"It's common now to mistake defending someone's right to say things, with agreeing with those things. If you don't support free speech for people who you disagree with, then you don't support free speech. And remember, it's your right not to listen and even say things back."
I get the sentiment, but everyone - even Ricky - agrees that hate speech doesn't count. This is where I have a problem with the people uttering "free speech" all the time. It's obvious that different groups of people have very different ideas about what hate speech means, and therefore what speech shouldn't be free. You can yell "free speech" all you want, it doesn't get at the crux of the dispute.
I pride myself on being able to speak conservativeese, so when I hear "homosexuality is evil", I don't think of it as hate speech. It looks to me like it's based in the same moral disgust sense that we all have being channeled by religious culture. If it weren't based in some fundamental moral sense it would have been dropped just like so many of the other passages found in their sacred text. This one stays alive because it is founded on some fundamental moral sense, and although religion steers that moral sense into homosexuality, this is no different from how other people get their purity feelings steered into other things.
Have you ever heard, "hate the litter, not the litterer?" Me neither, but if people who have had the purity moral sense steered toward environmentalism had to defend themselves against the accusation of being a hate group, I'm sure they would make that distinction. And they'd be right. There is the kind of person who gets perturbed by transgressions against the purity of nature, but labeling them a hate group and what they say hate speech seems like a basic failure to understand the other side.
Of course, both groups have lots of rationalizations for their moral feelings, and they think their rationalizations are totally justified and the other is not. But if both the evangelical and environmentalists did some self-reflection I think they'd both find that their beliefs stem from a moral impulse, not reasons. But we live in a world where the evangelical's moral impulse is quickly mapped to "hate for other people", and the environmentalist's moral impulse is seen accurately as hate for the act, not the person. And even though each of them can rationalize for their position with a set of pretty juvenile ideas, the environmentalist is understood as making sincere mistakes, whereas the evangelical is accused of rationalizing for some fundamental hatred for other people.
This is not to say that in reality, properly understood environmentalism is not superior to anti-homosexuality. I'm only saying that there is a such thing as environmentalist dogma, this dogma is based in moral feelings of purity, it identifies people who are sinning against the environment, and yet these people are not tracked at hate. Yet the same thing can be said of evangelicals who find homosexuality morally repugnant, and they are tracked as hate. This seems wrong to me.
Homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, etc. are particular kinds of alleged "hate", yet they seem to be the only ones that count, and they're suspiciously overcounted.
I can't tell to what extent this is the result of genuine lack of ability to intellectually empathize with other groups vs. deliberate strategy to ensure one point of view is the only one not "hateful" and therefore on the table. Probably some of both, but I'd put more stock in the former explanation. I think most people sincerely believe that their specific point of view is the only one that's not hateful, because they're unable to reflect on their views without feeling like they've betrayed their noble cause.
I'm not sure how to break the spell of someone who is committed to a paradigm like that. Talking about free speech isn't a way of doing that. But maybe that's not the point. Often getting at the crux of the dispute is more useful resolving the dispute than attracting a third-party audience to your side. It depends on what your goal is. It's kinda stupid to repeat "free speech" to someone who obviously doesn't agree with you on what free speech means, but it's a good rhetorical device for people who are still deciding which side they're going to be on.
Again, how much of this is sincere inability to intellectually empathize, and how much is deliberate strategy? I'd put more money on the former because whether you talk more about what free speech covers or what free speech doesn't cover, the inability to understand groups who you consider your enemy is near universal.
No comments:
Post a Comment