This is the point at which you get to fuck off Honey

To truly protect freedom of speech – a fundamental necessity for meaningful democratic life – we must be alert to how it can become weaponised in ideologically coercive ways. Free speech can become a Trojan horse to
gain space and attention for retrograde ideas that do not really merit debate. Pretending that all ideas must always be treated as equally valid and worthy of discussion in the idealised “marketplace of ideas” allows discredited ones – such as race science – to be covertly rehabilitated.

All too frequently, the gleeful caricature of students as “woke snowflakes” distracts from the fact that fomented free-speech controversies hinge almost exclusively on the right to express discriminatory, hateful or discredited viewpoints that explicitly target racial and sexual minorities.

Yes, this is what free speech means. Peeps get to stand up and say whatever comes into their heads, however stupid, hateful or against your prejudices those things may be.

The two exceptions are libel and the incitement to immediate violence. This last means that it is legal – and part of free speech – to argue for the elimination of the bourgeoisie as a class as the basis of economic and social policy. It is not legal to stand up and argue that we should burn the niggers in the quad right now. That word “immediate” carries a substantial amount of weight there.

And that’s what free speech means. Yea, even to the point that I am indeed allowed to use that naughty word there. And also I have the duty to put up with whatever storms of outrage come my way as a result of my having used it. Just as those advocating the elimination have to put up with arguments back from bourgeois suggesting that perhaps they’re not all that happy with the idea.

29 thoughts on “This is the point at which you get to fuck off Honey”

  1. Pretending that all ideas must always be treated as equally valid and worthy of discussion in the idealised “marketplace of ideas” allows discredited ones – such as race science – to be covertly rehabilitated.

    I’m confused: are all cultures to be treated as equally valid and worthy of respect, or was that last week’s position?

  2. “Discredited ideas”. Racial differences in IQ is one of the most replicated findings in neuroscience, yet would be one of these “discredited” things.

    Basically this is the standard “Free Speech only for approved things” Guardian article.

  3. Until the proponents of limiting free speech identify a category for banishment of which they themselves approve, they are seeking to constrain their enemies which is intellectually feeble.

  4. As J S Mill observed:
    “…the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.”

  5. the idea that creatures like Gopal can decide what is acceptable speech for English people in England is an abomination. Deportation when?

  6. It seems to me that the author has been told that race theory is evil, without being told why.
    This is akin to religion, not reason.

  7. Broke: the Magna Carta, the Chartists and John Locke

    Woke: hideous hickory-hued hobgoblins from the cow herder class lecturing you about how your freedoms end where their hatred of white people begins

  8. “Yea, even to the point that I am indeed allowed to use that naughty word there.”

    Meh, you use “fuck” all the time, Tim….

  9. Priyamvada Gopal is an academic and the author of Insurgent Empire: Anticolonial Resistance and British Dissent. Gavan Titley is associate professor in media studies at Maynooth University. His most recent book is Is Free Speech Racist?

    Ha ha ha ha ha.
    And the article doesn’t allow comments…

  10. ‘The amendments explicitly removed “welfare” considerations that sought to protect vulnerable groups from hostility and hate’

    ‘racial hostility, xenophobia or anti-transgender sentiments’

    Because, you see, those groups are incapable of taking care of themselves because they are inferior, hence need the Left’s protection. The Left’s cries for protection are an assertion of inferiority.

    BWTM: how fvcked up must you be to need the protection of Priyamvada Gopal?

  11. To be honest, both Gopal and that economist who writes slogans on her tits have truly turned the University of Cambridge into a laughing stock.

    As a measure of how much I value free speech, I would even defend Gopal’s right to say stupid, offensive things. I just wish she would appreciate that other people’s rights to be wrong are as valid as hers is.

  12. In the Article, Gopal refers to “troubled Canadian self-help guru Jordan Peterson”.

    He’s troubled all right, because he has a serious illness. That’s a low blow. And although I am no fan of his, he’s probably a good deal more important than a “self-help guru”. And a good deal more erudite and useful than Gopal herself.

    It’s obvious why the Guardian doesn’t allow comments any more.

  13. He’s troubled all right, because he has a serious illness

    Benzo withdrawal symptoms are no joke, they’re more moreish than crack.

  14. @Sam Vara – she is no doubt jealous that another academic is rich and famous, while – despite her frequent attempts to attract attention with shrieking and racism – no-one really knows or cares who she is. I would love to see her try to debate Peterson.

  15. Jeez – reading the article in more detail it’s completely clear that the author cannot possibly have read the supporting statements for the amendments.

    It’s just shouty lefty boilerplate.

  16. re: UC Berkeley Sticks by Bill Maher After Students ‘Disinvite’ Commencement Speaker

    [quote]
    Defenders of provocative, even incendiary, speakers say that divergent viewpoints are a staple of higher education, and that, further, it is virtually impossible to find interesting speakers who come controversy-free. Critics argue that a commencement speech is a monologue with no opportunity afforded for a free exchange of ideas, and that a university confers a special honor on a speaker whom it asks to deliver its commencement address.
    [end quote]

    A debate is free speech. A monologue is not.

    As an aside, I often see posts on Reddit where someone has said something that is easily falsifiable. However, when I look, I see thousands of comments, so I don’t bother commenting. It’s not enough to have free speech, you also have to be heard, and you can’t be, if your comment is lost in a sea of comments. That sort of free speech isn’t worth anything.

  17. Rob: ““Discredited ideas”. Racial differences in IQ is one of the most replicated findings in neuroscience, yet would be one of these “discredited” things.””

    Well yes.. Because every boffin worth his salt also recognises the other replicable fact about that statistic: that the variance in individual IQ is so large that the difference in averages is statistically insignificant in and of itself.

    It’s not just Guardianistas who demonstrably have issues with numbers and their relevance..

  18. Gamecock,

    My comment which you quoted is in the context of commencement speeches. Here it is again, in case you missed it.

    “Critics argue that a commencement speech is a monologue with no opportunity afforded for a free exchange of ideas”

  19. Still doesn’t mean a commencement speech isn’t free speech, phoenix_risng, just means that, in those circumstances, others don’t get the opportunity to immediately comment on the opinions freely expressed in the monologue. They can do so later using various platforms should they wish, but it is not a necessary requirement for speech to be free that others comment on it.

  20. Christ on a pogo stick, I had to memorize this in history class when I was 12 years old

    ” If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought. Not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
    … Justice Holmes in US v Schwimmer (or maybe Shwimmer)

  21. “Because every boffin worth his salt also recognises the other replicable fact about that statistic: that the variance in individual IQ is so large that the difference in averages is statistically insignificant in and of itself.”

    That’s just a variation on the theme of Lewontin’s fallacy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *