Great post. This episode is an example of the moral blindness and hollow performative virtue signaling of the woke. A supposedly harmful word became the pretext for piling onto a man with a genuine disability. So much for compassion.
I have Tourette’s syndrome, though not coprolalia, and you have captured much of what I think about the backlash to Davison’s outburst. Another thing that people who don’t use Tourette’s may not know - those of us who do have it can, sometimes, intentionally stop the tics for a time. But the ‘build-up’ inside your body is real and the release, after you stop trying to stop the tics 1. Is a real release of feeling and 2. Causes them to ‘rebound’ worse. So it’s entirely possible that Davidson spent many minutes before that outburst desperately trying not to have an outburst and when he lost that battle, as he was destined to do, the outburst was even worse than it might have otherwise been. I have not idea if this makes sense or not. But the feeling of ‘needing’ to release the tics is very real, the lack of control over them is far more embarrassing to the person making the tics, and the general public’s lack of empathy (in this case, especially since he was there because his movie - about having Tourette’s! - was up for an wayward) is disappointing, to say the least. I’m sure the two presenters were caught completely off guard and I feel for them. But it’s unfortunate they couldn’t have used the moment to let everyone know what had happened (assuming, of course, they knew what happened, which, if not earlier, they knew shortly after it happened; BAFTA failed here miserably, too).
That makes total sense, Brian, thanks for explaining. I’ve never heard it put so clearly. And yes, it is truly gross to see. As you rightly note, this could have been a teachable moment and a display of grace and humanity by the actors.
That would have been a really inspiring thing to see.
I am saddened by the narcissism and bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism) of the black American community.
A lifetime ago, when people were still allowed to have a sense of humor, there were a series of movies made. The first one was Clerks. I forget which one of the series it was in, but one of them featured an ongoing joke about "taking back" racial slurs. It was hilarious. Needless to say, it could never be made now.
Society is supposed to progress, but we have returned to the Victorian times of pearl clutching and demonstrative fainting. I still choose to laugh. However, I also am not accepted into elite society. I choose to laugh about that also.
I'll admit that I'm completely in your camp when it comes to demystifying the word, and when I was younger and braver I'd write it and say it to make the point. Years of progressive programming has worn me down to where I flinch at damned word despite myself, and I don't want a bunch of quotes of me saying it floating around in case I ever switch to my real name and my wife's family sees it. It's unfortunate that the taboo makes it such a great punchline too, it leads to both funny jokes I can't repeat and lazy black comedians leaning on it to carry mediocre routines.
It's frustrating. So much of the outrage is false and performative. Do you really think working class black folks give a shit about the BAFTA Awards? I doubt they even do in Great Britain. By advertising and mocking this incident, the mockers have only increased the exposure to this event (and therefore to THE WORD) by 100x.
But they don't care. They don't really care about much, and certainly not struggling black people.
Just a note: I included the word 'nigger' in a note awhile back (quoting Nick Fuentes) and my subscriber growth immediately and completely stalled out, for about a month. It could have been a coincidence but these days I remain suspicious. Let's see if it happens again!
Exactly. Also, Brits are apparently more offended for Davidson's sake than for Jordan or Lindo's, perhaps partly because British racial sensitivities concern Indians and Pakistanis more than blacks.
This touches on a really critical nuance that few are exploring: the difference between topics or words that are taboo (aka sensitive) to say, vs. expressions of taboo beliefs. I am very focused on the latter, what I refer to as our 'universal moral taboos' and describe as 'overt, hateful bigotry'. There is a critically important role of maintaining this taboo, and the only way that can be done is with social consequences. Some will be concerned that this is "cancel culture" and threatens our free speech culture, but we must be able to carve out a lane to socially punish such hateful bigotry, or it will become normalized. And I do think we can do this in a principled way that avoids the excesses of cancel culture.
While I do think there are no shortage of explicit and egregious violations of these taboos that would be hard to question, I know we need to still work on classifying and distinguishing all the different speech and behavior that could be considered "bigotry", so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and find ourselves back at square one. To that end, I've developed a framework to help answer this question, that could help address this specific topic and most like it, as well as a survey to serve as a proof of concept to validate the approach. If you're curious to take the survey, you can find it here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfAeaxmqG0H3CoeY0-TyEsP5T6dj4X4EVlfUpCBtsTBMIlP_w/viewform?usp=header
"we must be able to carve out a lane to socially punish such hateful bigotry, or it will become normalized"
Is there any evidence of this? It seems like the only bigotries that become normalized or hardened are the ones where we try to do what you propose.
Did bigotry against Italians become normalized because we failed to treat ethnic slurs about Italians similarly? Or against the Irish, Germans, Japanese, Greeks, Catholics, Mormons?
Now consider a few groups against whom we have tried to punish bigotry, as you suggest, and ask yourself whether that has caused bigotry against them to go away: Jews, blacks, LGBT individuals.
I would argue it has only made bigotry against them intensify. One of the main reasons the trans movement attracts so much hate, for example, even though it enjoyed so much goodwill in the beginning, is because it has done precisely what you suggest, seeking to punish people for holding opinions it views as bigoted.
Another problem, of course, is who exactly gets to decide what is bigoted?
