part, people enjoy fair and respectful spaces. I could guess most people are comfortable with discussion rules which involve restrictions such as not sharing personal information or not being unnecessarily profane (to avoid ad hominums). Few people would want debates where it is nothing by shit-slinging; second, playing off of most people's desire to have civil discussions on all topics, enforcing ambiguous and subjective community standards to prevent some people in the discussion from speaking only ever serves one side--even when there are multiple view points at the table.
In all of this, there is a recognition of people being aware of the value of free expression. Denying free expression results in a visceral reaction, which can often serve the censors' needs in continuing to silence further discourse. Why do we have such a reaction to being prevented to speak? Why is censorship so roundly thought to be harmful? For me, it seems simple, even if it requires a complex explanation: free expression is objectively moral. It serves to allow all people to express themselves as they wish without the threat of being denied who they are. Any infringement on being allowed to express who you are is immoral, and includes the policing of language, expression, and even thoughts. Someone who is unable to express themselves will become discontent. The expression of self where it may contradict with the beliefs or ideas of others is not harmful, despite the censors' justifications.
When I disagree with an idea, I am not disagreeing with who or what the holder of that idea is. The person with the idea is only sharing the idea, even if he or she wholly believes in it as core and central to their being. There is no logical link between disagreeing with an idea and being opposed to the individual as a whole. This is where the objectively moral nature of free expression can be seen with greater clarity: disagreeing with an idea is an expression of the individual. The possessor of the idea is not harmed or censored by the disagreement. If the individual is prevented from disagreeing, which is simply expressing an idea which is contrary to another idea, then the individual is harmed, a act which in immoral in this context. We do not need equally footing here to make judgements, either; a politician can hold an opinion which I disagree with, but that politician having a national platform to share his or her view does not harm me as compared to me having the reach of only the few people around me. In other words, as long as one is not being prevented from speaking--even if they cannot be heard in the moment--then there is no violation of that individual's expression.
A second layer to the morality of free expression is found in the opposition to a censor. Accepting censorship means one's willingness to accept into their minds a judge other than themselves. A second mind which knows what is and is not offensive to the them. When an enthusiast website shuts down a discussion and deletes posts to prevent harassment, those who agree with the actions accept those moderators as judges into their minds; those actors prevent you from seeing what they--not you--have deemed to be inappropriate. I could not imagine allowing someone to tell me what I will find offensive or hateful. This insult is only made worse by being prevented entirely from experiencing it. It is up to me what I will see, not others to censor information coming my way.
It has been argued before that freedom of speech is like freedom of movement: it is permissible right up until your fist meets my face. That is to say there are words out there which exist within the realm of free speech which are violent by their nature. Take the fuck, derived from the Germanic fuk meaning "to strike". This word describes an action, but when uttered as "fuck you" some people take that state as a willingness to inflict harm. The words-as-violence argument is incredibly fragile, however, and has yet to survive any debate. If someone where to speak a phrase in another language foreign to you, would you know the impact of that language? Considering you do not speak that language, I would guess not. It does not matter if the phrase used was hostile or complimentary (or both, when it comes to cat-calling, apparently). Where is the violence if you do not understand the words? Better yet, where is the violence if you do not understand the context from which known words are coming from?
We are only as tough as we allow ourselves to be. There are stoic men who remain calm and controlled when dealing with profound loss or suffering, but who express deep emotions when listing to music or watching a film. There is a choice we can make when confronted with challenging language; in fact, it is a choice we must make. We must choose to not be so easily offended and to ask questions of the speakers. Why do you hold that view? is far more disarming than the actions of any censor.
Freedom of speech is an important right for us all. It is the underpinning of most every other right we have. Core to the human experience, free speech allows us to express ourselves through our actions, passions, and words. Allowing a censors to operate is an abdication of our responsibilities and of our integrity. GamerGate found the censorial actions of journalists, editors in chief, and the sites which they operate at as suspect and harmful. It controlled the speech and created a vacuum of information, which resulted in the uncritical claims of gamers being misogynistic, sexist, harassers, and a litany of equally socially negative titles in both games media and mainstream media. SPJ's AirPlay and Michael Koretzky did a great service to GamerGate and the future of how to cover online activism. The platform for free speech provided killed the falsehood of gamers being harassers of women and replaced it with a group of iconoclastic hobbyists looking for better representation.
SPJ AirPlay was a victory for GamerGate, it was a victory for free speech, and it was a victory for ethics. GamerGate is not done, though, as there are many things that still need correcting. Hopefully with the success of AirPlay, more GamerGate's goals will be made clear to the general public and the harmful stereotype of the sexist and violent gamer can be put down for good.
A final note: I would like to personally thank Koretzky for his work in setting up AirPlay. I wrote on the event prior to it taking place, laying out my hopes for it. Koretzky did a great service to all gamers and to journalism by hosting this event, despite the many attempts to shut it down, including several bomb threats which eventually stopped the event.
