https://eli.thegreenplace.net/

This is the result of a PC culture. It has made it impossible to have an open and honest discussion about anything. It is easier to just label someone a racist, sexist, or other "buzzwords", than to strengthen your argument. Where are the times when we fought ideas, not people?

From my observation the kind of people doing things like this are the ones losing the intellectual argument. If you KNOW someone is wrong, why not debate them? Why go after them personally?

I wrote this in a rush, I apologize for any mistakes or inconsistencies.

It's neither good nor bad; it just is, and we must collectively learn to navigate these new waters. Parts will suck, parts will leave us better off as a society. I think it's an inevitable consequence of our exponentially increased global connectivity. You can't really stop it.

Personally, I've found that the best way to deal with difficult topics is to just not discuss them online. Those kinds of conversations don't really work when you can't have interruptions or interludes, can't react to your companions' body language, can't experience genuine empathy and pain -- can't even sense that there's a living, breathing creature on the other end of the line. On the internet, everything is a manifesto. In the real world, ideas are ephemeral and flexible.

"If you KNOW someone is wrong, why not debate them?"

To answer your question, you can read Kathy Sierra's article[1] on her interaction with gamergate. Basically, it's because there's no right answer and the questions never ever end. It's railing against a tidal wave of identical ideas, and the only apparent solution is to join an equally powerful wave heading in the opposite direction.

[1]: http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point/

Alternatively, just let them be wrong.

I don't think people appreciate just how much communicating in a specific format begins to change the way you think and perceive the world. If you talk frequently in a medium limited to 140 characters, that will affect the way you think and set up communication. Same goes with pictures, or only video. The means by which we interact and shape the world also shape us at the same time. Are we that surprised then that an outrage and drama driven culture emerge from tools that are driven by instant emotional reactions?

Another thing to think about. With everyone having access to the ability to mass produce and distribute content to the world, what you consume begins to matter more and more. If all you want to eat is mental junk food, then you have all the mental junk food you could ever want for eternity. No one is going to stop you. No one at the internet companies want to stop you. People have never had to watch for this sort of thing before. Are we surprised that people binge on content that strengthens their world view and neglect views that challenge their own? There is no way a balanced view of the world can survive when people don't think about what they spend their time consuming and adjust.

There is a lot more going on. It's a multi-system problem that feeds into itself and other systems at the same time.

Are we going to sacrifice the teachings of the enlightenment at the alter of political correctness? Are we going to remain silent just because reality is uncomfortable?

It is my belief that these people are a minority. They are just very loud.

If it was broadly unacceptable to advocate that women should be socially equal, we'd have online mobs chasing down people who dared to suggest that. The current flavour of acceptable thought may change over time; the problem isn't the flavour, it's the mobs.

Political correctness is just a fancy way of saying: "You can't say that because <I> find it offensive!".

The mob isn't the problem, letting them run free is.

    /pəˈlidəkəl kəˈrek(t)nəs/
    noun
        the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes,
    of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude,
    marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially
    disadvantaged or discriminated against.

They, and the violent parts of anti-fa, are not the only groups.

I agree. Nothing and no one is exempt from judgement or criticism. This is exactly what some people seem to refuse to understand.

> Opinions, and speech, have power Nonsense. People have power.

> Therefore, some speech is harmful

We are past the inquisition. Word's don't hurt, they don't kill, they don't destroy lives. People do that. There is the argument that they can encourage you to do all these things, but does it really happen outside an "echo chamber"? Throughout history this happened only when conflicting opinions weren't allowed.

In the free market of ideas the bad ideas will lose and the good ones will win. It is inevitable that the best "product" wins. These people know it, that is why they don't allow others to voice conflicting opinions. They will lose. The only sane and healthy way to fight what you called "harmful speech" (i.e. the kind that encourages violence and/or discrimination) is through debate. If we silence people and destroy their lives are we really better?

How? By what mechanism? An opinion isn't a product.

Take ISIS as an example that's less controversial (here): do you believe that people willing to act as suicide bombers can be convinced, by rational argument alone, to change their views?

