Michael Roberts #410: I hadn't been planning to return to the thread (having actual work to do that I've been neglecting because of all this madness), but I'm glad I did and got to see your reassuring comment. By the way, I sent an e-mail to what I hope is your address (at Vivtek); did you get it?
Woops, didn't see your latest before I posted that! Please deduct 50% of the snark and 90% of the hostility. I take your concerns seriously, really I do. But I don't like being misinterpreted.
Michael Roberts #281: I did not say it is "obligation to couch [my] rhetoric in whatever inflammatory style suits [me] at the moment," and for you to phrase it that way shows (as far as I am concerned) ill will on your part that belies your claims to the contrary. I said, and meant, "I absolutely feel it is both my right and my obligation to speak my mind in whatever way seems fit to me at the moment." Do you really think that translates to "I want to be inflammatory"? Really? Surely "I speak as I please" is the basic statement of free speech. I would have thought it was apparent from everything I've said here that I try to be civil to people (and expect them to give me the same courtesy); if I feel I've been attacked, I will respond in kind, but since you are exactly the same, I don't think you have much standing to complain about it. In any event, it should be obvious that it is impossible to foretell the effects one's words will have on everyone who might hear them, and that if one worries too much about that, one will say nothing but platitudes, so one might as well speak freely -- which does not mean "deliberately offensively" -- and apologize to anyone who has been offended afterwards.
I mean, shit, you've offended me with some of the things you've said; why aren't you turning your blunderbuss on yourself? Could it be because you're sublimely convinced that you're on the side of All That Is Right and Good, and therefore anything you say is ipso facto good? You want to watch that kind of thinking.
If language hat doesn't intend to have an intimidating effect, then all I can say is "ur doin it rong."
Really? You think my contributions to this discussion are intimidating? Really?
Michael Roberts #277:
Returning to the attack? What happened to the Hand of Reconciliation? At any rate, I entirely disagree with this:
The attacker's intentions are irrelevant to the question of whether an utterance is verbal abuse or not. The only meaning an utterance has in real-world spoken language is the meaning the listener understands it to have .... When the target's understanding of the utterance is that it was intended to do harm and is hostile, that's the relevant real-world meaning. In both cases, the target may have misunderstood, but it's the target's perception that matters.
It's precisely that kind of attitude that leads directly to censorship. "I felt attacked by what you said, and I don't care how you meant it, you must be silenced!" No. People's feelings are not the court of final appeal, and if you're going to live in this world, you take the risk of having your feelings hurt.
Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little #264:
I have no idea whether I am one of those people, because at this point I can't confidently assume I know what you mean here. After the way you've been rephrasing people throughout this discussion, for all I know, you might include in the set of "people who... believe that free speech should be restricted to avoid people having to deal with emotional abuse" people who object to misogynist jokes in the work place, drivers yelling sexually charged slurs at random women walking by, and comments left at blogs expressing the wish that the [female] blogger would get raped.
(I know I'm focusing on feminist issues here, which is only one slice of the spectrum of hurtful, threatening, hostile speech-control speech. It's the slice I am personally familiar with and have had to put up with since the first time I entered the public sphere without a parent holding my hand.)
So, I don't know. Am I "one of those people"?
No, as far as I can tell, you're not, and I repeat that I've found ML to be full of thoughtful and interesting commenters. But surely you're familiar with the attitude I'm talking about, the "you mustn't say such things because somebody's feelings might be hurt"? I certainly don't mean "people who object to misogynist jokes in the work place, drivers yelling sexually charged slurs at random women walking by, and comments left at blogs expressing the wish that the [female] blogger would get raped" -- as I've said, feminist issues are important to me, and I've objected to such things myself when I've had the chance (and was one of the people loudly calling for a "sexism" flag at MetaFilter to call the mods' attention to such comments).
