I was curious about Laura Ingraham. I've never watched her. So I went looking and came across this video:
I found myself somewhat surprised. I was in agreement with a significant part of her message: free speech and open debate are indeed at risk in our country. But she makes several errors as she spoke:
1) She attributed all of this to the left. Every example she gave of "constraining free speech" was an example from the left, but she completely ignores all of the parallel examples from the right. The left is not targeting the right; the two sides are targeting each other. The concept of "loyal opposition" is lost. So the left wants to see gun control enacted - that makes them "anti-constitution" and "unamerican." The left does the same thing in the opposite direction. The left does get more opportunity to do it, because they dominate colleges and universities and they are simply greater in number. But the problem is a bilateral one: intolerance for opposing points of view. As I have noted before, I am regularly (about 50% of the time) barred from conservative groups and websites for voicing and opposing point of view. I have never been barred from a liberal one for doing the same thing.
2) Boycotts are wrong! Horse hockey. Boycotts have existed as long as there has been commerce, and provides a mechanism for people saying "we're not going to support your business if you espouse views we find unacceptable." The entire attempt of the right to defund planned parenthood is a form of boycott: they don't want their tax dollars going to support something they find unacceptable. The lesson for businesses is either a) don't be politically vocal if you are the face/voice of a business, or b) if you are going to be vocal, be prepared to have your market limited to those who concur with you. Boycotts are a form of vote - a mechanism for trying to drive the marketplace in a particular direction. If you don't like the direction it is being driven, then invest in or buy from those companies that reflect your values.
3) She keeps using the term "free speech" in the context of the constitution and her first amendment rights. The 1st amendment does not protect your free speech from my "shouting you down." That is not a violation of the 1st amendment. The first amendment protects your free speech from the government prohibiting your expression of it. So you cannot be shut down, incarcerated, or otherwise silenced by the government for something you say. Because we have that amendment, the concept of free speech has permeated our society, and we Americans tend to (or at least we used to tend to) value letting people say what they believe. Here I agree with Ms. Ingraham - the inability for the modern generations to listen to points of view they do not agree with is concerning. "Free speech" is an easy thing to adhere to when the speech is what you agree with - it is really tested when it is not. So what do we do with the man/woman who wants to stand up and show how he has proven that blacks are inferior? Do we shout him down? Prevent him from talking. "Not on my campus?" I think that is a mistake. What it does is give the person with such an odious point of view exactly what he/she wants: attention and conflict. After all - negative publicity is still publicity, and will probably sell things. Ask Trump. He has mastered this science. So what to do? If I were in college today, my response to such things would be to organize a "silent protest." Get as many tickets as possible to the venue, show up, occupy the seat, and listen silently. If the speech becomes obviously something that you feel will provide no value and will just get your blood boiling, pop in some earbuds and listen to some good music or an eBook. But if you can, listen to the entire thing. Knowing what kinds of odious things are being said/proposed prepares us to fight them in the marketplace. When the speech is over, ask no questions, and be the last to leave. What have you accomplished? You've denied the speaker their audience, the attention they seek, and reduced the size of the audience that might actually walk away somewhat poisoned by the odious view. In the process - you might actually learn something.
Of course, that could just be "carpesplaining"
I found myself somewhat surprised. I was in agreement with a significant part of her message: free speech and open debate are indeed at risk in our country. But she makes several errors as she spoke:
1) She attributed all of this to the left. Every example she gave of "constraining free speech" was an example from the left, but she completely ignores all of the parallel examples from the right. The left is not targeting the right; the two sides are targeting each other. The concept of "loyal opposition" is lost. So the left wants to see gun control enacted - that makes them "anti-constitution" and "unamerican." The left does the same thing in the opposite direction. The left does get more opportunity to do it, because they dominate colleges and universities and they are simply greater in number. But the problem is a bilateral one: intolerance for opposing points of view. As I have noted before, I am regularly (about 50% of the time) barred from conservative groups and websites for voicing and opposing point of view. I have never been barred from a liberal one for doing the same thing.
2) Boycotts are wrong! Horse hockey. Boycotts have existed as long as there has been commerce, and provides a mechanism for people saying "we're not going to support your business if you espouse views we find unacceptable." The entire attempt of the right to defund planned parenthood is a form of boycott: they don't want their tax dollars going to support something they find unacceptable. The lesson for businesses is either a) don't be politically vocal if you are the face/voice of a business, or b) if you are going to be vocal, be prepared to have your market limited to those who concur with you. Boycotts are a form of vote - a mechanism for trying to drive the marketplace in a particular direction. If you don't like the direction it is being driven, then invest in or buy from those companies that reflect your values.
3) She keeps using the term "free speech" in the context of the constitution and her first amendment rights. The 1st amendment does not protect your free speech from my "shouting you down." That is not a violation of the 1st amendment. The first amendment protects your free speech from the government prohibiting your expression of it. So you cannot be shut down, incarcerated, or otherwise silenced by the government for something you say. Because we have that amendment, the concept of free speech has permeated our society, and we Americans tend to (or at least we used to tend to) value letting people say what they believe. Here I agree with Ms. Ingraham - the inability for the modern generations to listen to points of view they do not agree with is concerning. "Free speech" is an easy thing to adhere to when the speech is what you agree with - it is really tested when it is not. So what do we do with the man/woman who wants to stand up and show how he has proven that blacks are inferior? Do we shout him down? Prevent him from talking. "Not on my campus?" I think that is a mistake. What it does is give the person with such an odious point of view exactly what he/she wants: attention and conflict. After all - negative publicity is still publicity, and will probably sell things. Ask Trump. He has mastered this science. So what to do? If I were in college today, my response to such things would be to organize a "silent protest." Get as many tickets as possible to the venue, show up, occupy the seat, and listen silently. If the speech becomes obviously something that you feel will provide no value and will just get your blood boiling, pop in some earbuds and listen to some good music or an eBook. But if you can, listen to the entire thing. Knowing what kinds of odious things are being said/proposed prepares us to fight them in the marketplace. When the speech is over, ask no questions, and be the last to leave. What have you accomplished? You've denied the speaker their audience, the attention they seek, and reduced the size of the audience that might actually walk away somewhat poisoned by the odious view. In the process - you might actually learn something.
Of course, that could just be "carpesplaining"
Comment