Where Everything Should Be In Bounds Reason.com – Reason
Posted By admin on July 15, 2020
Will Wilkinson last week offered a thoughtful tweet storm about social penalties for making claims that are out of bounds:
Wilkinson insists that he favors free speech, in the sense that he believes that the government should not proscribe speech (outside of narrow categories, such as slander), but that all reasonable people exact social penalties for at least some speech. And indeed, while I consider myself as about as in favor of free speech as anyone, I can imagine some extreme statements that a dinner party guest might make (say, holocaust denialism or white supremacy) that would make me less likely to invite the guest to another party, in part because I am convinced that a person announcing such views is seeking to get a rise our of listeners, exhibits serious defects in reasoning ability, or has profound prejudices, or maybe all three.
The danger, though, is that once we accept that it is acceptable for there to be social penalties for making out-of-bounds claims, people who make claims that ought to be in bounds, maybe even claims that are correct, will be found to be out of bounds. Moreover, people will not make claims that they think plausibly might be out of bounds.
Indeed, Wilkinson confesses that he has "opinions I rarely share because I fear social blowback." What are these opinions? Wilkinson doesn't say. That is actually a bit surprising, because Wilkinson argues that "[w]e should just directly debate what claims ought to be unutterable by decent liberal people." How are we to have this direct debate if we can't report our own out-of-bounds opinions? Wilkinson appears to recognize this problem, acknowledging that "it's hard to say that an opinion ought to be in-bounds without confessing that you hold an out-of-bounds opinion." But he doesn't offer a solution.
Maybe Wilkinson's view is that one ought to be able to debate what opinions should be in bounds so long as one doesn't advance the underlying opinions. But imagine the following claim: "I'm not a holocaust denier, but I think holocaust denial should be in bounds, because a lot of those photographs do look like they could have been faked." It's hard to imagine a world in which this claim receives substantially less opprobrium than the claim following the "because." Indeed, the natural reaction of any listener would be to assume that the speaker is in fact a holocaust denier but is trying to avoid social opprobrium while still expressing denialist views, just as we may infer that someone who begins a sentence with "I'm not a racist, but" probably believes the potentially racist sentiment that follows. And of course, one would receive even more opprobrium if one admitted, "I have a view that has been designated out of bounds, but I'm going to explain why I think it's in bounds."
If the debate about what is in bounds were limited to issues such as holocaust denialism and white supremacy, maybe it wouldn't be worth worrying too much more about the problem. But Wilkinson strikes me as a reasonable, thoughtful person. I would be very surprised if he secretly were a denialist or a supremacist. But I know that there are mainstream opinions (like Steven Pinker's) that are now the target of cancellation campaigns.
The knowledge that thoughtful people are self-censoring troubles me, not so much because it will lead me to censor myself, but because it makes it much harder for me and others to generate justifiable beliefs. Most of what any of us believes isn't based on careful reviews of the literature. I believe in anthropogenic climate change and have even written about possible remedies for climate change, but I have not personally reviewed the models that predict global warming. My opinion is based on the declared opinions of others, who themselves may not have reviewed all the relevant models but may well be friends or friends of friends of people who have. I am, in other words, engaging in an exercise in social epistemology, trying to determine what is a justified true belief based on the announced beliefs of others.
But this exercise is a lot more difficult when one suspects that certain opinions are self-censored. If hypothetical climate scientists who have a view that differs from the consensus feel that they are better off staying quiet, then it is hard for an outsider to know whether the absence of such statements is because the climate change evidence is so strong or because there has been an information cascade. (The concern can push in the opposite direction as well. Because government climate scientists worry about stating their honest views, I would not place much epistemic weight on a government report about the state of climate science.) I still feel that I know enough about the culture of academia to determine with high confidence that climate change skepticism is largely unjustified. But I don't have a very good answer to someone who, engaging in his or her own exercise in social epistemology, concludes that climate change is a hoax. I could tell this person that 97% of published papers that express a position on anthropogenic global warming conclude that it is occurring, but I don't have a good answer to the objection that papers that say the opposite won't get published and that scientists who claim such unorthodox views will harm their careers.