But as someone whose heroes include such humorists as Lenny Bruce and George Carlin, and who used to enjoy Howard Stern back when he was funny, I am very sensitive to any hint of the kind of attitude that led to attempts to suppress such humor. To me, the difference between vulgar, offensive humor and vulgar, offensive behavior to women on the street is clear. I appreciate that lots of people don't agree and think the former contributes to the latter, and obviously the debate on that will go on for a long time, but I will always come down on the anti-censorship side. I'm happy to debate, as long as the person I'm debating with is willing to grant me the benefit of the doubt and accept that I can be a decent person, even a feminist, and hold the views I hold. Alas, it is all to common for Defenders of the Good and Decent to make the lazy assumption that anyone who differs supports the oppression of women (and probably longs for the return of patriarchy and slavery), so I can be a little touchy and reluctant to engage, as has been apparent here.
don delny #260: Don't worry about it -- my blog is Languagehat, I'm either languagehat or language hat depending on where I am, it's all too confusing to bother with. Just don't call me late for dinner.
Speaking of which: goody, more chocolate!
Also: Leah, don't miss the chocolates Xopher is handing out!
As a for instance, Language Hat above mentioned living outside of the U.S., and consequently, I have a hunch that "requiring polite speech in public spaces" might mean something quite different in LH's milieu.
I should clarify: although I grew up abroad (Foreign Service brat: Tokyo, Bangkok, Tokyo again, Buenos Aires), I have mostly lived in the U.S. since college (Los Angeles, New Haven, New York, currently western Massachusetts). And while I object to many things about life in the U.S. these days, and to its government pretty much in its entirety, I take tremendous pride in the First Amendment.
Leah Miller #248:
Thanks very much for your elaboration (which was certainly not preempted by Caroline, because nobody can speak for you but you). I obviously misread you, and I apologize. When I wrote:
as soon as I read "emotional abuse IS as valid a tool as a punch in the face" I knew I was dealing with a person I could not have a meaningful dialog with
...I was thinking of a million exchanges I've had with people who say that and concomitantly believe that free speech should be restricted to avoid people having to deal with emotional abuse. I shouldn't have assumed you were one of those people, and this is one of those occasions when I'm glad to be proven wrong, because it forces me to keep my mind open a little wider, always a good thing.
It seems to be true that "The argument between us is, quite simply, whether or not having stronger moderation on a site makes the speech on that particular site less valuable, or less free," and I'm not even sure we disagree, or disagree all that much. As I said above, I'm in favor of the kind of moderation that keeps trolls and nasties from dominating and destroying the conversation, and that's the kind of moderation I practice on my site. (Happily, language is not a topic that attracts many nasties--kooks, yes--so I don't have to do much deleting/banning.) Moderation is inherently a slippery slope, but it seems that although we might place the STOP sign at different places, we agree in principle.
Here's the Hand of Reconciliation, if you don't mind I've just been using it upthread...
Michael Roberts #241: Don't worry, I don't feel you're being antagonistic in the slightest. (But then, chocolate makes me all mellow.) But I disagree strongly with your implication that everyone must censor themselves to protect those whose feelings might be hurt. (Yes, I realize you wouldn't put it that way, but that's how I perceive it.) As I said above, there should be protected spaces for those who feel they need them, but I absolutely feel it is both my right and my obligation to speak my mind in whatever way seems fit to me at the moment and, if necessary, apologize later if someone was offended -- something I do whenever it seems called for. (As a matter of fact, I got mildly taken to task for this over at MetaFilter: Man, why'd you apologize (http://www.metafilter.com/72928/Boing-Boing-Finds-21st-Century-Trotsky#2167175) to jscalzi? You were in the right, he was (whatever his reasons, loyalty or what-not) a complete dick. I responded that I'd been a dick too, and in any event I'd rather apologize and stay on friendly terms with someone than have an Internet Enemy, which gets exhausting.)
Don't worry, I don't expect you to agree, but them's my views and I'm holding to them.
