Don’t de-stigmatize censorship
I look forward to the second installment of your essay. I didn’t really find this to be objectionable in any major way. I do have one or two concerns.
everyone who was (rightfully) appalled by his suggestion clearly recognizes not only that harmful behaviors (such as statutory rape) should be stigmatized and sanctioned, but also that attempts to de-stigmatize and normalize harmful behaviors (as Yiannopoulos’s comments seemed to do for statutory rape) should also be stigmatized and sanctioned (i.e., we should not tolerate them).
It’s easy to condemn such statements as those made by Yiannopolos when they are so blatantly upsetting to the majority of people. Everyone is morally indignant to the idea of statutory rape. This condemning of normalization is, mind you, a big grey area. It would be dishonest of you to erect Yiannopolos’ above mentioned comments as the only kind of case where someone appears to be “normalizing” what are considered harmful behaviors.
For example, your own situation. To most people, the idea of being transgender is objectionable or they consider it abnormal for their own reasons. You have put a lot of effort into “normalizing” what many consider to be harmful behavior. Many things that have been deemed harmful in the past are now widely accepted. If we take your view of censuring speech because it normalizes things we don’t like, how do you expect to it work in your favor and not against you? It’s already working against you.
Who is to decide what is good and what is bad? Again, everyone hates statutory rape, but there are many issues where public opinion is split fifty-fifty. There are many things you would say are hurtful that large numbers of people would not. You would not assert that a minority group be allowed to decide what speech is harmful, would you, because in your example of Milo Yiannopolos it is the majority making that decision. However, you want protections, because you are a minority person.
By the same logic, one could argue that Milo, as some kind of representative for man-boy love, was unjustly censured because people like him are a minority group with little power (as proponents of man-boy love). But if we agree that he should be deplatformed for this view, because the majority is adverse to it, then we could easily justify deplatforming trans activists for the same reason. So what I’m saying is that your example doesn’t make for a great argument. You want consequences for harmful speech, but you only imagine yourself as the one deciding what’s harmful.
If you support deplatforming views you don’t like, that may as well become the universal method of dealing with people, and so mob veto will strike at anything remotely controversial. This is not the mark of an open minded society. Everything should be up for debate, even morality. Because if it weren’t, you would have no rights. You have rights precisely because “harmful” speech was protected.
I recognize that you are not advocating the outlawing of hate speech (unless I missed that), but even to play with the weapon of censorship puts you in a dangerous position. Your opinions won’t always prevail. I’d rather live in a world where people choose not to engage in selective censorship, even when they think they are doing it for the right reasons. I’d rather live in a world where any idea can be communicated, and we don’t fear the consequences of language, because we are confident enough in our use of it that we may combat any issue with dialectic, not emotional outrage. I don’t want to live in a world with a censorship machine that stops people from communicating and makes them resent each other.
Instead of advocating for negative reinforcement policies that sew resentment and can be weaponized, I advocate for the adoption of principles that would make people turn away from violence and open themselves up to alternative perspectives. If we can’t be mature enough to do that, what are we doing here?
