As I've written, everyone quickly picks up on what is the "current thing" - which is the "authorized narrative." At the top of our ruler pyramid, we have nefarious actors creating bogus narratives for their own benefit. But beneath this level, we have 99 percent of the population that is afraid to go against the accepted narrative. For good reason - they know if they express contrarian views or challenge the authorized narrative, they are going to experience unpleasant consequences.
Nice to see Fish getting an airing... he was essential reading for a certain generation of philosophers, but swiftly fell off the back of the academic apple cart. I must (indulgently) note that I used to write essays like this but I gave it up because nobody cared: my existing readership leaned strongly left, and they could not even see that we had reached a crisis point in free speech. It is therefore both pleasing to see you getting some traction with this one, and also raises some concerns. It might be a warning that we have lost the political centre since the gap has become so wide.
I think we have lost the political centre, no doubt, but I see no way to achieve a stable future without making the argument for finding it again. My concern is that both right and left seem to be embracing Schmitt’s friend/enemy logic wholesale. We’ve been through that - it doesn’t end well, and they’ll find they miss liberalism when it’s gone.
I concur. But I suspect we need a new mythology here that no longer imagines politics along a one-dimensional line. It is this project that to a great degree animates Stranger Worlds.
Apr 19, 2023·edited Apr 19, 2023Liked by David McGrogan
My experience is that the left censors much more than the right does.
For example, if you go to a climate skeptic website such as WUWT or Climate Etc., and you disagree and say so, you'll not be censored unless you're openly and viciously insulting to people. On the other hand, as someone who has often tried to express views contrary to the accepted views on vaccines and climate on "liberal" forums, I've been very, very quickly censored by those who want nothing to do with science deniers.
My take is that those on the right are by nature more critical and somewhat less inclined to groupthink, while those on the left are very inclined to groupthink and trust in governmental authorities (so long as those authorities are perceived as liberal.) I live amongst a heavily leftist population; the groupthink is quite unshakeable. They've been taught not to listen to dangerous misinformation. Who is telling them this? NPR, for one, and if one watches carefully, it really is all over the NPR/PBS universe, in ways subtle and not-so-subtle.
The media is telling people what to think. This may ultimately be derived from political power or, more likely, from power behind the scenes.
It's instructive to listen to NPR. They're cooing at their listeners. The subtext of everything is: "we're sophisticated and in the know. Those other folks are full of ignorant misinformation."
I don't disagree, but if you pay attention to what a lot of the intellectual core of the 'new' or 'dissident' right is saying these days, it tends not to be 'let's defend free speech', but 'let's achieve political victory so we can restrict free speech in the ways that we want'.
I also think if you had grown up in the 1950s you might have a different perspective. Basically, nowadays the left controls the institutions, so people on the right feel as though they are less inclined to groupthink. but it was not ever thus.
I'm very sympathetic to the argument that the great threat to freedom of speech currently comes in the form of the managerial/technocratic/authoritarian progressive left. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that whenever anybody holds political power they tend to hate free expression unless they are explicitly committed to liberal values.
I agree with all the points raised here, more or less. The media now expressly adheres to an authoritarian 'left' (I might say 'left-right') viewpoint. Alain Badiou, for all his flaws, correctly understood that those championing difference were also demanding conformity to a set of core values. This has won out in the media, with disastrous results.
What a thought provoking article. Humans can transform our perception of reality with language (speech). We tell stories about our reality that reshape reality. We cooperate with countless strangers because we can create and believe fictions, stories and everyone believes in the same stories, obeys and follows the same rules, the same norms and values. Language and speech have the power to ascribe meaning to reframe the physical world even when everything tangibly remains the same. Language provides the opportunity for self deception for treating concepts and speech as independent things. And when people holding a particular worldview control institutions, they have no qualms about imposing their views on everybody else. The freedom of speech previously enjoyed in the west is turning into an only approved speech and thought controlled society. Freedom of speech is freedom to tell a story. As Benjamin Carlson recently wrote when quoting Tom Wolfe “a story isn’t necessarily wrong or untrue, news stories are fictions they are made, literally. Created, at best, news like fiction is inspired by and faithful to reality. Like fiction, it is limited by the conventions of its form. Like fiction, it takes reality and adds drama, conflict, heroes, and villains.”
Did Mr Adil do what everyone else has done? Take some facts and create a story, adding drama, conflict, heroes, and villains. Whether Mr Adil says Sars-CoV-2 virus does exist or not doesn’t change the fact whether it does or not, are words reality?
Has freedom of speech been conflated with verbal abuse?