Paula: Thanks for pointing me to Mernissi's Scheherazade Goes West; it sounds great, and I just added it to my wish list.
Kate #230: Thanks again for your kind and civil response. We don't actually disagree at all, as far as I can see.
But some people won't feel free to speak in that environment. They will silence themselves or be silenced by the ridicule or abuse enforced upon them by others in the community. To say that they have a choice not to speak and no one is taking their freedom away from them is to ignore that there are systems of privilege and disenfranchisement within which we are all socialized and learn to interact. Which is why totally free speech should absolutely be protected, but is not always (or even often) the most useful way of getting as many voices as possible into a productive conversation.
I agree, and in fact I think I said something like this above (though damned if I'm going to go search for it). But, possibly because I grew up mainly abroad, I've never shared the common American delusion that we can Have It All. Everything in life comes with a tradeoff; one tradeoff for free speech is that some will feel silenced because they perceive the environment as too harsh for them. That's a damned shame. (Another tradeoff is that people with very bad speech indeed, like Nazis and other racists, get to be heard publicly. That's more than a shame, but like the ACLU, I grit my teeth and accept it, because that's what free speech means. If speech isn't free for my enemies, it's not free.)
Fortunately, those who feel uncomfortable in unprotected enviroments can create protected ones, and I'm all for that. (Which is why, though I've gone back and forth on this difficult issue, I'm in favor of the existence of women's colleges, not that anyone asked.) But the public space must be free.
Leah Miller #217:
Hadn't seen your latest when I posted (as you can imagine, that post took a while). All I can say is, I do think you're touchy, but I don't think that's an insult. If you take it as one, I apologize for causing offense, but I say what I believe. I did not, and do not, mean to attack you.
Michael Roberts #191:
Me @ 188 - well, that response was full of fail. I now see what language hat is talking about. Of course, he does acknowledge in that very post that he intended that as a blunderbuss.
Very much appreciated, and as I did with Scalzi on MetaFilter, where we had a similar exchange, I extend the hand of reconciliation. We seem to be somewhat similar people, which often results in difficulties (see: me and my brothers). Thanks, and there will be no more blunderbussery from me.
Kate #200:
language hat @ 178
At the risk of setting more sparks to tinder, I'd like to point out something that's been making me twitchy about the tone in this comment...
In response to what read to me and others as a clear, well-written and, yes, impassioned (which oddly enough feels like a criticism in your quote), argument, some of your words seem to be recalling the old trope of the hysterical female. I sincerely doubt this was your intention, but in a thread with a great deal of discussion of tone and intent, I thought it important to point out.
First off, thanks for your assumption that such was not my intention; that's both generous and accurate. In fact, the worry about the kind of reading you tentatively gave it is precisely the reason I didn't want to get into it in the first place. These are thorny issues, and presumptions are easily made, especially when you don't know the other person.
I'm in something of a bind here, because I'm pretty much an unknown quantity except to a few who know me from my blog and/or MeFi. If we were on MetaFilter I'd have a reasonable expectation that my interlocutors would be aware of my six-year history of being a strong and consistent feminist voice on the site, and if they weren't it would be fair for me to say "look through my comment history if you don't believe me." But I can't do that here, and obviously just saying "but I hate sexism and have been a vocal feminist for decades and I know all the issues!" just comes across as whining. So all I can say is: some people, male and female both, are in fact touchy, sensitive, and verbose; in the sexist culture we inhabit, females are unfairly stuck with those characterizations whether they deserve them or not, whereas men are either given a pass or lumped in with women and mocked; and that makes it difficult to address the issue of a woman being touchy, which is why I didn't want to get into it. I knew that if I said anything like that I'd get the "hysterical" accusation. And I don't even blame those who make it; I understand the problem and why they would react that way, which is why I didn't want to get into it. But since I was called on it, I had to say what I thought.