"we need to still work on classifying and distinguishing all the different speech and behavior that could be considered bigotry"
Too complicated. I have an easier and far better solution: freedom of speech.
1. Your analogies are imperfect, and I'd say primarily for one major reason: There's a difference between saying "there are a lot of Jews in media" vs "Jews are cheap" vs. "let's kill all the Jews". The cancel culturists (the ones who don't hate Jews:) want to flatten that into one bucket called bigotry and condemn those speakers to social death forever. What you are doing is flattening all of those into "well, that's just speech and what people think and it's fine that they think and say that and they shouldn't face any consequences for any of it." These are not the same things, and if you're interested, this distinction is what I'm trying to explore in my framework.
2. I disagree entirely about the reason for the trans backlash. I believe that occurred because trans demanded ever more special rights, even when those violated the rights of others, and accused people of bigotry if they simply said "I don't think trans women should play in women's sports, be in womens' prisons or girls' locker rooms, etc.".
3. Who decides what is bigoted is an excellent question, and is exactly what I'm trying to show with my framework and research that there's already a broad consensus on this. I hope you are intellectually curious enough to explore this, because I don't think the dismissive and simplistic cliche of "let's just do freedom of speech" is helpful. Free speech applies to the state, to laws, it restricts legal consequences. You can also argue for a free speech culture, which is totally valid and IMO noble. And I think there's a fair argument to make that people should be able to say the n word. But would you really try to make the case that somebody can stand on the street corner and yell "kill all the Jews and the blacks" and they shouldn't face any social consequences for it?
4. If a FIRE employee revealed that they belong to the KKK, what would FIRE do? Or imagine they recorded a video after Charlie Kirk was killed, cheering and celebrating and saying they hoped other Republicans would get what was coming to them. For the sake of this argument, assume you approached them about your concerns and they remained unapologetic in their convictions e.g Blacks and Jews are sub-human and should be enslaved or segregated, Republicans should be killed, etc. Would this person remain employed at FIRE? And if not, by what principle would you decide to fire them for their speech?
I think an absolutist ideology here is a very dangerous one, and it falls apart under just a little bit of scrutiny to reveal that even you all would draw a line on socially acceptable speech somewhere.
1. I don't know where you're from but it sounds like you want to eliminate the First Amendment or pass legislation making "hate speech" illegal (which it currently is not because of the First Amendment), or that you maybe think "Let's kill all the Jews" qualifies as incitement to violence, which it does not under U.S. law because it's a vague and general call for violence and not a call to "imminent lawless action," therefore it fails the Brandenburg v. Ohio test.
You can cast your glance at the UK, if you like, for a preview of what you're advocating. They now arrest more people for having politically incorrect opinions than Russia or China. One teen got in trouble for posting her best friend's favorite rap lyrics on social media in honor of him after he died, because the lyrics contained the word "nigger." One girl got in trouble for looking at a racist post online. One woman was fined for thinking in the wrong place. If you think you can draw fine lines between "Jews are cheap" and "let's kill Jews," you can't. And anyway, the second you say let's punish "kill the Jews," someone will say you should also punish people for saying they like Hitler. Or reading Mein Kampf. In fact, this is already happening. The definition of "antisemitism" is already being grossly expanded in ways that are not compatible with free speech.
You cannot have freedom of expression and at the same time seek to punish offensive opinions. And by the way, in America, it has famously been Jews who understood this, heroes like David Goldberger and Burton Joseph, who defended the right of Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a town full of Holocaust survivors. They wisely understood that if the right does not exist for the likes of Nazis, it will not exist for the likes of you or me.
Furthermore, why should we punish someone for saying "let's kill the Jews"? Are people really so pathetically thin-skinned?
2. That's not what I said. I didn't say it caused the backlash. I said, did punishing "hate speech" cause bigotry to go away? No, it made things worse. If Jewish groups were to restrict free speech in America, this could lead to the greatest spike in antisemitism in American history.
3. Sure, I'm curious. But yes, I would absolutely make the case that someone yelling nasty things should not be punished. If the government punishes you simply for being mean, that's fascistic. But the fact that you say "social consequences" suggests you're perhaps talking about people not wanting to be friends with the person or something along those lines. And so of course I agree. But if by consequences you mean cancel culture or anything along those lines, I oppose it all.
4. I don't get to make those decisions, but I would be very disturbed if someone was fired simply for having certain views on a particular topic that are widely regarded as offensive. Whether that be saying ICE is Gestapo, Hamas are freedom fighters, transness is disgusting, Khamenei was a hero, or goyim don't have souls. One problem I see with your argument is that you seem to assume we can come to some kind of consensus about what statements are offensive when we can't even agree on matters of biological fact.
But my position is not absolutist. Far from it. I've never actually met a free speech absolutist. Most free speech advocates set multiple limits on speech: incitement, true threats, defamation, commercial speech can be regulated, and of course there are time, place, and manner restrictions. These limits are the same ones placed by U.S. law.
1. I'm American. I cherish the First Amendment. I was a monthly donor to FIRE (until I lost my job) - I love what you guys do. I also consider the Canceling of the American Mind a must read book. It changed my life. Cancel culture caused self-censorship which caused the normalization of hate. The problem is that we need a restricted version of cancel culture to stop that hate.