What I would like to be able to say to someone who raises a climate change hoax argument (or some other claim that I believe to be incorrect) is that the culture of academia encourages heterodoxy, and so where it is absent, a genuine consensus exists. I would like to be able to point to academics who raised heterodox positions (and by this, I mean something more radical and more likely to be wrong than anything Pinker would say, but probably not something so insupportable as holocaust denialism or white supremacy) and say, "That professor made a crazy argument, and received plenty of counterarguments but no public opprobrium." But that is not possible today. Sure, academia is much better than most employers, because tenure remains a significant protection. Academic institutions censure without censoring, but that too can effectively silence those whose views are outside some range of permissible discourse, whether on the right or the left. And that makes it more difficult for observers, especially those outside the academy, to determine whether official socially acceptable positions are worthy of justified belief.
Academia should be a place where nothing is viewed as out of bounds, so that if everyone in academia seems to agree with proposition X, people who are outside academia but understand its culture believe with high confidence that X must be correct. I would not mind the occasional loony paper if the absence of condemnation for that paper improved the credibility of all the non-loony things that academics write. In my view, a culture that encourages debate is more likely to lead to wide social acceptance of propositions that are so clearly justified that they should not be controversial. This is an empirical claim, and I can't be sure about this. Maybe allowing people to defend the indefensible makes it easier for outsiders to find at least one person who agrees with whatever they would like to believe. But I believe that creating institutions in which heterodox views are encouraged means that outsiders are more likely to trust orthodox views. If it really were not possible to tell the difference, orthodox views could be elicited through means such as surveys.
How can we make universities more tolerant of dissent? A start would be for universities to commit to the Chicago principles: "It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose." So, no more letters from the university president disagreeing with views of a professor in a discipline the president may not know much of anything about. But universities can do much more to encourage open expression. Professors can encourage students to take positions that they don't actually believe, both as an exercise for their own benefit and as a way of providing plausible deniability for others who take positions that they do believe. Professors too might be encouraged to write articles that take the best position that they can muster againstwhat they actually believe. Sponsors of panels and workshops should always make sure to invite those with dissident views, or if no one is available to express such views, at least someone who will attempt to express disagreement to the best extent possible. We can be more confident in our own conclusions if we know that the arguments that we have heard are the best available on all sides of any debate.
Ideally, our commitment to free expression should extend beyond universities. Anyone trying to make good faith, thoughtful arguments, whether the speaker ultimately would endorse those arguments or not, should receive no social condemnation. If we are to condemn at all, it should be outside the spheres in which debate is vital, and what we should condemn even there should be not conclusions but incorrect premises and faulty logic, including ad hominemarguments or calls for cancellation. An approach that makes even Will Wilkinson thinks he should keep his mouth shut makes it too hard to determine what we are justified in believing outside our immediate domain of expertise.
Read this article:
Where Everything Should Be In Bounds Reason.com - Reason
- Pure hate finds a home: How Parler became the social media platform for millions of Trump supporters - Milwaukee Independent - January 4th, 2021
- Activists call on Facebook and Twitter to ban Armenian genocide denial - Business Insider - Business Insider - January 1st, 2021
- My Turn: What will we bear witness to as truth as we head into 2021? - The Recorder - December 30th, 2020