Thank you Koretzky. Thank you SPJ. Thank you Milo, Ms. Young, Ms. Sommers, Mr. Ceb, Ms. Schow, Mr. Bokhari, Mr. Smart, Ms. Walsh, and Mr. LaForme. Also, and I will write something separate on this matter, a special thanks to Oliver Campbell for his leadership.
Monday, August 10, 2015
Post 46 -- The Bully-Victim dichotomy and Why Both Are Disliked
I was recently introduced to the essay site The Baffler. A fun, long read site that provokes us to think on big issues without the grotesque TED-X pandering and weepy guilt-trips.
The indomitable Mykeru gives a wonderful description of it here.
The modern feminist tactic is simple: bully until you get the response, twist that response to something out of proportion, claim victimhood, and re-engage in the bullying under the guise of the defensive victim. All the while, as people look on, being utterly and entirely disliked for making a bed of nails and complaining about laying on it. School yard, workplace, or Twitter, both bully and victim are equally disliked. When one entity takes on both roles, it comes as no surprise that flippancy and loathing from bystanders is the response.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Reading through Dave Graeber's The Bully's Pulpit, I stumbled upon a well known fact within psychology circles but otherwise unknown to the rest of the public: bullies and victims are equally disliked. There is good reason for this, too. Victims are not as plentiful as some might initially think; rather, bullies groom and select the best options for targeting for abuse. A good victim is one who reacts, often disproportionately to the actions of the bully. It creates a spectacle and platform of recognition for the bully if his/her victim is one who lashes back or embarrasses themselves in an act of defense.
If the bully is ignored, he/she gets nothing from the encounter, other than some curious discomfort from onlookers. There are two strategies which can be employed here: first, finding a new target, as the attempt failed. For example, a non-style savvy bully attempts to mock the clothing choice of another only to learn his/her understanding of fashion is so limited that his target is far more in vogue than originally believed. A failed strategy is still a learning opportunity for a clever bully, though, and, like the Borg from Star Trek: The Next Generation, they will assimilate that knowledge; second, the bully engages in the long game with his/her victim, where simple, subtle jabs are made over time. The aggravation which develops in the victim comes to a head after dozen pokes, only to result in what appears to be an entirely overblown response. On lookers do not see the weeks of minor incitement taking place and building, meaning their assessment of the situation leaves both bully and victim in a state of disdain among their peers.
Here's where things get interesting in my mind: taking our bully-victim dichotomy, both of which are disliked by their peers, we can move on to another topic of my enjoyment: modern feminism. (NOTE: when I say 'modern feminist', I am specifically referring to third/fourth wave feminism.) What happens when you have a person or group taking on the role of both victim and bully? What we get is modern, online, "fainting couch" feminism. Bully tactics are employed by this group, specifically using emotional manipulation and shaming to wear down their victims. Using the language of -isms to demean, modern feminists attempt to eat away at the reputation, credibility, and respectability of their victims. Anyone who disagrees with a modern feminist will be called a sexist or misogynist by the rad fem and, as is the nature of the internet, any other rad fem who clicks on the associated hashtag.
That subtle jab of calling someone a sexist does not warrant a response. Being a called a sexist by a couple dozen rad fems does not warrant a response either. Over time, however, that one disagreement leads towards a response so disproportionate to the single statement made that the victim now fulfills the original statements made by feminist bullies--some strange version of Lewis's Law. This is not a new insight, and has been established as well as the grade school bully's tactics against the smaller kids on the playground. Where I'm taking us goes into the realm of assuming both bully and victim role.
Here's a basic example. The '-ist' taunts have been stated and the fervent response is finally made.
Modern Feminist: The wage gap is real!Here we have the victim of the unjustified taunts lashing out, having him/her acting in an entirely unlikable manner while perfectly fulfilling, in the modern feminists' minds, their taunts. After all, in North America, "cunt" is not as free of a word as it is in the United Kingdom. Now, the léger de main is performed: the modern feminist, having her taunts confirmed both by the response and the nature of the response, assumes the role of victim. By being the victim now, the modern feminist can engage in a whole new range of justified measures against his/her original target as they are no longer the bully, but are now the wronged victim.
Future victim: Analysis says otherwise: (source).
Three Modern Feminist: You're a misogynist!
Victim: (no response)
Eight Modern Feminist: You're a sexist racist!
Victim: (no response)
Fifteen Modern Feminist: You're a racist misogynist!
Victim: (no response)
One Modern Feminist: You're a woman-hating, sexist, racist, misogynist!
Victim: Fuck off you cunt!
The indomitable Mykeru gives a wonderful description of it here.
The modern feminist tactic is simple: bully until you get the response, twist that response to something out of proportion, claim victimhood, and re-engage in the bullying under the guise of the defensive victim. All the while, as people look on, being utterly and entirely disliked for making a bed of nails and complaining about laying on it. School yard, workplace, or Twitter, both bully and victim are equally disliked. When one entity takes on both roles, it comes as no surprise that flippancy and loathing from bystanders is the response.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)