Freedom has a price but it doesn't keep score

[vernard]

I got an email from a co-worker that is a member of an organization on Emory’s campus that is trying to bring issues of racism to the forefront of the campu’s collective mentality so that they can better develop strategies for dealing with it. She forwarded me this email today:

---

One of the white members of my TCP group shared this story with us last night. We are thankful and optimistic that she is one of many Emory students who do not share in this new breed of hate and is sharing her voice to protest.

What can we do about it?

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1231684&page=1

---

Unfortunately for her, I decided to respond. I won’t send the full text of my email but basically I said “Nothing. and there shoudln’t be anything that you can do about it.” One of the unfortunately and necessary tenants of a society like ours is that folks should be free to think what they want and to also teach their kids the same thing. You cannot legislate tolerance and love any more than you can legislate morality. Nor should you try to. Its a slippery slope that we really don’t want to even get near.“

So exactly how far should the government/society go to protect itself from this type of thing?

Comments

[tonyvila.livejournal.com]

I rerspectfully disagree with you here, V. Emory, as a private institution, has every right to state uncategorically that they are opposed to this sort of thing. Private organizations within the college are also welcome to state their opinion and to educate those around them. The main weapon we have against hateful speech is speech. The hatemongers know this - This is why these girls (and others who hold non-inclusive views) are homeschooled - to shield them from opinions. Should there be a law against homeschooling? Hell no - but it sure gives it a bad name.

To get back to my point, too many of us (and by us I mean our generation, the PC generation) believe that freedom of speech means that every opinion should be heard equally. I say that freedom of speech is the right (and the obligation) to shout down the voices of intolerance and injustice, and to speak constantly and loudly about what I believe to be right - to be a pain in the ass about it to anyone who'll listen. If enough people hear me and join me, the world changes for the better. And Emory has the same obligation.

And for the record, I've heard a couple clips from this album - the girls are HORRIBLE singers.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Emory has the right to say it disagrees. Emory also has the responsibility to not teach their kids to engage in censorship, but in honest debate.... and what an appropriate response would be to those who won't debate honestly.

They don't need to be shouted down. They need to be mocked and ridiculed... and if the volume of the meme happens to drown them out, then so be it.

[tonyvila.livejournal.com]

They don't need to be shouted down. They need to be mocked and ridiculed

Six of one...

[servingdonuts.livejournal.com]

... saves nine?

[tonyvila.livejournal.com]

So you'd better strike while they're hot.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Nope. Different.

The difference is they get to have their say first, THEN we point and giggle. Advantages: (1) True freedom of expression (the principle of the thing). (2) More humor to be had. If you actually let'em speak, you give them more rope with which to hang themselves. (3) The speakers don't feel compelled to use less than peaceful means to be heard.

[tonyvila.livejournal.com]

Actually, I take that back. Passive resistance, the settling back into a chair and making snarky comments from afar, is not enough. The belief that making snide comments is enough implicitly posits that your opinion is a generally held consensus, that common sense is common, that hatred and intolerance is the aberration rather than the norm. Teaching people to hate is EASY. It's a walk in the frickin' park (e.g.: a random page in any history book). Teaching people to love and accept is HARD. (I seem to recall a fairy tale about a fellow who tried, and wound up nailed to a tree.)

Intolerance (pardon the paradox) must NOT be tolerated. In the desire to appear unbiased, the ABC article is part ridicule of these girls and part love letter. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, either. The only thing that makes me angrier that the hatemongers is those who say that "attention is all they want, ignore them and they'll go away." It's more correct to say that a forum is all they want, and ignoring them GIVES THEM ONE, along with your implicit acceptance that their viewpoint has value.

Anyway, morning rants are the worst - my apologies for it's length and vitriol.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

"attention is all they want, ignore them and they'll go away."

Not what I said. Look at the internal inconsistency of that statement.

Give them attention... just not the kind they want. Shout down and ignore are very similar... sit back, relax, contemplate what they're really saying, and then when your turn to speak comes up, proceed to shred them in detail... that's hard, but very very satisfying.

[tonyvila.livejournal.com]

Touche'. THat was not pointed at you, but rather some comments further down. Once I get on a roll, however, I fear I can't stop.

OTOH, to your point, by and large they are not interested in your turn, they deny your right to a turn. Would these individuals be interested in hearing, say, V discourse on the subject of tolerance and right action? The most popular song on the CD is called Victory Day, and it's all about what will happen once the race war they wish to have is won, once the street cleaners are washing the blood of the black people from their streets. If you think that's an exaggeration, Google the lyrics, if you can stomach the results you'll get. There's no rational debate to be had with these people.

It's a simple fact of biology - a mad dog needs to be put down, or the result is further pain and infection.

Did I mention that I can't stop? :) Also, who are you? We seem to share a couple of FOAFs - I'm guessing we just missed each other at Ma Tech.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

True, they have no interest in discourse, but they're in the minority. The approach you're advocating is no different than the approach they're advocating, only the definition of mad dog is different.

Now, that said, the idea that they have no interest in letting us talk brings up a pretty obvious solution. Eventually, they will do something physically disruptive. Interrupting polite debate. Blocking a legitimate business. Or something more violent. At that point we can punish them for their violence.

But until and unless they do? We leave them the hell alone. Engaging in active darwinism is a very dangerous thing to do, besides being pretty darned arrogant.