Free speech is essential, but that doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid. Challenging - refuting - hypotheses is a vital part of free speech. This process is not harassment, as many people on the far left claim.
When I look at the silencing of free speech in the English-speaking world today, and especially on campuses; and moreover, when I look at _who_ is trying to limit free speech, I'm reminded of the old claim that far-left and far-right meet somewhere around the back. The "progressives" of the 2010's use the same tactics as the Christian conservatives of the 90's and 2000's, and very often fight to suppress the same forms of speech, even if the justifications they give are different.
I am curious, what do today's progressives do that the Christian conservatives of the 90s and 00 use? The claim that "the far left and the far right meet somewhere around the back" is a fascinating and a quote that I will have to think about. Thanks for that!
Please add to the reasons that freedom of speech is valuable this one - that without freedom of speech there is no way to bring about change other than by the use of violence. If people can't use persuasion, they have no alternative but violence. Suppression of speech guarantees violence.
If anyone's interested in the transcript of this speech, you can find it here: www.thefire.org/three-reasons-affirm-free-speech-keynote-address-fires-15th-anniversary-dinner/
As a Brit I am comfortable with one limit placed on free speech: "public nuisance" laws Basically, if you're being loud, obnoxious etc and people are unable to avoid you, you should be moved on or arrested. Basically, being offensive on public transport, or in a public shared space (say, waiting for kids after their school finishes) I don't see a problem with this, as long as it is scrutinised heavily for abuse by authority. Now, expressing even the most awful opinions in private, or in shared spaces where people can not expect decorum/"privacy" or even in conversation while in public. That should all be protected 100% of the time.
letsgoiowa Pretty much. I couldn't really think of the wording :P It still boils down to a justification for limiting free speech. Nobody is getting physically injured by a lunatic ranting, no matter how hurtful or horrible their ideas, but within that limited scope of shared space that should come with an understanding of... civility, I think limits are good. I also understand how carefully we need to tread though. People need the right to protest, the right to a public stage to express their ideas. It's why it's a thorny issue to quantify,and I thoroughly understand anyone erring on the side of absolute freedom. jfdhgds It's not about offensive vs inoffensive. it's about when your rights to freedom might impinge on another persons rights. My right to swing my arms wildly around ends a little before your nose begins (I'd argue a fair distance, but you get the point :P) Having people NOT be accountable for subjecting others to abuse/noise/insults when they have no option to leave is wrong imo. Though as I said, i understand free speech handliners.
"I don't see a problem with this, as long as it is scrutinised heavily for abuse by authority." I feel like every bad law ever has been written with this caveat beforehand
The message is good but some of his history and his critical take on Hayek is off base. 7:09 Hayek never claimed that welfare states lead directly to the rise of new Hitler's. That's a really poor understanding of Hayek coming from Pinker, if that's even his own opinion or one just gleaned from something else he had read. Hayek's argument was way more advanced than that. I can only basically sum it up as when you have a never ending bureaucracy of social planners seeking social "justice", eventually power concentrated in those hands will make adjustments to far in one direction or another eventually destabilizing the system economically or politically, much like the engineering principle called "tolerance stacking." That along with evidenced data relating to the growth of government institutions and endless wars, Hayek's hypothesis seems very likely. 7:29 If you now take into account the Hayek's idea as laid out above, his claim that "this has never happened" is completely false. As you can see in Wiemar Germany/ German Empire and the Russian Empire (obviously before) the February Revolution. Around the 1890's following liberation of Russian serfs you can see glaring similarities between the Russians and the Germans. These factors are most notably the ones mentioned by Hayek. What we can see from only these two instances is clearly that constant wars (ww1, Russo-Japanese war, Russo-Persian war, Franco-German war, Austro-Prussian war, etc etc etc.) and the ever increasing bureaucracy, social welfare state under Bismark in Germany, and the redistribution of wealth in Russia, is that Hayek's conclusions are very sound hypothesis'.