I'm *ONLY* talking about social consequences, not legal ones. We can thus ignore everything at the beginning of your response, and subsequent mentions regarding legality of speech. I'm fully aligned there. Free Speech means free from government censorship.
2. You don't have a counterfactual. Punishing hate speech against trans happened at the same time that trans demanded ever more rights that arguably violated others' rights. You can't say what caused the backlash. That doesn't mean I don't agree that fighting against bigotry can backfire. I think some are making that case against anti-antisemitism initiatives, though I think this is more because of the wrong tactics e.g. calling all legit criticism bigotry. That's why one of my principles is that we must focus on egregious examples, and my framework allows us to better assess the speakers intent or indifference to cause harm after giving them a chance to clarify their views.
3. What's the difference between social consequences and cancel culture and disassociation? Can you distinguish between those in a principled way?
4. Yes, I think most people would agree that supporting Islamic terrorism, or saying "black people are sub-human and should all be killed/segregated/deported" is disqualifying. I am certain that FIRE would not keep such an employee who openly espoused those views, and would not defend somebody who got fired for espousing them. But you tell me if I'm wrong on that. I agree that it's hard to draw that exact line, but I think there are egregious examples that are not up for debate, that virtually everyone would agree deserves disassociation. If we can at least agree on that, if we can at least make the most vile, hateful bigotry taboo again and unacceptable to express while being part of polite society, I think we can significantly improve our situation.
If you're curious, these are my 4 principles for restoring moral taboos:
1. The Red Line: Limit actionable taboos to overt bigotry, dehumanization, and the endorsement of violence.
2. The Consensus Test: Distinguish between subjective offense (which is partisan and open to individual interpretation) and a Shared Moral Violation (which reflects a broad, trans-tribal consensus and warrants consequence).
3. The Private Mechanism: Enforce standards through civil society (employers, associations), never government coercion.
4. The Open Door: The goal of consequence must be correction, not permanent destruction; always offer a path to redemption.
1. That's great to hear. Naturally, I feel the same way.
"Cancel culture caused self-censorship which caused the normalization of hate. The problem is that we need a restricted version of cancel culture to stop that hate."
This is giving "Real communism has never been tried." No thanks.
"I'm *ONLY* talking about social consequences, not legal ones."
Given that we live in a democratic republic where social values can be voted into law, good luck with holding that line, especially when so many people already very much want those values turned into law.
2. "Punishing hate speech against trans happened at the same time that trans demanded ever more rights that arguably violated others' rights."
I never said it was only one factor. But what I cited was quite obviously one factor.
"I think this is more because of the wrong tactics e.g. calling all legit criticism bigotry."
This is the problem I see in your argument. You think you can split those hairs. I can sure that you, as an individual, can. But the public?
3. "What's the difference between social consequences and cancel culture and disassociation? Can you distinguish between those in a principled way?"
Social consequences would be something like not being friends with someone whereas cancel culture involves seeking to get someone fired or some entity boycotted. If you're a racist, I don't want to be your friend. But that doesn't mean I think you should be fired and your kids should have to struggle. So the difference is quite simple to describe.
4. "I think there are egregious examples that are not up for debate, that virtually everyone would agree deserves disassociation."
I don't think you've thought this through because there really are no examples that are not up for debate. We live in a country where we cannot agree what is a woman. Or if Maduro was evil. Or Khamenei, Hamas, Mao, Lenin, Hitler. So no, any group trying to claim a sacred cow should not have that cow protected. Rather, it should be attacked. Anyone claiming you cannot say X or Y should immediately make you want to question why that opinion is off limits, and what they are trying to protect from scrutiny.
I prefer the marketplace of ideas.
"1. The Red Line: Limit actionable taboos to overt bigotry, dehumanization, and the endorsement of violence."
We already have laws against incitement. The rest of this is "hate speech" legislation and anti-free speech.
"2. The Consensus Test: Distinguish between subjective offense (which is partisan and open to individual interpretation) and a Shared Moral Violation (which reflects a broad, trans-tribal consensus and warrants consequence)."
Naive. See examples above.
"3. The Private Mechanism: Enforce standards through civil society (employers, associations), never government coercion."
This is cancel culture and antithetical to free speech.
"4. The Open Door: The goal of consequence must be correction, not permanent destruction; always offer a path to redemption."
So if I get fired for saying some Nazi stuff, the government is going to swoop in and give me a job? How does this work?
1. Respectfully, none of these are principled arguments. They are cliches, they are "slippery slope" arguments. This is how the world works and always has. I'm not advocating to codify anything into law, and we already have mechanisms to prevent that from happening (or self-correcting when necessary). I fully buy into the argument that 'we need to protect our free speech culture", and I can hold that thought while also believing that allowing the most vile bigotry to be shared without that person facing social consequences, making it appear as those are socially acceptable views, is a recipe for disaster.
2. You're right, you did cite the efforts to punish people for trans criticism as only one factor. Sorry to misread that. But we don't know if that was a decisive factor in any meaningful way. If trans folks just said "all we want is for people to say we shouldn't be killed for feeling different, we won't impose anything else on society that may violate your liberties" there may have essentially been no backlash at all.
