Maybe. I am arguing that one shouldn't participate in "rational discussions" with people who don't adhere to the standards of rational discussion themselves, especially in public.
If you disagree with me, and want to enter into such discussions, I obviously can't stop you (and might aid you). But if I had a platform, I might not lend it to you to have your discussion in public. Would you count that as shutting down other people's discussion? If not then we have no significant disagreement.
And for the record, I think shaming people into being silent about their opinions, even if they are demonstrably incorrect, instead of trying to change them, strikes me as a big mistake.
So there is a difficult balancing act between not allowing people to propagate irrational believes that don't engage with the available evidence (and promote views that are actively harmful to a part of the population), and engaging with people to convince them of the evidence and the rational view.
> views that are actively harmful to a part of the population
Unless explicit clarified, these are too open to abuse and scope creep.
Consider - one of the few "loopholes" to free speech is speech considered "hateful"; As such we see an active effort to expand what is considered "hateful", and any call to censorship will now begin with a justification of applying the label to its target, however contrived that link might be.
First of all, this has nothing to do with free speech. Rational discussion is a very specific form of speech. It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be defended, it is not a natural or even inevitable outcome of free speech.
Habermas for example studied in depth the conditions for speech to produce reason:
Secondly, yes, drawing the line is difficult, there are grey areas, and we should be careful, but refusing to draw a line is the opposite of being careful or rational.
And it's not like free speech is the only value humanity ever came up by which to judge things. Taking for example the human rights declaration, freedom of expression is one of the basic rights. But sometimes rights are in conflict with each other. Then we have to make a choice how to weight the various rights.
That's why we have libel and defamation laws everywhere.
> It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be defended
I agree, but in the context of an opponent capable of censoring you that doesn't appreciate this, all you can do is fall back on legal protections. In this case, the potential for a rational, productive discussion was cut short.
A level of freedom to speech is required to promote rational debate. It's a necessary, bedrock requirement, even if not a sufficient one.
> refusing to draw a line is the opposite of being careful or rational
I don't think a line was drawn. The google rep alluded to "false assumptions" but didn't specify what they where, and even refused to link the memo. They clarified nothing but an atmosphere hostile to open discussion.
> we have to make a choice how to weight the various rights
True, but the rights are somewhat solidified. There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech". There is no such right "freedom to not be offended". Whatever right is being asserted here (by the offended parties) appears to be something new.
> libel and defamation laws
I think the author has been defamed - there are plenty articles "summarizing" the memo in ways that are not representative of it's content - even the label "anti-diversity". I was shocked to find a fairly sober article on the issue in the Atlantic, of all places: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-mos...
There'll no doubt be many responses along this line but...
> There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech"
...is only true in certain limited circumstances, all pertaining to the government (fed, state, local), I believe.
You do not, generally, even in the USA, have a right to "freedom of speech" wherever you are. And you definitely don't have "free (from consequences) speech" anywhere.
Then I'm not sure what your point is. "freedom" in this context usually relates to the law. As such "freedom to X" usually implies the legal framework to support X.
If you are saying "freedom to X doesn't mean no legal consequences" then the phrase would be meaningless.
> "freedom" in this context usually relates to the law.
Then where is the "a right to freedom of speech" enshrined in the law? The USA doesn't have that - only limited protection from the government. The UK certainly doesn't.
Yes, a certain level is required. I see no indication that freedom of speech _in the legal proper sense_ is restricted to anywhere near the level that it would be threatening rational discourse.
Indeed the types of speech targeted by laws typically is far removed from rational discourse.
And I am not aware of any laws, real or proposed, that would grant a "freedom to not be offended". So again, in this context, that's a red herring.
In this branch of the thread I was replying to the discussion whether anyone arguing against rational discourse is automatically irrational (not in the "subtle and qualified opinion" camp). A stance I disagreed with.
The whole freedom of speech issue is a complete distraction, as far as the discussion I was answering to was concerned, as well as as far as the case of the memo is concerned. Nobody was threatening legal actions against the author of the memo, were they?
So please, clean up your argumentation. I agree that there is too much shaming for unpopular opinions going on, but stop going to war under the free speech banner.
Admit that this is above all a cultural issue, not an issue of constitutional principles. There are all sorts of things that you are allowed to say (freedom of speech) while you definitely shouldn't say them, and you certainly can't expect a company, or anyone else for that matter, to not shun you for what you say (no freedom from consequence of speech).
If you argue that slavery should be reinstated, and Hitler did nothing wrong, he just wasn't thorough enough, then the consequences of this are on you.
I do believe that there is definitely a culture of shaming people into silence going on that has gone to far. I find the concrete case hard to adjudicate. It definitely at least straddles the boundary. The memo is ill informed and naive, but it's also not evidently written by someone immune to reason, and it does take some effort to minimize harm/offense to others.
If somebody on my team would write something like that I would ask them to come in for a discussion. I would force them to read the Pinker/Spelke discussion.
So by all means, let's push back against shaming people into silence, but let's not do it under an utterly naive banner that says "I should be allowed to say whatever I want". We all want to build a society that works for everyone. What the correct attitude to certain speech acts (like this memo) is, is not a matter of legal principle. It is a matter for rational debate.
If you disagree with me, and want to enter into such discussions, I obviously can't stop you (and might aid you). But if I had a platform, I might not lend it to you to have your discussion in public. Would you count that as shutting down other people's discussion? If not then we have no significant disagreement.
And for the record, I think shaming people into being silent about their opinions, even if they are demonstrably incorrect, instead of trying to change them, strikes me as a big mistake.
So there is a difficult balancing act between not allowing people to propagate irrational believes that don't engage with the available evidence (and promote views that are actively harmful to a part of the population), and engaging with people to convince them of the evidence and the rational view.