Thanks. We’re in agreement on this. I changed the wording of my post to clarify which “exposure” I mean.
4 Likes
That’s the topic of this thread, to which you replied,
If that’s not actually what you’re discussing, then you’re off-topic.
4 Likes
I think Humbabella more or less got there first, but here’s my swing at this.
There’s a lot of evidence that presenting an idea in the framework of “bad idea” doesn’t accomplish much to slow the acceptance or reduce the acceptance of the bad idea. I’m thinking of work by people like Danny Kahneman and George Lakoff. And I am thinking of the Trump campaign for president. Every headline saying “bad choice” was free advertising, no matter how good the story’s evidence was for the assertion “bad choice.”
I also think most of the “kill it with light” arguments also underestimate the role of bad faith and identity. That last one, identity, is getting into Kahneman territory. But basically we tend to think of our ideas as ourselves, so any attack on them (rational argument, for example) is an attack on our selves, so we greet it with the equivalent of plugging our ears and shouting “lalalalala.” Or violence.
8 Likes
This article says the phenomena was described in the 2015 book “so you’ve been publicly shamed”, but the nomenclature is a little more recent.
3 Likes
Thanks for including the alt-text! It’s an essential part of any XKCD comic. 
16 Likes
I think it’s a little too narrow to look at everything as a “debate” that has people arguing one side or another, with a winner and a loser.
Our ideas come from somewhere, after all–they aren’t springing wholly formed from the void in our noggins. The ideas and arguments floating around us are what we all pick and choose from to form who we are and inform what we do.
Totally fair point. I am more of the persuasion, however, that the “kill it with light”* is the worst solution, except for all the others.
*which, to be clear, for me includes mockery, ridicule, social consequences for shitty ideas, etc., not just a witty riposte over brandy
4 Likes
Good point - you’ve convinced me! But now I’ve proven you wrong…
7 Likes
You made this argument yesterday and I was too tired by the time I saw it to respond, but to the overall thrust of @gracchus and @Jeroen_Metselaa’s posts up thread, these people still have their platforms and numerous ways to make their ideas available. I read a few articles last night about Natalie Wynn and although they do still have the platform and can reach their audience , two points really stuck out for me:
a) They retracted much of the previous content voluntarily stating that their perspective had changed in light of online discussions (which is the reason that free speech is enshrined as a right)
and
b) A lot of it sounded like plain old harassment and threats, which should be shut down, de-platformed and subject to prosecution in egregious and credible cases.
ETA: I want to clarify that I only know of the Wynn circumstance that you mentioned yesterday; not sure how or if this applies to the other two.
5 Likes
It’s like a certain sect of Christians claiming that they are the most persecuted while wielding the most influence and power:
33 Likes
Anne Applebaum. She’s the only name on the list that I take somewhat seriously on this topic. She knows her way around the topic of speech and its relation to demagoguery and despotism.
Does anyone here know of an instance of her being “cancelled” or putting her foot in her mouth?
2 Likes
These people don’t have problem with “cancel culture”.
When there was a black on white kiss, or two guys holding hands, or too much skin and butt wiggles at the half time show, there would be boycotts of sponsors and letter writing campaigns. Certain episodes of shows weren’t shown in certain areas because they knew it wouldn’t fly. Hell, did we forget the communist black list in Hollywood?
So social outrage over what people find acceptable is nothing new. Pushing to get the content removed or people black listed is nothing new. What is new is the shoe is on the other foot.
ETA - oops, left out a word in my first sentence.
15 Likes
They may, but they’ve been tricked by people with an agenda to silence specifically trans activists, people who are already silenced to a large degree into supporting that oppression. Of course, some of them might also just be transphobes themselves (JK Rowlings…).
16 Likes
What did Rushdie say that puts him in the asshole category? I missed that one.
2 Likes
Acceptability is best understood as an individual decision. An individual writer might call something unacceptable, while offering little more justification than “I choose not to accept this”.
1 Like
It’s very disturbing some of the names I see on this list. I expected to see folks like Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris. Instead I’m seeing Chomsky and Atwood. Both of these people are intimately familiar with the need, in the use of free speech, to not only be able to disagree with bad ideas, but condemn dangerous ones. Each has utilized this repeatedly. How they don’t see their own histories as exactly what they’re referring to as public shaming is distressing. And while Atwood may have taken a strong stance against “cultural boycotts”, Chomsky has been a little more wishy washy on the topic, and more than happy to utilize forms of condemnation of the Israeli government to try to push a change in ideas.
8 Likes
I feel like I have probably have my mind changed through debate, but I can’t come up with specifics at the moment.
On the other hand, I have benefited greatly from following other people’s debates. I have learned a lot and changed my opinions, even if the participants themselves didn’t convince each other.
13 Likes
Yes. Exactly so. The Harper letter pretty much boils down to a bunch of elites who are offended that their obvious intellectual superiority dare be questioned.
“Free speech for me but not for thee.”
8 Likes
You may have stated the case a little more thoroughly than I did! 
My point is really that I feel like people who talk about open debate changing people’s minds never really thought to ask themselves whether their personal experience has confirmed that. Like if I was talking to Rowling about this, I might say, “If you think open debate works, and you think I believe horseshit about trans people, then how do you square those things?”
I have a degree in philosophy, l’ve spent a lot of time in debate, and a lot of time around people who seem to think debating is the way you live your life. The premise they are leaving out is that everyone who doesn’t agree with them just doesn’t understand things as well as they do. They’d argue that. Rowling would say, “No, it could be me who is wrong.” But that’s a rhetorical point, not the truth. There’s no argument anyone could make that could convince Rowling that trans women are women. The way to convince Rowling of that is to expose Rowling deeply to real, vulnerable human beings who are willing to bear their pain. Or to flood the culture with pro-trans messages so it just becomes normal.
But that’s why I think the “exposure, debate, persuasion” model is bullshit. You should never “debate” an idea unless you are willing to accept that you are wrong. A debate is a game where two people try to outdo each other. Just because the other people supports segregation, genocide, or whatever other horrible thing doesn’t mean you will get the better of them in a joust of ideas. Your ideas are better, but they might be the better arguer.
If you enter a debate and there is no way you could be convinced of the other person’s position then you are debating in bad faith. And I’m not just saying that a transphobe or a racist argues in bad faith. I’m saying I would be arguing in bad faith if I debated with them. Because, no, there is literally nothing they could say that would have me think, “Oh shit, I was wrong, trans women aren’t women.” I’d be lying if I pretended to give their arguments credence. It’s not the right thing to do.
I don’t know if that’s agreeing with what you say or not. Debate, I think, is a foolish game played by intellectuals who don’t care about the real world. Sharing our thoughts and our stories with one another can be meaningful.
I’m not going to disagree with this. The point are arguing on a forum like this is more to share your ideas with other readers than to share your ideas with the person you might be replying to. People really do disagree with one another, and those disagreements are meaningful, not just signs that one person knows something the other doesn’t. But when I see the names of people who have promoted transphobia on the signatories list, I think, “No.” No matter what the enlightenment-values people think, punching the Nazi worked, the violent protests at Berkeley worked, deplatforming people I won’t name worked.
The academic point they make is “but if we do that to them they might do it to us.” I’ll quote myself from just the other day, they come across as saying, “But if I push the guy who is trying to stab me, doesn’t that open the door for them to push me back?” So much the “free speech” debate revolves around issues where what we ought to do is cheer for team good against team evil. When you are fighting genocide you don’t worry about whether you are fighting fair.
25 Likes