And you're absolutely right to be concerned about whether the public can hold the line. I know that I'm particularly principled and non-partisan, but I do think that most people have a moral compass that already aligns to this. My survey is by no means representative but I do think it is a proof of concept that hints that there is a broad consensus here.
3. So social consequences become cancel culture when there's a coordinated effort to punish somebody, or when it affects their livelihood? What if I go on social media to announce "This [x store] employee just went on a tirade against a black customer calling them the n-word repeatedly with dehumanizing rhetoric. I'm never shopping there again." I didn't ask or encourage anybody to do the same. Is that cancel culture?
Or let's use another scenario: My boss is John and my colleague is Bill. Bill starts hanging out with white supremacists, and eventually joins the KKK. I stop being friendly with Bill. John (his boss) doesn't say or do anything differently though - their relationship is unchanged. John doesn't seem bothered by Bill's viewpoints, and refuses to condemn those views. I tell John, "hey, it seems like you're kinda cool with an employee here who espouses these views. I don't think I can stay working here, I feel unsafe especially given that my wife is black." Is that cancel culture for me to encourage John to draw a line of sorts?
In short, I don't think you have drawn a principled distinction here.
4. You seem to allow a small minority of radical voices to support your claim that "we can't all agree on everything." Some tiny % of people think the Earth is flat, but we don't tailor our society to them. And I believe it is a very small % of people that would argue with the consensus on what a woman is (whether a larger % claim this is up for debate to protect their social/tribal status is another matter, though certainly relevant).
My survey is far from conclusive, but it does signal that these are probably 80/20 issues at worst, in the most egregious scenarios. "If somebody explicitly endorses Hamas and their charter to kill all Israelis, would you no longer want them working at your company, would you no longer want them teaching your kids, would you no longer shop at a store that employed that person?" I think >80% of Americans would vote the same way on this question.
5. I welcome disagreements on my 4 principles but they should be disagreements that consider all of the principles in combination with each other. Principle 3 says specifically that we're only talking about the realm of social consequences, not legal ones, so your points re: Principles 1 & 2 & 4 are largely moot (though they could be revised to still be relevant). I'm not really sure what your point was re: #4, though I think you unintentionally raised a valid concern which is how these "social consequences" for the egregious taboo violations apply to government employees. You all obviously know more about the legality here, but it seems like there's plenty of leeway available to fire government employees for speech on a matter of public concern (The Pickering-Connick Test) or that disrupts the workplace.
6. I appreciate your engagement, and you make many very valid points. I just don't think many of them are principled, and I don't think they hold up to scrutiny. If one day I get to debate you or Greg or anybody else from FIRE, I think I will be able to very easily get you to concede the point that a FIRE employee espousing these most hateful views would not stay employed there, and I could probably get you to admit that you wouldn't defend somebody who lost their job for the same. And the reason I feel confident sharing that "gotcha" question with you in advance is that I don't think you can answer it in a way that doesn't expose a hole in your logic/principles, which I can then further expand out from in a way that you'll struggle to argue with. Of course, If I'm wrong, you're welcome to share that answer here.
I love what you're all doing and respect you so much, but I think digging in your heels to avoid acknowledging this obvious flaw in your absolutist worldviews is doing a disservice to your credibility and to the world. It feels like a simple effort to try to steelman my arguments would result in a very different conversation. I know your resistance comes from a good place, with good intent, so I'm not that mad or disappointed especially since some of you are at least engaging, but I am committed to proving that there's a very important perspective to consider here, and despite the risks, it is far better than the alternative destructive path that we're heading down which you all are unintentionally endorsing.
Another thought-provoking piece, David. This is nowhere near the same, but as a Japanese American born after WWII, my parents didn't want any of us to have Japanese first names. They wanted us to be as American as possible! All three of my siblings and I even had "Ls" in our names — a sound that doesn't exist in the Japanese language. (Names my grandmother couldn't pronounce.) As a kid I remember a grown white man calling me a "Jap." It scared me. To this day I still feel uncomfortable when I hear it in war movies, etc. It doesn't pack the punch of "Nigger," but I get it. If someone shouted "Jap," at an event, it would sure make me jump, but I'd understand if I learned the person had Tourette's syndrome.
Hope you are aware the “so say it” skit is not real. Does not seem like your engagement with
this extends beyond recognition of a overreaction to disability and what the brought with it. Tiring to hear this painted with such broad brushes as if every black american agrees with everyone about what the appropriate response would have been. Also as far as I understand, the question about the BBC choosing to leave it in is tied to them removing references to Palestine but leaving nigger in.
forgive me for reducing your argument! do appreciate you amending the article re:lindo skit. could have sworn there was something about black americans enjoying the power that came with the use of the word?
The natural and healthy desire to avoid hurting people’s feelings is the main obstacle. It’s wonderful that humans have that impulse. It helps suppress actual racism. But clearly, it can go too far. Another obstacle is that black Americans across the political spectrum are unlikely to surrender the word’s discursive power.
Great post. This episode is an example of the moral blindness and hollow performative virtue signaling of the woke. A supposedly harmful word became the pretext for piling onto a man with a genuine disability. So much for compassion.
