Philosophical Vegan Forum

Bret Weinstein (former Professor of Biology at Evergreen State College) recently spoke out at a college panel discussing the phenomenon of leftists discrediting themselves and their movement by simply "turning the tables" of oppression.

Weinstein argues that the left suffers from a "Bad actor problem" that arises out of the obstacles of progressivism. Much of what is called "left" is actually a dichotomy; one side valuing genuine equality (equality of opportunity) and the other side valuing equality of outcome or otherwise wanting to turn the tables of oppression against their alleged oppressors. Overall, Weinstein argued that the left is under state of insurgency, with those overrunning the movement creating "linguistic booty traps" i.e. altering the definition of certain terms (like equity) and changing the tone and ideology of the movement.

Watch the entire panel here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsTuMmyHw8s
Bret Wienstein's clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9osjKN5VWfM

I largely agree. I've visited several universities in my area, and many, though #notall, leftists seem to reject freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the open exchange of ideas. I think a lot of people have the notion that words (or ideas) are literal acts of violence, and attempt to censor any and all opposing views in "self defense."

Surveys show that there is an increasing acceptance among college students to heckle speakers whom they disagree with. A startling 37% of college students agree to this. In 2016, 61% agree that the climate on their campus prevents some students from expressing their views because others might take offense. https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/pdfs/000/000/248/original/Knight_Foundation_Free_Expression_on_Campus_2017.pdf

Of course, valuing feelings over freedom of speech via censorship is not leftist in the classical sense, which values egalitarianism and equity, but it's clear that the left becoming aligned with that of a more radical communist party. I'm not saying that free speech is being threatened, I don't have evidence to support such a claim, but I'm convinced that a large portion of those who call themselves leftists aren't exactly standing up for the principles that the left traditionally valued.

Would love to hear leftists (and others) weigh in on this.

I don't favor the more strict freedom of speech that some do (Some ideas, like anti-vaxx, are the equivalent of a nation-wise "Shouting fire in a theater"), but I don't believe in heavily censoring criticism or even insults as "violence".

I think the problem is a fringe one, however it's a very visible fringe and I think its existence invigorates the right and was a large part of Trump's victory in the last election. Kind of how the visible fringe of very badly behaved vegans can harm veganism.

I went into a bit more detail in this thread:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?p=36693#p36693

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:40 pm I don't favor the more strict freedom of speech that some do (Some ideas, like anti-vaxx, are the equivalent of a nation-wise "Shouting fire in a theater"), but I don't believe in heavily censoring criticism or even insults as "violence".

On what grounds would you censor anti-vax propaganda? And on this note, would you give climate science deniers a right to print publications or create media promoting their rediculous views? Following the harm principle, campaigning against the scientific consensus of climate change in an effort manipulate public policy in one’s favor has dire affects on the global population. Would you permit climate science deniers free speech?

How about antinatalists, anti-GMO, naturopaths, psychics etc? Where do you draw the line?

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:40 pm I think the problem is a fringe one, however it's a very visible fringe and I think its existence invigorates the right and was a large part of Trump's victory in the last election. Kind of how the visible fringe of very badly behaved vegans can harm veganism.

Good analogy.

brimstoneSalad wrote:We just hear about it a lot because the Triggly Puffs are very vocal and visible. But the only reason it's a serious global problem is because it undermines liberal politics and empowers conservatives. It's a problem because conservatives are a problem; they're the ones who use this and do actual damage with it.

I think we need to clean house among liberals for the same reason we need to work on cleaning house among the unreasonable vegans: because progressive change is important, and we can't have very vocal nutcases making us look unreasonable.

Well said Brim.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:40 pm Allying with conservatives to take on a fringe on our own side that is only a real problem because it empowers conservatives seems counterproductive, particularly if it gives them a platform.

Are you familiar with Dave Rubin of the Rubin Report? He's guilty of this exact thing. He's constantly pandering to asshole conservatives and platforming right wing nut jobs, usually in attempt to "come together" and scoff at silly fringe liberals, but he isn't actually capable of countering any of his guests' arguments. I think his platform is just lazy, but it's particularly egregious because he isn't qualified to counter the arguments that any of his guests make. He'll bring on some crazy climate denialist but can't actually debunk the person's nonsense, so to the average layperson, his claims seem credible.

Dave Rubin's channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport

Unnatural Vegan critiqued him for his intellectual laziness here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg3Mk7Kx_fw

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:33 pm On what grounds would you censor anti-vax propaganda?

On the grounds of it being provably false and harmful.

The honest anti-vaxxers who are saying things like "We should let the weak children die of disease to make the species stronger." would not be censored. That's more of an opinion (although a horrible one) rather than a demonstrably false claim of fact. It's also much less likely to be harmful to anything but their own cause; most parents aren't willing to volunteer their children to die for the herd.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:33 pmAnd on this note, would you give climate science deniers a right to print publications or create media promoting their rediculous views?

No. If they are speaking on an objective topic of scientific fact and spreading falsehoods, then they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

They'd be allowed to talk about how they think climate change might be a good thing, though.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:33 pmHow about antinatalists, anti-GMO, naturopaths, psychics etc? Where do you draw the line?

It depends on the details of the claims they make. I'm not really advocating anything more dramatic than the standards of factually true claims that already apply to companies via the FTC, FDA, etc.

If somebody publicizes something both demonstrably factually untrue and harmful, that person should be liable. Libel and privacy laws would also be a good reference; of course the extent of publication is very important, as well as the context (was it otherwise known or believed?).

Making a factually untrue claim that many people already believe (there was a global flood and Noah built an arc), or that virtually nobody is liable to believe (like the Earth is flat), and that causes "de minimis" harm in the making, is not an issue.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:13 amOn the grounds of it being provably false and harmful.

Regarding falsehood: can good intentioned research that contradicts the scientific consensus be published?New issues require a gestation period before a consensus is reached. What would happen here?

Regarding harm: how harmful? I'm certain we could reasonably assign some amount of harm to any action (outside of effective altruism). Insulting people could be considered harmful because there is a chance that the insult could be the deciding factor in a bad day to suicide. Is it a small chance? Very much so, but it is still a degree of harm that we could consider.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:35 am

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:13 amOn the grounds of it being provably false and harmful.

Regarding falsehood: can good intentioned research that contradicts the scientific consensus be published?New issues require a gestation period before a consensus is reached. What would happen here?

Scientifically, sure, but journalists shouldn't be reporting on them because they're incompetent at putting it into perspective (and they're motivated not to).
Scientists need to be aware that their research will be picked up by journalists and misreported on, so abstracts need to be crafted more carefully (as must be press releases, although often this is not of the scientists' making they still have a responsibility to prevent their work from being exaggerated and distorted).

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:35 am Regarding harm: how harmful? I'm certain we could reasonably assign some amount of harm to any action (outside of effective altruism). Insulting people could be considered harmful because there is a chance that the insult could be the deciding factor in a bad day to suicide. Is it a small chance? Very much so, but it is still a degree of harm that we could consider.

Jurisprudence already provides pretty good tests for this.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:45 amJurisprudence already provides pretty good tests for this.

As someone ignorant of this field, could you or someone else knowledgeable elaborate?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:37 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:45 amJurisprudence already provides pretty good tests for this.

As someone ignorant of this field, could you or someone else knowledgeable elaborate?

Basically, all civil lawsuits (and some criminal) are based on the concept of harm, and there's a long history of practical judgement calls in this domain.
It's something the legal system is already good at.