- Lipstadt and Eisen sign on to roster of those who minimize the Holocaust - JNS.org - December 30th, 2020
- Book: Intent to deceive: Denying the Genocide of the Tutsi | ICN - Independent Catholic News - December 27th, 2020
- Takoma Park Mayor Releases Statement on Recent Incidents - Source of the Spring - December 27th, 2020
- Facebook overhauling hate speech algorithms to prioritize anti-Black, anti-LGBTQ comments over anti-white - WDHN - DothanFirst.com - December 12th, 2020
- Noam Chomsky and the Left: Allies or Strange Bedfellows? - The Wire - December 12th, 2020
- What the Facebook antitrust lawsuits might mean for hate speech - Forward - December 12th, 2020
- All I want for Hanukkah are these 8 human rights wishes - opinion - The Jerusalem Post - December 12th, 2020
- 'The Tehran Children: Iran's Unexpected & Suppressed Connection to the Holocaust' program set - timesobserver.com - December 5th, 2020
- Facebook's Updating its Approach to Hate Speech to Combat 'The Worst of the Worst' Cases - Social Media Today - December 5th, 2020
- Yes, Palestinians have the right to speak about antisemitism - Forward - December 5th, 2020
- How to fight Holocaust denial in social media with the evidence of what really happened - The Conversation US - December 4th, 2020
- Chautauqua Institution joins Holocaust Memorial Museum for 'The Tehran Children' - Olean Times Herald - December 4th, 2020
- Twitter, Facebook to update hate speech moderation | TheHill - The Hill - December 4th, 2020
- Publishers are not obliged to give bigots like Jordan Peterson a platform - The Guardian - December 4th, 2020
- Facebook said It would ban holocaust deniers. Instead, its algorithm provided a network for them - The Next Web - December 1st, 2020
- Facebook banned Holocaust denial but it's still easy to find - The Jewish News of Northern California - December 1st, 2020
- Facebook's ban has done little to rid the platform of Holocaust denial - Haaretz.com - December 1st, 2020
- Fury as Amazon Alexa spreading antisemitic conspiracies that Jews run the world and Holocaust denial - The Sun - December 1st, 2020
- Facebook announced It would prohibit holocaust deniers. Rather, its algorithm donated a network for them - Stanford Arts Review - December 1st, 2020
- Gen Z's Perception of the Holocaust | Eli Yissar Josefson | The Blogs - The Times of Israel - December 1st, 2020
- Palestinian rights and the IHRA definition of antisemitism - The Guardian - December 1st, 2020
- 'Facebook needs to improve': Social media giant to face scrutiny as backlash intensifies - Sydney Morning Herald - December 1st, 2020
- Forum: Europe needs proper distinction between freedom and rights - The Straits Times - December 1st, 2020
- Parler is bringing together mainstream conservatives, anti-Semites, and white supremacists as the social media platform attracts millions of Trump... - December 1st, 2020
- The Meaning of Hitler Review: A Look At Why the Icon of 20th-Century Hate Lives on in the 21st - Variety - December 1st, 2020
- Muslims v the west, in France and beyond - newagebd.net - December 1st, 2020
- Six weeks ago, Facebook announced a ban on Holocaust denial. It's still easy to find. - Cleveland Jewish News - November 25th, 2020
- Opinion: Nazi resistance fighters, Holocaust victims and the nonsense of COVID-19 denial - DW (English) - November 25th, 2020
- MPs demand Amazon explain why Alexa 'offers messages from antisemitic websites and conspiracy theories' - Sky News - November 25th, 2020
- In the first-ever expulsion, Lord Nazir Ahmed forced to quit from House of Lords - India New England - November 25th, 2020
- Yad Vashem is selling its soul to shady right-wing racists and populists - Haaretz.com - November 25th, 2020
- How David Adjaye Became the Worlds Most Beguiling Public Architectand Its Most Subversive - Robb Report - November 25th, 2020
- The Impact of Toxicity on Retention and LTV. - Gamasutra - November 25th, 2020
- Wiesenthal Center warns about Parler opening 'the door wide' to anti-Semitism - JNS.org - November 25th, 2020
- For 75th Anniversary of Nuremberg Trials, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Makes Available Full Sound Recordings of Trials and Film Used as... - November 21st, 2020
- EmTech Stage: Facebooks CTO on misinformation - MIT Technology Review - November 21st, 2020
- Wiesenthal Center warns about Parler opening the door wide to anti-Semitism - Cleveland Jewish News - November 21st, 2020
- A former right-wing media creator on how a different reality became so prominent. - The New York Times - November 21st, 2020