What a well-written and thoughtful piece
I have Tourette’s syndrome, though not coprolalia, and you have captured much of what I think about the backlash to Davison’s outburst. Another thing that people who don’t use Tourette’s may not know - those of us who do have it can, sometimes, intentionally stop the tics for a time. But the ‘build-up’ inside your body is real and the release, after you stop trying to stop the tics 1. Is a real release of feeling and 2. Causes them to ‘rebound’ worse. So it’s entirely possible that Davidson spent many minutes before that outburst desperately trying not to have an outburst and when he lost that battle, as he was destined to do, the outburst was even worse than it might have otherwise been. I have not idea if this makes sense or not. But the feeling of ‘needing’ to release the tics is very real, the lack of control over them is far more embarrassing to the person making the tics, and the general public’s lack of empathy (in this case, especially since he was there because his movie - about having Tourette’s! - was up for an wayward) is disappointing, to say the least. I’m sure the two presenters were caught completely off guard and I feel for them. But it’s unfortunate they couldn’t have used the moment to let everyone know what had happened (assuming, of course, they knew what happened, which, if not earlier, they knew shortly after it happened; BAFTA failed here miserably, too).
That makes total sense, Brian, thanks for explaining. I’ve never heard it put so clearly. And yes, it is truly gross to see. As you rightly note, this could have been a teachable moment and a display of grace and humanity by the actors.
That would have been a really inspiring thing to see.
I am saddened by the narcissism and bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism) of the black American community.
A lifetime ago, when people were still allowed to have a sense of humor, there were a series of movies made. The first one was Clerks. I forget which one of the series it was in, but one of them featured an ongoing joke about "taking back" racial slurs. It was hilarious. Needless to say, it could never be made now.
Society is supposed to progress, but we have returned to the Victorian times of pearl clutching and demonstrative fainting. I still choose to laugh. However, I also am not accepted into elite society. I choose to laugh about that also.
I'll admit that I'm completely in your camp when it comes to demystifying the word, and when I was younger and braver I'd write it and say it to make the point. Years of progressive programming has worn me down to where I flinch at damned word despite myself, and I don't want a bunch of quotes of me saying it floating around in case I ever switch to my real name and my wife's family sees it. It's unfortunate that the taboo makes it such a great punchline too, it leads to both funny jokes I can't repeat and lazy black comedians leaning on it to carry mediocre routines.
It's frustrating. So much of the outrage is false and performative. Do you really think working class black folks give a shit about the BAFTA Awards? I doubt they even do in Great Britain. By advertising and mocking this incident, the mockers have only increased the exposure to this event (and therefore to THE WORD) by 100x.
But they don't care. They don't really care about much, and certainly not struggling black people.
Just a note: I included the word 'nigger' in a note awhile back (quoting Nick Fuentes) and my subscriber growth immediately and completely stalled out, for about a month. It could have been a coincidence but these days I remain suspicious. Let's see if it happens again!
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/white-supremacy-doesnt-exist
Exactly. Also, Brits are apparently more offended for Davidson's sake than for Jordan or Lindo's, perhaps partly because British racial sensitivities concern Indians and Pakistanis more than blacks.
This touches on a really critical nuance that few are exploring: the difference between topics or words that are taboo (aka sensitive) to say, vs. expressions of taboo beliefs. I am very focused on the latter, what I refer to as our 'universal moral taboos' and describe as 'overt, hateful bigotry'. There is a critically important role of maintaining this taboo, and the only way that can be done is with social consequences. Some will be concerned that this is "cancel culture" and threatens our free speech culture, but we must be able to carve out a lane to socially punish such hateful bigotry, or it will become normalized. And I do think we can do this in a principled way that avoids the excesses of cancel culture.
While I do think there are no shortage of explicit and egregious violations of these taboos that would be hard to question, I know we need to still work on classifying and distinguishing all the different speech and behavior that could be considered "bigotry", so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and find ourselves back at square one. To that end, I've developed a framework to help answer this question, that could help address this specific topic and most like it, as well as a survey to serve as a proof of concept to validate the approach. If you're curious to take the survey, you can find it here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfAeaxmqG0H3CoeY0-TyEsP5T6dj4X4EVlfUpCBtsTBMIlP_w/viewform?usp=header
And if you want to see the results being released next week, or read my Guide to Moral Taboos (Part 1/3), you can find it here: https://elevin11.substack.com/p/lawful-but-awful-a-guide-to-moral
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Erez.
"we must be able to carve out a lane to socially punish such hateful bigotry, or it will become normalized"
Is there any evidence of this? It seems like the only bigotries that become normalized or hardened are the ones where we try to do what you propose.
Did bigotry against Italians become normalized because we failed to treat ethnic slurs about Italians similarly? Or against the Irish, Germans, Japanese, Greeks, Catholics, Mormons?
Now consider a few groups against whom we have tried to punish bigotry, as you suggest, and ask yourself whether that has caused bigotry against them to go away: Jews, blacks, LGBT individuals.
I would argue it has only made bigotry against them intensify. One of the main reasons the trans movement attracts so much hate, for example, even though it enjoyed so much goodwill in the beginning, is because it has done precisely what you suggest, seeking to punish people for holding opinions it views as bigoted.
Another problem, of course, is who exactly gets to decide what is bigoted?
"we need to still work on classifying and distinguishing all the different speech and behavior that could be considered bigotry"
Too complicated. I have an easier and far better solution: freedom of speech.
