CharlesGate

ControversialOpinions
Nov 8 · 7 min read

Context: https://twitter.com/CHERdotdev/status/1192474301993230336

Replying to Cher: There is no doubt that all of the things you mentioned Chuck did can hurt someone’s feelings and can make someone feel uncomfortable or even can make someone feel abused. But I guess the core of my disagreement is two-fold:

1. This is far too subjective a definition to warrant punitive damage and is very dangerous if universalized. I think a thought experiment could help illuminate this concern.

2. I think any human being that values reason and logic should recognize the inherent value of being tolerant of opposing viewpoints even those you vehemently disagree with. Certainly there are limits to this tolerance, but a reasonable person’s default should be to tolerate, even if feelings are hurt, and emotional harm is caused. This isn’t always an easy balance to manage. I will try to elaborate on this dynamic and why I believe it has skewed in an unhealthy direction in the D&I movement.

Consider this thought experiment: Would you, given the opportunity, enshrine these examples of harm you listed as legal definitions warranting legal repercussions? The core of your criticism of Chuck appears to be “lifting up abusers / harassers.” So should just coming out and saying something in support of someone (not re-iterating what they said — just saying you support them or you don’t think they did anything wrong) be sufficient to warrant a fine, or jail time? Your other criticisms of centering himself and playing the victim afterwards seem less impactful, but the same question can be asked for them. Should centering oneself in any discussion, no matter how serious, or playing a victim be punishable legal offenses? (I understand that legal repercussions were not imposed on Chuck and that there is a difference between legal repercussions and this form of “accountability”, but please bear with me until the end of the argument where I hope to make a connection.)

If you say yes, that such offenses should be illegal, I urge you to consider how dangerous that kind of power would be in the wrong hands. I should say more regarding this, but I hope this is not your answer, so I will save us all the extra work!

If you say no, then hopefully you recognize the dangers of loosening our definitions of punishable offenses. I also urge you to consider the principal behind why the legal system errs on the side of objectivity for legal definitions of harassment and harm. Chuck’s behavior doesn’t come anywhere close to any legal definition. That some people would be offended and perceive harm or abuse is not sufficient. And while I understand that different environments don’t necessarily follow the same set of rules (like work environments may have their own policy enforcement) it’s the principal at work behind why the law strives for objective definitions that’s important. My point is that if you recognize that the law should strive for objectivity and limits on punishing speech, then you at least intuit the principal of why these are important.

There is a long history in American law of attempting to limit free speech due to perceived harm. Hell, Donald Trump has said he wants to expand libel laws. But the legal system has fortunately, generally erred on the side of NOT limiting speech. The conditions under which speech becomes legal harassment or harm are not easily met, and this is an important feature of our legal system. This is because the spirit of American law understands that the more you legislate against and punish speech the more you invite disaster. Certain exceptions are made; such as for hate speech legislation. But, imagine presenting the argument to a court that we should extend hate speech legislation to include anyone that has expressed any kind of support of people indicted for hate speech. I would hope this suggestion would be struck down without hesitation, and that you agree this would be egregious.

So again, while I understand that work environments will have a different set of rules, the principal that limiting speech is inherently dangerous still plays. For every expansion of limits on speech that a company or community allows, this leads to the increasing threat of cooling of discussion/disagreement (legitimate or otherwise), it leads to people choosing to self-censor for fear of reprisal, and worst of all, it leads to self-perpetuating, cancerous ideological bubbles. I’m not calling D&I specifically cancerous; I mean ALL ideological bubbles, by human nature, given enough time become cancerous. The more a person or organization insulates itself from criticism by policing speech, the more danger and risk they invite. This is the wisdom that the founders of our legal system perceived. For all their other faults, from my perspective, this principal is unimpeachable.

