The assumptions of the essay and the comments seem to be that if Carano were in fact an antisemite, or if the woke mob were sincere and consistent, there'd be nothing to see here. It's right and proper, perhaps even necessary, to ostracize, deplatform and punish those with truly hateful opinions.
The assumptions of the essay and the comments seem to be that if Carano were in fact an antisemite, or if the woke mob were sincere and consistent, there'd be nothing to see here. It's right and proper, perhaps even necessary, to ostracize, deplatform and punish those with truly hateful opinions.
I question that. We should consider that feeling a need to punish people for thought-crimes may be bad for us. It may make us bitter, suspicious, censorious, vengeful and cruel as individuals, angry, hostile, fearful and narrow-minded as a society.
Can someone show me the evidence that it makes people better, rather than just angrier? That it changes people's hateful opinions, rather than just driving them underground? That it reduces the incidence of hate-crimes?
It's true that if one believes people must be protected from the pain of hearing hateful things from strangers with bullhorns, then confiscating the bullhorns is a good move. But if, like me, you think it better for everyone if people are encouraged to exhibit more resilience, then that reason doesn't obtain either.
None of which is to say that I shouldn't be able to fire an employee I find despicable, but that's rather a high bar; and it's a private matter between me and my employee, not a crusade.
Michael, you start with this comment: “The assumptions of the essay and the comments seem to be that if Carano were in fact an antisemite, or if the woke mob were sincere and consistent, there'd be nothing to see here. It's right and proper, perhaps even necessary, to ostracize, deplatform and punish those with truly hateful opinions.”
I think you may have misread the point of Bari’s post. She most certainly does not believe in ostracizing and deplatforming people. She herself was a victim of this phenomenon. Some posters here do have that point of view, which is to be expected in an open forum, but more do not. I do not. In fact, Bari started this Substack to address this very phenomenon in the culture today, provide examples of where it’s happening, and fight against it. She and I and most others who support Bari believe in free speech, not a sanctimonious hypocritical pseudo version of free speech where cancelling someone is justified because they “need to be held account for their bad ideas so we can make a better world.”
Ms. Weiss says, among other things, "Still, I wondered, was I wrong to have leapt to Carano’s support? Was this meme proof of a darker worldview?" This implies that had her worldview actually been darker, perhaps the calculus would be different. She goes on to quote Ben Shapiro as saying “Gina isn’t antisemitic. Period." Again, the implication is that had she been antisemitic we wouldn't be here discussing this.
Believing that there's such a thing as an idea that shouldn't be allowed to spread doesn't mean that one is in favor of excommunication or against free speech. It just means those positions aren't absolute; there can be exceptions in extreme cases.
And I'm not coming to argue against that. I just think that feeling the need to draw our red lines may not be good for us -- much less enforcing them. To an extent, it puts us on the side of these mobs; it becomes a matter of "We've already established what you are -- now we're just haggling over price."
It's a subtle point, but you're not wrong. If we agree that free speech is at the top of our value system -- which it is for me -- then we should be careful about equivocating. Hate speech is still protected, as it should be...even though many people no longer understand the importance of that or support it.
The former ACLU, comprised largely of Jews in the late 1970s, defended the right of Nazis in full regalia to march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors. That was the right call. That's what free speech means. Yes, there's a limit, but it's narrow and specific.
The assumptions of the essay and the comments seem to be that if Carano were in fact an antisemite, or if the woke mob were sincere and consistent, there'd be nothing to see here. It's right and proper, perhaps even necessary, to ostracize, deplatform and punish those with truly hateful opinions.
I question that. We should consider that feeling a need to punish people for thought-crimes may be bad for us. It may make us bitter, suspicious, censorious, vengeful and cruel as individuals, angry, hostile, fearful and narrow-minded as a society.
Can someone show me the evidence that it makes people better, rather than just angrier? That it changes people's hateful opinions, rather than just driving them underground? That it reduces the incidence of hate-crimes?
It's true that if one believes people must be protected from the pain of hearing hateful things from strangers with bullhorns, then confiscating the bullhorns is a good move. But if, like me, you think it better for everyone if people are encouraged to exhibit more resilience, then that reason doesn't obtain either.
None of which is to say that I shouldn't be able to fire an employee I find despicable, but that's rather a high bar; and it's a private matter between me and my employee, not a crusade.
Michael, you start with this comment: “The assumptions of the essay and the comments seem to be that if Carano were in fact an antisemite, or if the woke mob were sincere and consistent, there'd be nothing to see here. It's right and proper, perhaps even necessary, to ostracize, deplatform and punish those with truly hateful opinions.”
I think you may have misread the point of Bari’s post. She most certainly does not believe in ostracizing and deplatforming people. She herself was a victim of this phenomenon. Some posters here do have that point of view, which is to be expected in an open forum, but more do not. I do not. In fact, Bari started this Substack to address this very phenomenon in the culture today, provide examples of where it’s happening, and fight against it. She and I and most others who support Bari believe in free speech, not a sanctimonious hypocritical pseudo version of free speech where cancelling someone is justified because they “need to be held account for their bad ideas so we can make a better world.”
Ms. Wax,
Ms. Weiss says, among other things, "Still, I wondered, was I wrong to have leapt to Carano’s support? Was this meme proof of a darker worldview?" This implies that had her worldview actually been darker, perhaps the calculus would be different. She goes on to quote Ben Shapiro as saying “Gina isn’t antisemitic. Period." Again, the implication is that had she been antisemitic we wouldn't be here discussing this.
Believing that there's such a thing as an idea that shouldn't be allowed to spread doesn't mean that one is in favor of excommunication or against free speech. It just means those positions aren't absolute; there can be exceptions in extreme cases.
And I'm not coming to argue against that. I just think that feeling the need to draw our red lines may not be good for us -- much less enforcing them. To an extent, it puts us on the side of these mobs; it becomes a matter of "We've already established what you are -- now we're just haggling over price."
Yes, I see what you mean.
It's a subtle point, but you're not wrong. If we agree that free speech is at the top of our value system -- which it is for me -- then we should be careful about equivocating. Hate speech is still protected, as it should be...even though many people no longer understand the importance of that or support it.
The former ACLU, comprised largely of Jews in the late 1970s, defended the right of Nazis in full regalia to march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors. That was the right call. That's what free speech means. Yes, there's a limit, but it's narrow and specific.