Thanks for your thoughts David!
1. Your analogies are imperfect, and I'd say primarily for one major reason: There's a difference between saying "there are a lot of Jews in media" vs "Jews are cheap" vs. "let's kill all the Jews". The cancel culturists (the ones who don't hate Jews:) want to flatten that into one bucket called bigotry and condemn those speakers to social death forever. What you are doing is flattening all of those into "well, that's just speech and what people think and it's fine that they think and say that and they shouldn't face any consequences for any of it." These are not the same things, and if you're interested, this distinction is what I'm trying to explore in my framework.
2. I disagree entirely about the reason for the trans backlash. I believe that occurred because trans demanded ever more special rights, even when those violated the rights of others, and accused people of bigotry if they simply said "I don't think trans women should play in women's sports, be in womens' prisons or girls' locker rooms, etc.".
3. Who decides what is bigoted is an excellent question, and is exactly what I'm trying to show with my framework and research that there's already a broad consensus on this. I hope you are intellectually curious enough to explore this, because I don't think the dismissive and simplistic cliche of "let's just do freedom of speech" is helpful. Free speech applies to the state, to laws, it restricts legal consequences. You can also argue for a free speech culture, which is totally valid and IMO noble. And I think there's a fair argument to make that people should be able to say the n word. But would you really try to make the case that somebody can stand on the street corner and yell "kill all the Jews and the blacks" and they shouldn't face any social consequences for it?
4. If a FIRE employee revealed that they belong to the KKK, what would FIRE do? Or imagine they recorded a video after Charlie Kirk was killed, cheering and celebrating and saying they hoped other Republicans would get what was coming to them. For the sake of this argument, assume you approached them about your concerns and they remained unapologetic in their convictions e.g Blacks and Jews are sub-human and should be enslaved or segregated, Republicans should be killed, etc. Would this person remain employed at FIRE? And if not, by what principle would you decide to fire them for their speech?
I think an absolutist ideology here is a very dangerous one, and it falls apart under just a little bit of scrutiny to reveal that even you all would draw a line on socially acceptable speech somewhere.
1. I don't know where you're from but it sounds like you want to eliminate the First Amendment or pass legislation making "hate speech" illegal (which it currently is not because of the First Amendment), or that you maybe think "Let's kill all the Jews" qualifies as incitement to violence, which it does not under U.S. law because it's a vague and general call for violence and not a call to "imminent lawless action," therefore it fails the Brandenburg v. Ohio test.
You can cast your glance at the UK, if you like, for a preview of what you're advocating. They now arrest more people for having politically incorrect opinions than Russia or China. One teen got in trouble for posting her best friend's favorite rap lyrics on social media in honor of him after he died, because the lyrics contained the word "nigger." One girl got in trouble for looking at a racist post online. One woman was fined for thinking in the wrong place. If you think you can draw fine lines between "Jews are cheap" and "let's kill Jews," you can't. And anyway, the second you say let's punish "kill the Jews," someone will say you should also punish people for saying they like Hitler. Or reading Mein Kampf. In fact, this is already happening. The definition of "antisemitism" is already being grossly expanded in ways that are not compatible with free speech.
You cannot have freedom of expression and at the same time seek to punish offensive opinions. And by the way, in America, it has famously been Jews who understood this, heroes like David Goldberger and Burton Joseph, who defended the right of Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a town full of Holocaust survivors. They wisely understood that if the right does not exist for the likes of Nazis, it will not exist for the likes of you or me.
Furthermore, why should we punish someone for saying "let's kill the Jews"? Are people really so pathetically thin-skinned?
2. That's not what I said. I didn't say it caused the backlash. I said, did punishing "hate speech" cause bigotry to go away? No, it made things worse. If Jewish groups were to restrict free speech in America, this could lead to the greatest spike in antisemitism in American history.
3. Sure, I'm curious. But yes, I would absolutely make the case that someone yelling nasty things should not be punished. If the government punishes you simply for being mean, that's fascistic. But the fact that you say "social consequences" suggests you're perhaps talking about people not wanting to be friends with the person or something along those lines. And so of course I agree. But if by consequences you mean cancel culture or anything along those lines, I oppose it all.
4. I don't get to make those decisions, but I would be very disturbed if someone was fired simply for having certain views on a particular topic that are widely regarded as offensive. Whether that be saying ICE is Gestapo, Hamas are freedom fighters, transness is disgusting, Khamenei was a hero, or goyim don't have souls. One problem I see with your argument is that you seem to assume we can come to some kind of consensus about what statements are offensive when we can't even agree on matters of biological fact.
But my position is not absolutist. Far from it. I've never actually met a free speech absolutist. Most free speech advocates set multiple limits on speech: incitement, true threats, defamation, commercial speech can be regulated, and of course there are time, place, and manner restrictions. These limits are the same ones placed by U.S. law.
1. I'm American. I cherish the First Amendment. I was a monthly donor to FIRE (until I lost my job) - I love what you guys do. I also consider the Canceling of the American Mind a must read book. It changed my life. Cancel culture caused self-censorship which caused the normalization of hate. The problem is that we need a restricted version of cancel culture to stop that hate.