“It seems to me that educated people should know something about the 13 billion year prehistory of our species and the basic laws governing the physical and living world including our bodies and brains. Educated people should grasp the timeline of human history from the dawn of agriculture to the present. They should be exposed to the diversity of human cultures and the major systems of belief and value, with which humans have made sense of their lives. They should know about the formative events in human history including the blunders we can hope not to repeat. They should understand the principles behind democratic governance and the rule of law. They should know how to appreciate works of fiction and art as sources of aesthetic pleasure and as impetuses to reflect on the human condition. On top of this factual knowledge, I think a liberal education should make certain habits of rationality second nature. Educated people should be able to express complex ideas in clear writing and speech. They should appreciate that objective knowledge is a precious commodity and know how to distinguish vetted fact from superstition rumor and unexamined conventional wisdom. They should know how to reason logically and statistically avoiding the fallacies and biases to which the untutored human mind is vulnerable. They should think causally, rather than magically, and know what it takes to distinguish causation from correlation and coincidence. They should be acutely aware of human fallibility, most notably their own, and appreciate that those who disagree with them are not necessarily stupid or evil. Accordingly they should appreciate the value of trying to change minds by persuasion rather than by intimidation or demagoguery. I believe, and more importantly I believe I can persuade you, that the more deeply a society cultivates this knowledge and mindset, the more it will flourish.”
This guy's amazing. He was able to define something so clearly without ever giving the definition a title.
Free speech is essential, but that doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid. Challenging - refuting - hypotheses is a vital part of free speech. This process is not harassment, as many people on the far left claim.
Agreed.
Now THAT is an excellent tie.
What a clear mind Steven has. Always a delight.
Stunning and brilliant address.
*THE FIRE RISES.*
When I look at the silencing of free speech in the English-speaking world today, and especially on campuses; and moreover, when I look at _who_ is trying to limit free speech, I'm reminded of the old claim that far-left and far-right meet somewhere around the back.
The "progressives" of the 2010's use the same tactics as the Christian conservatives of the 90's and 2000's, and very often fight to suppress the same forms of speech, even if the justifications they give are different.
I am curious, what do today's progressives do that the Christian conservatives of the 90s and 00 use? The claim that "the far left and the far right meet somewhere around the back" is a fascinating and a quote that I will have to think about. Thanks for that!
Reaaaaly linking this guy!
Please add to the reasons that freedom of speech is valuable this one - that without freedom of speech there is no way to bring about change other than by the use of violence. If people can't use persuasion, they have no alternative but violence. Suppression of speech guarantees violence.
If anyone's interested in the transcript of this speech, you can find it here:
www.thefire.org/three-reasons-affirm-free-speech-keynote-address-fires-15th-anniversary-dinner/
Amazing as usual, Dr. Pinker
Fuck yeah, Pinker!! And what a head of hair on this man!!
I second that notion! Great man, _great head of hair_.
Great speech.
i couldn't keep my eye off his tie
SinisterSerp it is a most mesmerizing tie.
A modern-day Isaac Newton.
As a Brit I am comfortable with one limit placed on free speech:
"public nuisance" laws
Basically, if you're being loud, obnoxious etc and people are unable to avoid you, you should be moved on or arrested.
Basically, being offensive on public transport, or in a public shared space (say, waiting for kids after their school finishes)
I don't see a problem with this, as long as it is scrutinised heavily for abuse by authority.
Now, expressing even the most awful opinions in private, or in shared spaces where people can not expect decorum/"privacy" or even in conversation while in public. That should all be protected 100% of the time.
This is reasonable, but I believe it falls under "disturbing the peace."
This is unreasonable. Offensive is subjective, what you find offensive somebody else may not find offensive.
letsgoiowa
Pretty much.
I couldn't really think of the wording :P
It still boils down to a justification for limiting free speech.
Nobody is getting physically injured by a lunatic ranting, no matter how hurtful or horrible their ideas, but within that limited scope of shared space that should come with an understanding of... civility, I think limits are good.