As I've written, everyone quickly picks up on what is the "current thing" - which is the "authorized narrative." At the top of our ruler pyramid, we have nefarious actors creating bogus narratives for their own benefit. But beneath this level, we have 99 percent of the population that is afraid to go against the accepted narrative. For good reason - they know if they express contrarian views or challenge the authorized narrative, they are going to experience unpleasant consequences.
Nice to see Fish getting an airing... he was essential reading for a certain generation of philosophers, but swiftly fell off the back of the academic apple cart. I must (indulgently) note that I used to write essays like this but I gave it up because nobody cared: my existing readership leaned strongly left, and they could not even see that we had reached a crisis point in free speech. It is therefore both pleasing to see you getting some traction with this one, and also raises some concerns. It might be a warning that we have lost the political centre since the gap has become so wide.
I think we have lost the political centre, no doubt, but I see no way to achieve a stable future without making the argument for finding it again. My concern is that both right and left seem to be embracing Schmitt’s friend/enemy logic wholesale. We’ve been through that - it doesn’t end well, and they’ll find they miss liberalism when it’s gone.
I concur. But I suspect we need a new mythology here that no longer imagines politics along a one-dimensional line. It is this project that to a great degree animates Stranger Worlds.
My experience is that the left censors much more than the right does.
For example, if you go to a climate skeptic website such as WUWT or Climate Etc., and you disagree and say so, you'll not be censored unless you're openly and viciously insulting to people. On the other hand, as someone who has often tried to express views contrary to the accepted views on vaccines and climate on "liberal" forums, I've been very, very quickly censored by those who want nothing to do with science deniers.
My take is that those on the right are by nature more critical and somewhat less inclined to groupthink, while those on the left are very inclined to groupthink and trust in governmental authorities (so long as those authorities are perceived as liberal.) I live amongst a heavily leftist population; the groupthink is quite unshakeable. They've been taught not to listen to dangerous misinformation. Who is telling them this? NPR, for one, and if one watches carefully, it really is all over the NPR/PBS universe, in ways subtle and not-so-subtle.
The media is telling people what to think. This may ultimately be derived from political power or, more likely, from power behind the scenes.
It's instructive to listen to NPR. They're cooing at their listeners. The subtext of everything is: "we're sophisticated and in the know. Those other folks are full of ignorant misinformation."
I don't disagree, but if you pay attention to what a lot of the intellectual core of the 'new' or 'dissident' right is saying these days, it tends not to be 'let's defend free speech', but 'let's achieve political victory so we can restrict free speech in the ways that we want'.
I also think if you had grown up in the 1950s you might have a different perspective. Basically, nowadays the left controls the institutions, so people on the right feel as though they are less inclined to groupthink. but it was not ever thus.
I'm very sympathetic to the argument that the great threat to freedom of speech currently comes in the form of the managerial/technocratic/authoritarian progressive left. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that whenever anybody holds political power they tend to hate free expression unless they are explicitly committed to liberal values.
I agree with all the points raised here, more or less. The media now expressly adheres to an authoritarian 'left' (I might say 'left-right') viewpoint. Alain Badiou, for all his flaws, correctly understood that those championing difference were also demanding conformity to a set of core values. This has won out in the media, with disastrous results.
PS: thanks for the recommendation for Stranger Worlds! I have reciprocated.
What a thought provoking article. Humans can transform our perception of reality with language (speech). We tell stories about our reality that reshape reality. We cooperate with countless strangers because we can create and believe fictions, stories and everyone believes in the same stories, obeys and follows the same rules, the same norms and values. Language and speech have the power to ascribe meaning to reframe the physical world even when everything tangibly remains the same. Language provides the opportunity for self deception for treating concepts and speech as independent things. And when people holding a particular worldview control institutions, they have no qualms about imposing their views on everybody else. The freedom of speech previously enjoyed in the west is turning into an only approved speech and thought controlled society. Freedom of speech is freedom to tell a story. As Benjamin Carlson recently wrote when quoting Tom Wolfe “a story isn’t necessarily wrong or untrue, news stories are fictions they are made, literally. Created, at best, news like fiction is inspired by and faithful to reality. Like fiction, it is limited by the conventions of its form. Like fiction, it takes reality and adds drama, conflict, heroes, and villains.”
Did Mr Adil do what everyone else has done? Take some facts and create a story, adding drama, conflict, heroes, and villains. Whether Mr Adil says Sars-CoV-2 virus does exist or not doesn’t change the fact whether it does or not, are words reality?
Has freedom of speech been conflated with verbal abuse?
Wonderful article, David. Well done!
Thanks Kevin!