And this is the core of the issue: Charles clearly disagrees with aspects of your movement. He disagrees with your definition of racism. He disagrees about how John was characterized. He disagrees with the aggressiveness of the activism. He disagrees with the tone. He disagrees about what constitutes legitimate, objective harm. He has not, according to any reasonable definition, harassed anyone.

The core reason then that he is feeling blowback is because he disagreed, I see no better way to characterize it. Yes that disagreement can offend people. Yes it can worsen people’s depression. Yes it can trigger people’s anxiety and PTSD. Yes it can be argued to perpetuate systems deemed problematic. But I hope you can at least consider in good faith my perspective where one can reasonably believe that these harms are NOT ENOUGH to warrant discouraging civil disagreement through punitive measures. Which leads to an important point that I hope closes the loop with the legal argument; that punitive measures are punitive measures. Whether implemented by the legal system or not. The D&I movement should know full well the cost of de-facto policy. It doesn’t need to be explicitly enshrined to do damage. So my concern is that this policy of “holding people accountable” for nothing more than disagreement by advocating for economic and reputational harm is very, very dangerous.

My final point, and maybe the more salient one, is that ALL humans are fallible. I believe any reasonable person should have a voice inside their head constantly whispering to them “maybe I’m wrong.” What’s even more is that human nature dictates that whenever a person thinks “I’m probably right” and feels righteous, is when they are the most susceptible to being wrong, and when they are most dangerous. This is a universalizable constant, it applies to all perspectives, mine included. And this is the essence behind why being tolerant of opposing viewpoints and resisting the urge to police opposing speech is so sacrosanct. The policy of tolerance and freedom of expression is our ONLY bulwark against the worst demons that reside within all of us.

By acknowledging that we may be wrong and our policies about how to govern and interact with each other could be ill conceived, we invite others to challenge us, to disagree with us, and to yell bloody murder when they feel they’ve been treated unjustly.

Please consider the possibility that Kim Crayton, you and others are wrong. That your activism has led to the unfair treatment, with real economic and reputational harm for another human being. You may argue that Charles’ actions can also be said to cause harm, so my prescription of “consider the possibility of being wrong” is unhelpful because it doesn’t tell us which side is right and whom we should support. But this would be missing the point. My prescription is not meant to dissuade anyone from arguing either position. It’s not an argument for why my perspective or Charles’ is right. Maybe Charles is wrong and he really is causing harm. My prescription is meant to be a warning about the dangers of what Kim calls “accountability.”

Consider that your approach DISINVITES disagreement. Because to disagree has consequences, you will be held “accountable” for disagreement deemed harmful. Charles surely did not disinvite disagreement. Not even John disinvited disagreement. He certainly made it unpleasant to disagree with him directly, but I don’t believe he ever advocated for a policy of silencing those that disagree with him through organized activism and economic/reputational harm. (I could certainly be wrong on this and will take it back given contrary evidence.) By disinviting disagreement through this type of activism, you are hamstringing the most important defense we have against our own fallibility. If it continues, you are guaranteeing that there will be collateral damage. Innocent people that don’t deserve it will come under fire by the movement and will suffer, this is a certainty. And while I understand that collateral damage may be inevitable in any meaningful activism, to expressly discourage dissent as the D&I movement appears to be doing with so much of their language and behavior, you raise the stakes significantly.

As it stands, I perceive a frightening irony. The D&I movement often invokes the Paradox of Tolerance. The core of this paradox I believe can best be described by this quote from wikipedia:

“it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who… if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree.”

The irony is that looking at the current state of affairs in these particular conflicts it’s hard not to conclude that those that disinvite disagreement and try to silence opposing viewpoints through organized activism are the ones better characterized by that quote.

Lastly, I just want to make clear I am 100% all in with diversity and inclusion in principal. I do not believe the status quo is good enough, I do believe we can do better. But there is a vast difference between a principal and the way that principal is being advocated for, often times the two are incongruous. I fear you are throwing the baby out with the bath water trying to get there.

    ControversialOpinions

    Written by

    Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
    Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
    Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade