Read on Twitter
This is a very smart piece. https://twitter.com/epicciuto/status/1280976010666749953
This point in particular.
Fake free-speechers say they want to let ideas rise and fall in the intellectual marketplace, but what they object to is specifically are their ideas getting rejected.
Fake free-speechers say they want to let ideas rise and fall in the intellectual marketplace, but what they object to is specifically are their ideas getting rejected.
Ideas fail. What that looks like is, people generally stop entertaining them.
It's not stifling them. It's not a failure to understand them. It's not a refusal to hear or understand them.
They've been heard and understood, and rejected.
It's not stifling them. It's not a failure to understand them. It's not a refusal to hear or understand them.
They've been heard and understood, and rejected.
Nor does it mean those holding such ideas have been "silenced."
Even a casual observer must conclude that people promoting toxic ideas in the last couple centuries are among the most flagrantly heard people in human history.
Even a casual observer must conclude that people promoting toxic ideas in the last couple centuries are among the most flagrantly heard people in human history.
The ideas of the politics of exclusion have been given an extravagant hearing in the intellectual marketplace. They've been considered & practiced & tested at length.
They've been a disastrous failure.
People rejecting them aren't anti-intellectual. They're paying attention.
They've been a disastrous failure.
People rejecting them aren't anti-intellectual. They're paying attention.
Do we need to go on debating phrenology? The flat earth? The divine right of kings? Race science? Vaccinations? White supremacy?
All of those were once popular ideas. Some are still current. Others people are trying to revive.
A waste of our time.
All of those were once popular ideas. Some are still current. Others people are trying to revive.
A waste of our time.
What I'd say distinguishes a new good idea is, the person who holds it is willing to hold it despite public opprobrium, which they know they will face. It keeps rising despite opposition.
And then the idea wins, not because it was protected, but because it was right.
And then the idea wins, not because it was protected, but because it was right.
The idea that antiracist theory is overly-protected and not subject to critique/pushback is laughable.
The concept isn't new. It predates Frederick Douglass. Its proponents were hated and killed. Those promoting the theory persisted.
They're winning. It looks like this.
Good.
The concept isn't new. It predates Frederick Douglass. Its proponents were hated and killed. Those promoting the theory persisted.
They're winning. It looks like this.
Good.
The idea that gender theory is overly-protected and not subject to critique is laughable.
The concepts aren't new. Their proponents were hated and reviled and exiled. Those insisting on the evidence of their experience persisted.
They're winning. It looks like this.
Good.
The concepts aren't new. Their proponents were hated and reviled and exiled. Those insisting on the evidence of their experience persisted.
They're winning. It looks like this.
Good.
Compare this to people holding notions that were once safe and uncontroversial, but proved toxic or false or lazy, who want those ideas to remain protected, for them to express without risking even a modicum of the rejection these better ideas have had to overcome.
Nah.
Nah.