I'm *ONLY* talking about social consequences, not legal ones. We can thus ignore everything at the beginning of your response, and subsequent mentions regarding legality of speech. I'm fully aligned there. Free Speech means free from government censorship.
2. You don't have a counterfactual. Punishing hate speech against trans happened at the same time that trans demanded ever more rights that arguably violated others' rights. You can't say what caused the backlash. That doesn't mean I don't agree that fighting against bigotry can backfire. I think some are making that case against anti-antisemitism initiatives, though I think this is more because of the wrong tactics e.g. calling all legit criticism bigotry. That's why one of my principles is that we must focus on egregious examples, and my framework allows us to better assess the speakers intent or indifference to cause harm after giving them a chance to clarify their views.
3. What's the difference between social consequences and cancel culture and disassociation? Can you distinguish between those in a principled way?
4. Yes, I think most people would agree that supporting Islamic terrorism, or saying "black people are sub-human and should all be killed/segregated/deported" is disqualifying. I am certain that FIRE would not keep such an employee who openly espoused those views, and would not defend somebody who got fired for espousing them. But you tell me if I'm wrong on that. I agree that it's hard to draw that exact line, but I think there are egregious examples that are not up for debate, that virtually everyone would agree deserves disassociation. If we can at least agree on that, if we can at least make the most vile, hateful bigotry taboo again and unacceptable to express while being part of polite society, I think we can significantly improve our situation.
If you're curious, these are my 4 principles for restoring moral taboos:
1. The Red Line: Limit actionable taboos to overt bigotry, dehumanization, and the endorsement of violence.
2. The Consensus Test: Distinguish between subjective offense (which is partisan and open to individual interpretation) and a Shared Moral Violation (which reflects a broad, trans-tribal consensus and warrants consequence).
3. The Private Mechanism: Enforce standards through civil society (employers, associations), never government coercion.
4. The Open Door: The goal of consequence must be correction, not permanent destruction; always offer a path to redemption.
1. That's great to hear. Naturally, I feel the same way.
"Cancel culture caused self-censorship which caused the normalization of hate. The problem is that we need a restricted version of cancel culture to stop that hate."
This is giving "Real communism has never been tried." No thanks.
"I'm *ONLY* talking about social consequences, not legal ones."
Given that we live in a democratic republic where social values can be voted into law, good luck with holding that line, especially when so many people already very much want those values turned into law.
2. "Punishing hate speech against trans happened at the same time that trans demanded ever more rights that arguably violated others' rights."
I never said it was only one factor. But what I cited was quite obviously one factor.
"I think this is more because of the wrong tactics e.g. calling all legit criticism bigotry."
This is the problem I see in your argument. You think you can split those hairs. I can sure that you, as an individual, can. But the public?
3. "What's the difference between social consequences and cancel culture and disassociation? Can you distinguish between those in a principled way?"
Social consequences would be something like not being friends with someone whereas cancel culture involves seeking to get someone fired or some entity boycotted. If you're a racist, I don't want to be your friend. But that doesn't mean I think you should be fired and your kids should have to struggle. So the difference is quite simple to describe.
4. "I think there are egregious examples that are not up for debate, that virtually everyone would agree deserves disassociation."
I don't think you've thought this through because there really are no examples that are not up for debate. We live in a country where we cannot agree what is a woman. Or if Maduro was evil. Or Khamenei, Hamas, Mao, Lenin, Hitler. So no, any group trying to claim a sacred cow should not have that cow protected. Rather, it should be attacked. Anyone claiming you cannot say X or Y should immediately make you want to question why that opinion is off limits, and what they are trying to protect from scrutiny.
I prefer the marketplace of ideas.
"1. The Red Line: Limit actionable taboos to overt bigotry, dehumanization, and the endorsement of violence."
We already have laws against incitement. The rest of this is "hate speech" legislation and anti-free speech.
"2. The Consensus Test: Distinguish between subjective offense (which is partisan and open to individual interpretation) and a Shared Moral Violation (which reflects a broad, trans-tribal consensus and warrants consequence)."
Naive. See examples above.
"3. The Private Mechanism: Enforce standards through civil society (employers, associations), never government coercion."
This is cancel culture and antithetical to free speech.
"4. The Open Door: The goal of consequence must be correction, not permanent destruction; always offer a path to redemption."
So if I get fired for saying some Nazi stuff, the government is going to swoop in and give me a job? How does this work?
1. Respectfully, none of these are principled arguments. They are cliches, they are "slippery slope" arguments. This is how the world works and always has. I'm not advocating to codify anything into law, and we already have mechanisms to prevent that from happening (or self-correcting when necessary). I fully buy into the argument that 'we need to protect our free speech culture", and I can hold that thought while also believing that allowing the most vile bigotry to be shared without that person facing social consequences, making it appear as those are socially acceptable views, is a recipe for disaster.
2. You're right, you did cite the efforts to punish people for trans criticism as only one factor. Sorry to misread that. But we don't know if that was a decisive factor in any meaningful way. If trans folks just said "all we want is for people to say we shouldn't be killed for feeling different, we won't impose anything else on society that may violate your liberties" there may have essentially been no backlash at all.