Look, as soon as I read "emotional abuse IS as valid a tool as a punch in the face" I knew I was dealing with a person I could not have a meaningful dialog with. This is not an insult, I am not putting myself on a higher plane, I am just saying her ideas and mine are irreconcilable. I've known, online and off, plenty of people with that attitude, and of course it leads to conclusions like Leah's:
To me this is a corruption of the idea of free speech. I think a society where you’re allowed to pants or spit on anyone you see with no repercussions is a corruption of the idea of a free society. To tout such places are MORE free than places where any opinion can be stated as long as it is stated civilly is, in my eyes, a fundamentally flawed argument.
I understand why she thinks that way, and I respect her feelings, but there is no way we can argue meaningfully about free speech. But (those who have accused me of refusing to debate or of not answering arguments, listen up) she is not making an argument, or rather her argument is of the form "I feel X, therefore I believe Y." What am I supposed to say other than "I do not feel X, and I believe not-Y"? To me, free speech is the highest intellectual value and is worth all the hurt feelings it causes. She does not agree. How are we supposed to discuss it and come to a conclusion? It's like a religious person arguing with an atheist: there's no point.
I am, by the way, extremely impressed with the level of discussion around here. Kudos to all.
Thanks, Tom P. I appreciate not having to say that myself. (I had expanded on the "waiting to hear" comment earlier in the thread, but my Ponce-dwelling friend evidently didn't read it or found it convenient to ignore it so he could continue to pretend with a clear conscience that I was saying something else.)
Michael Roberts #123:
language hat @ various - it's not typical, no. And to be fair, I don't actually know much about MeFi besides this particular flamefest and the fact that I've kind of bounced off threads there in the past. In fact, the only thing I really have to categorize MeFi is the fact that if they hold BoingBoing up as indicative of evil, or express that lovely sense of entitlement we all cherish so very much on the Internet, I have no time for them. ... Bah. You can single me out all you want, language hat. MeFi is still more than I can take. Sorry if that makes you sad.
I was going to pillory you for your disingenuous combination of "I don't really know much about MeFi" and "MeFi sucks anyway," but then I read your later semi-backdown where you elaborately explain how you came to somehow identify MeFi as the enemy (without, however, actually apologizing for your uncalled-for nastiness), and I was going to give you a pass.
Then I scrolled further down and got to the part where you called me a troll. You, sir, have no business commenting negatively on anyone else's behavior. I have not said a single even vaguely trollish thing either here or in the MeFi thread. If this were the eighteenth century, I'd call you out. In the civilized twenty-first, I will merely call you on it. You are neither a rational nor a civil person.
Doctor Science #138:
language hat @111 : I frankly have no idea why you say to Leah, "as for free speech, we'll have to agree to disagree". Leah presented evidence about how "free speech" can lead to unfreedom; what evidence are you presenting to the contrary? Just FYI, in my experience "we'll have to agree to disagree" is a line used by people who are feeling overwhelmed and put upon by the weight of evidence on the other side of an argument.
Others have addressed this well, but I will add that I specifically did not want to get into a discussion with Leah about it because she is clearly very touchy and was bound to resent anything I had to say on the topic. (And I'm sure she's going to resent my saying that, and probably write several impassioned paragraphs about it. Nothing wrong with that, she's entitled to her sensitivities and prose style, they're just as valid as mine, but that's why I didn't want to get into it.)
As for the "feeling overwhelmed and put upon by the weight of evidence on the other side of an argument," that's childish and unwarranted. There are very often occasions when it makes sense for civilized people to agree to disagree rather than waste time and emotional energy arguing about things they are not going to chenge their minds about; this is such an occasion. If you want to discuss some particular point, I will be happy to do so -- I have never run from an intellectual argument in my life. But I have been in many, many free-speech discussions, and I know that, like discussions of religion and cat declawing, they very easily turn into emotional time-sinks. Your experience may differ.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 33 |
| 2005 | 1 |
Total: 34 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by language hat:
Show all comments by language hat.