I also understand how carefully we need to tread though.
People need the right to protest, the right to a public stage to express their ideas.
It's why it's a thorny issue to quantify,and I thoroughly understand anyone erring on the side of absolute freedom.
jfdhgds
It's not about offensive vs inoffensive.
it's about when your rights to freedom might impinge on another persons rights.
My right to swing my arms wildly around ends a little before your nose begins (I'd argue a fair distance, but you get the point :P)
Having people NOT be accountable for subjecting others to abuse/noise/insults when they have no option to leave is wrong imo.
Though as I said, i understand free speech handliners.
"I don't see a problem with this, as long as it is scrutinised heavily for abuse by authority."
I feel like every bad law ever has been written with this caveat beforehand
Obo Agboghidi
That's why accountable government (ie: the legislature) is so important :P
No freedom of speech, no democracy.
The girl who crosed the Gobi dessert is an absolutely inspiring story check it out Yeonmi Park
The message is good but some of his history and his critical take on Hayek is off base.
7:09
Hayek never claimed that welfare states lead directly to the rise of new Hitler's. That's a really poor understanding of Hayek coming from Pinker, if that's even his own opinion or one just gleaned from something else he had read. Hayek's argument was way more advanced than that. I can only basically sum it up as when you have a never ending bureaucracy of social planners seeking social "justice", eventually power concentrated in those hands will make adjustments to far in one direction or another eventually destabilizing the system economically or politically, much like the engineering principle called "tolerance stacking." That along with evidenced data relating to the growth of government institutions and endless wars, Hayek's hypothesis seems very likely.
7:29
If you now take into account the Hayek's idea as laid out above, his claim that "this has never happened" is completely false. As you can see in Wiemar Germany/ German Empire and the Russian Empire (obviously before) the February Revolution. Around the 1890's following liberation of Russian serfs you can see glaring similarities between the Russians and the Germans. These factors are most notably the ones mentioned by Hayek.
What we can see from only these two instances is clearly that constant wars (ww1, Russo-Japanese war, Russo-Persian war, Franco-German war, Austro-Prussian war, etc etc etc.) and the ever increasing bureaucracy, social welfare state under Bismark in Germany, and the redistribution of wealth in Russia, is that Hayek's conclusions are very sound hypothesis'.
“It seems to me that educated people should know something about the 13 billion year prehistory of our species and the basic laws governing the physical and living world including our bodies and brains. Educated people should grasp the timeline of human history from the dawn of agriculture to the present. They should be exposed to the diversity of human cultures and the major systems of belief and value, with which humans have made sense of their lives. They should know about the formative events in human history including the blunders we can hope not to repeat. They should understand the principles behind democratic governance and the rule of law. They should know how to appreciate works of fiction and art as sources of aesthetic pleasure and as impetuses to reflect on the human condition. On top of this factual knowledge, I think a liberal education should make certain habits of rationality second nature. Educated people should be able to express complex ideas in clear writing and speech. They should appreciate that objective knowledge is a precious commodity and know how to distinguish vetted fact from superstition rumor and unexamined conventional wisdom. They should know how to reason logically and statistically avoiding the fallacies and biases to which the untutored human mind is vulnerable. They should think causally, rather than magically, and know what it takes to distinguish causation from correlation and coincidence. They should be acutely aware of human fallibility, most notably their own, and appreciate that those who disagree with them are not necessarily stupid or evil. Accordingly they should appreciate the value of trying to change minds by persuasion rather than by intimidation or demagoguery. I believe, and more importantly I believe I can persuade you, that the more deeply a society cultivates this knowledge and mindset, the more it will flourish.”
Pinko thinks Darwinian Evolution is true. I fact, the whole body of Pinko's work is to promote the religion of evolution.
lorem ipsum Are you serious? You don't believe in evolution? ""Pinko?" - you think freedom of speech is a communist idea? Are you joking or a joke?