And you're absolutely right to be concerned about whether the public can hold the line. I know that I'm particularly principled and non-partisan, but I do think that most people have a moral compass that already aligns to this. My survey is by no means representative but I do think it is a proof of concept that hints that there is a broad consensus here.
3. So social consequences become cancel culture when there's a coordinated effort to punish somebody, or when it affects their livelihood? What if I go on social media to announce "This [x store] employee just went on a tirade against a black customer calling them the n-word repeatedly with dehumanizing rhetoric. I'm never shopping there again." I didn't ask or encourage anybody to do the same. Is that cancel culture?
Or let's use another scenario: My boss is John and my colleague is Bill. Bill starts hanging out with white supremacists, and eventually joins the KKK. I stop being friendly with Bill. John (his boss) doesn't say or do anything differently though - their relationship is unchanged. John doesn't seem bothered by Bill's viewpoints, and refuses to condemn those views. I tell John, "hey, it seems like you're kinda cool with an employee here who espouses these views. I don't think I can stay working here, I feel unsafe especially given that my wife is black." Is that cancel culture for me to encourage John to draw a line of sorts?
In short, I don't think you have drawn a principled distinction here.
4. You seem to allow a small minority of radical voices to support your claim that "we can't all agree on everything." Some tiny % of people think the Earth is flat, but we don't tailor our society to them. And I believe it is a very small % of people that would argue with the consensus on what a woman is (whether a larger % claim this is up for debate to protect their social/tribal status is another matter, though certainly relevant).
My survey is far from conclusive, but it does signal that these are probably 80/20 issues at worst, in the most egregious scenarios. "If somebody explicitly endorses Hamas and their charter to kill all Israelis, would you no longer want them working at your company, would you no longer want them teaching your kids, would you no longer shop at a store that employed that person?" I think >80% of Americans would vote the same way on this question.
5. I welcome disagreements on my 4 principles but they should be disagreements that consider all of the principles in combination with each other. Principle 3 says specifically that we're only talking about the realm of social consequences, not legal ones, so your points re: Principles 1 & 2 & 4 are largely moot (though they could be revised to still be relevant). I'm not really sure what your point was re: #4, though I think you unintentionally raised a valid concern which is how these "social consequences" for the egregious taboo violations apply to government employees. You all obviously know more about the legality here, but it seems like there's plenty of leeway available to fire government employees for speech on a matter of public concern (The Pickering-Connick Test) or that disrupts the workplace.
6. I appreciate your engagement, and you make many very valid points. I just don't think many of them are principled, and I don't think they hold up to scrutiny. If one day I get to debate you or Greg or anybody else from FIRE, I think I will be able to very easily get you to concede the point that a FIRE employee espousing these most hateful views would not stay employed there, and I could probably get you to admit that you wouldn't defend somebody who lost their job for the same. And the reason I feel confident sharing that "gotcha" question with you in advance is that I don't think you can answer it in a way that doesn't expose a hole in your logic/principles, which I can then further expand out from in a way that you'll struggle to argue with. Of course, If I'm wrong, you're welcome to share that answer here.
I love what you're all doing and respect you so much, but I think digging in your heels to avoid acknowledging this obvious flaw in your absolutist worldviews is doing a disservice to your credibility and to the world. It feels like a simple effort to try to steelman my arguments would result in a very different conversation. I know your resistance comes from a good place, with good intent, so I'm not that mad or disappointed especially since some of you are at least engaging, but I am committed to proving that there's a very important perspective to consider here, and despite the risks, it is far better than the alternative destructive path that we're heading down which you all are unintentionally endorsing.
Another thought-provoking piece, David. This is nowhere near the same, but as a Japanese American born after WWII, my parents didn't want any of us to have Japanese first names. They wanted us to be as American as possible! All three of my siblings and I even had "Ls" in our names — a sound that doesn't exist in the Japanese language. (Names my grandmother couldn't pronounce.) As a kid I remember a grown white man calling me a "Jap." It scared me. To this day I still feel uncomfortable when I hear it in war movies, etc. It doesn't pack the punch of "Nigger," but I get it. If someone shouted "Jap," at an event, it would sure make me jump, but I'd understand if I learned the person had Tourette's syndrome.
Hope you are aware the “so say it” skit is not real. Does not seem like your engagement with
this extends beyond recognition of a overreaction to disability and what the brought with it. Tiring to hear this painted with such broad brushes as if every black american agrees with everyone about what the appropriate response would have been. Also as far as I understand, the question about the BBC choosing to leave it in is tied to them removing references to Palestine but leaving nigger in.
I never said or even remotely hinted this applies to “every black american” and in fact I explicitly made clear that is not what I meant.
forgive me for reducing your argument! do appreciate you amending the article re:lindo skit. could have sworn there was something about black americans enjoying the power that came with the use of the word?
All good. Thanks for flagging. Not sure about that last part but I have made a similar observation in comments.
I've had the experience of trying to get people to break the taboo. Most simply don't have it in them. It's often difficult to determine whether they are principled or dainty. https://humanraceman.substack.com/p/a-failed-race-experiment
The natural and healthy desire to avoid hurting people’s feelings is the main obstacle. It’s wonderful that humans have that impulse. It helps suppress actual racism. But clearly, it can go too far. Another obstacle is that black Americans across the political spectrum are unlikely to surrender the word’s discursive power.