- Checking in with chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov - Jewish Insider - November 21st, 2020
- US elections and Jewish vote: Priorities of American Diaspora, implications for Israel - JNS.org - November 21st, 2020
- What I learned about teshuvah (and the internet) when I sat down with a repentant white supremacist - Heritage Florida Jewish News - November 21st, 2020
- Angered by Facebook and Twitter, conservatives jump to alternatives - AZFamily - November 21st, 2020
- Hungary Now Safest Place in Europe for Jews - Rabbi Kves at the Hungary at First 'Site' Conference - Hungary Today - November 21st, 2020
- The Latest: Romney slams Trump efforts to overturn election as 'undemocratic' - pressherald.com - November 21st, 2020
- Repressed grief is bad for the soul: Covid victims must be commemorated - Evening Standard - November 11th, 2020
- In its troubled hour, polling could use an irreverent figure to reset expectations - Huron Daily Tribune - November 11th, 2020
- Singh says government must move to counter hate groups, which have tripled since 2015 - Kamloops This Week - November 11th, 2020
- As the Trump era comes to an end, what happens to Big Tech? - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle - November 11th, 2020
- Revered Polish Jew, Holocaust survivor joins protests over top appointment at Yad Vashem - Haaretz.com - November 9th, 2020
- After The Defeat Of Donald Trump, Sacha Baron Cohen Turns His Attention To Mark Zuckerberg - Forbes - November 9th, 2020
- Cambridge University agrees to International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism - In Your Area - November 9th, 2020
- Fanatics have no right to censor critics. But neither does Emmanuel Macron - The Guardian - November 9th, 2020
- What is Parler? Social Media Users Leave Facebook and Twitter to Join New Platform - Tech Times - November 9th, 2020
- What Twitter Did After Trump Said Democrats Are Trying to STEAL the Election - Slate - November 9th, 2020
- Opinion | Susan Knopf: Stay calm and carry on - Summit Daily News - November 7th, 2020
- Stop the Steal spreads across the internet after infecting Facebook - The Verge - November 7th, 2020
- Countering Antisemitism and the message of hate - The Jerusalem Post - November 7th, 2020
- Susan Polis Schutz was horrified by the rise of hate in America, and it inspired her new film about White supremacy survivors - Pacific Northwest... - November 7th, 2020
- Emmanuel Macron must give Muslims the same free speech protections as other communities View - Euronews - November 3rd, 2020
- Holocaust Education Week programs move online this year - HalifaxToday.ca - November 3rd, 2020
- Twitter CEO says the company doesnt have a misinformation policy against users posting Holocaust denials - Yahoo News - November 3rd, 2020
- Schools given Holocaust books to counteract exposure to conspiracy theories - MSN UK - November 3rd, 2020
- Trumps denial of climate change represents worse threat to humanity than Hitler, says activist Noam Chomsky - The Independent - November 3rd, 2020
- Following Facebook, Twitter will now ban Holocaust denial J. - The Jewish News of Northern California - October 24th, 2020
- AJC Applauds Albania's Adoption of Antisemitism Working Definition - PRNewswire - October 24th, 2020
- Google and Twitter will not attend event regarding antisemitism online - The Jerusalem Post - October 24th, 2020
- Thanks Facebook, but what took you so long? - Jewish News - October 24th, 2020
- I know a marriage killed by QAnon and Trump, with help from alienation - The Guardian - October 24th, 2020
- Faux indignation of defenders of Israel - Southern Star Newspaper - October 24th, 2020
- Jim Farley is Allowed to Race, and The Detroit Free-Press is Allowed to Write About It - The Truth About Cars - October 24th, 2020
- Facebook critics webpage removed over false phishing allegations - ComputerWeekly.com - October 10th, 2020
- Tik Tok and the spread of antisemitism - San Diego Jewish World - October 10th, 2020
- 4 Things to Know about Never Again, the Pro-Israel Film that Exposes Anti-Semitism - Crosswalk.com - October 10th, 2020
- Felix Klein one year after the attack in Halle: Fears are back - Pledge Times - October 10th, 2020
- Shifting perceptions of the Holocaust in the Arab world - The Jerusalem Post - October 8th, 2020
- Many young people still lack basic knowledge of the Holocaust - The Conversation UK - October 8th, 2020
- Roth in the age of Trump - The Jewish Standard - October 8th, 2020
Comments