And considering there are still extreme right-wing extremists, adopting the symbols of their predecessors from 70 years+ ago: how long does this market take to do its magic?

Yes, I'm using the most extreme example, because obviously people shouldn't lose their livelihood for, say, complaining about the weather. But note that there's a fail-safe in this mechanism: to have a reasonable expectation that doxxing someone will get them fired, the speech in question must be outside the Overton-window of what society deems acceptable.

> If we silence people and destroy their lives are we really better?

For that memo: it would seem extreme, yes–and I believe the reason for the firing wasn't meant to penalise his opinion, but an attempt to quell the damage created inside and outside of Google by his ham-fisted treatment of a sensible topic.

But for neo-nazis: yes, we are better. Because they are motivated by hate, and seek to harm innocent people ("Jews will not replace us"). Whereas their opponents only seek to stop them. I, for example, frequently attend counterprotests when neonazis try to march through the streets of my city. But I'm not Antifa or a communist or Stalinist. When they stop, I will not attend some other rally calling for the death of bankers, or people with glasses.

Also:

> Word's don't hurt, they don't kill, they don't destroy lives.

Is somewhat in conflict with "but if you tell their employer, you're destroying their lifes!"

Of course words can harm. Otherwise they're either completely useless, or have only positive impacts. In that case we should connect a source of randomness with a text-to-speech synthesiser, and watch the world magically improve.

Do you have proof of this? Seems that a lot of bad ideas win. Or are we defining good and bad ideas circularly; the ones that win are the good ones?

If that were so, then pharma companies wouldn't spend more on advertising than R&D. And fat32 isn't ubiquitous because it's 'best'. There are many, many ways to beat your competition, and having the better product is just one.

I do otherwise agree that people shouldn't be silenced.

Yes. But it's not the way to resolve interpersonal issues in a progressive society.

Do you personally condone this mechanism? (By the way, this bothers me. I sometimes hear an argument in the form: "be careful saying that, otherwise <unspecified people> will come after you, because it's human nature". Often it feels like a subtle warning, where <unspecified people> include the speaker, but without him saying it directly. For example, someone says "we should prevent immigrants coming to the country, because it will stir up racist sentiment"; without explicitly rejecting or affirming their racist beliefs.)

The way to do it properly is to have a rational discussion about why are the opinions in question considered dangerous by someone. Stop and think, where is the danger? And together, look into the merits of that claim. And maybe decide democratically about the best way to proceed.

A main reason is that it actually allows a much more gradual reaction than otherwise possible: if your spouse never does the dishes, and you're not allowed to disapprove of it in any way that puts emotional pressure on them (i. e. getting angry), do you believe you can convince them with only rational arguments?

And if you can't convince them with rational arguments, what's next? You'd basically have to leave them to protect yourself from the growing anger, right? So, without the gradual instruments of social coercion, all that's left will be those usually reserved as the ultima ratio.

(yes–you could hire someone, or buy a machine to do the dishes. but this was an allegory)

So, are you saying that it's acceptable that someone is shamed and isolated by the society to the point where he cannot, for example, find a job? That's within the current laws, but I am sorry, I find this idea very morally unacceptable.

I think a relationship is a different situation. But to return to the original matter - if I cannot convince someone with rational argument, why should I take their emotions seriously (that they feel threatened by something)? They need to learn to handle their emotions first, and then we can talk.

Maybe I just don't understand what you're saying, you have confused it somehow. You started talking about somebody feeling threatened, and now you're talking about them being angry. If they cannot control their anger about things that are not really threatening to the point we cannot even have rational discussion about what they perceive as a threat, they are mentally ill and they need to learn to cope with it.

>Political opinions aren't somehow exempt from the judgement by others. If there's a real danger that a reasonable employer will fire you for you political opinion, don't ask "who will be targeted next?". Ask just how far from the pack have you strayed?

Are you suggesting that the majority is always correct in what it deems is worthy of punishment?

But I'll freely admit that this ideal isn't true in practice, where we see elements of a wisdom-of-the-elders system of justice mixed in, because we don't fully trust the majority to understand that democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Eli Bendersky http://eli.thegreenplace.net/ Jeff Preshing http://preshing.com/