By Daviemoo
I am not a hypocrite when it comes to talking about todays hot topic of free speech. I'm blithely clear that there are topics that I'd be very happy to see restricted based on my own morals and comfort. I know that's going to send the terminally gammonistic spiralling but I don't care- because you might hate that view but at least I'm honest about feeling it- meanwhile I'm surrounded by self IDed free speech absolutists who would turn puce if their demographic faced the same level of scrutiny as others, and who push speech limiting legislation whilst decrying their own lack of freedom to say what they want. The world is awash with the hypocrisy of the deluded- and it's time we talk about it.
Today the news broke that Rishi Sunak's government has appointed a "tsar of free speech", a man who will decide what the government thinks free speech is and will be able to- irony meter ready- levy fines and sanctions at people who do not conform to the governments' edict on free speech. Does levying financial penalties against people sound very free speech-y to you? Because it sure doesn't to me, but again I'm not a great honking hypocrite on this issue.
So often we hear right wing speakers talk about cancel culture, cancellation, silencing, deplatforming. It's a delicious irony to find them talking at length about the danger of not listening to people you disagree with or performatively not buying brands just because they espouse politics you don't agree with, all the while doing just that. The amount of free speech lovers I've watched smashing bud light bottles in American supermarkets, vowing never to pay money to Disney because it's the W word, and cheering Don't Say Gay style legislation whilst fretting about free speech being under threat is dizzying. This week I saw a woman holding up an "I'm glad you're queer" card and ranting about it being in the children's section of Target: Guarantee quick scrutiny would find her ranting about cancel culture somewhere.
The reason people like this can hold these dual competing positions is because they lack an actual moral backbone, and will say whatever they think makes their point but don't believe in it- and because they lack this moral fortitude, they don't even have the contrition to admit when they are called out- instead just ignoring their hypocrisy or prevaricating on it, wholesale shifting the goalposts of "well I'm allowed to partake in the illusion of cancel culture- but you aren't". It means that we lose every time we enter debate with these types, because you can't prove someone wrong on a position they keep shifting on- so what's the point of discussing it with them? But the infernal prevalence of debate culture bolsters the idea that we must argue every point- even though you can't prove a point to someone who doesn't have one.
I watched a friend of mine in a debate recently with a group of religious people- two Muslim men, three christian people (two man one woman) and my atheist friend. As I joined the stream, the christian woman was agreeing with him as they discussed whether "LGBT Should be taught in schools" whereas the other religious people were decrying the idea.
First of all I laugh at the entire premise. I was under Thatcher's section 28 for most of my school life so I definitely missed out on my gayness lessons. But it was almost hilarious to listen to their hypocrisy on how LGBT+ existence shouldn't be talked about in school in case it- and I quote from the religious people- "indoctrinates them".
My friend asked them whether they feel they've been indoctrinated by LGBT+ people to which they all laughed and said no- he suggested that if they weren't why would others. He asked whether religion should be talked about in school, to which all five religious people said "yes". He asked whether they don't see talking about religion as indoctrination and they all chorused "no", then naturally one of the christian men said "they don't teach religion in schools" to which I commented "they literally have PSRE lessons and religious schools". Guess what happened - I got blocked.
In primary school we were asked to observe the praying practices of the Muslim faith for 3 days. I did. I wasn't indoctrinated into being Muslim, it was fine- in fact it was pretty interesting to learn about. We were taken to several different religious buildings- a synagogue, a mosque and a hindu temple. It was nice. It wasn't indoctrination, I didn't mind it and I still don't. Ironic that the same sentiment isn't passed back.
A weird aside is how many people seem to think learning about LGBT+ people make more of us when most of us agree that our experience utterly debunks that. I wasn't turned gay. I had a crush on my friend Kevin at 6, didn't understand it. When I went to high school I had a huge crush on my friend Michael and I finally started to grasp what it meant. I've always known I wasn't straight- nothing "made me" that way because it's just me. But I also used to be a Christian and it wasn't praying the way muslim people do or visiting other religious buildings that convinced me otherwise- it was hearing opposing views to religion and understanding that my religion condemned me for being who I am (that and existing in a world that wants me to believe god is lovely, controls everything and doesn't stop things like war, famine and cancer...). The entire viewpoint of "sexuality is chosen" can be debunked by telling a straight man to give another man a sex act- they react with discomfort and revulsion. Weird how you can't choose to do it; kind of like you don't want to... I wonder if it's like that for other people!!
Religion is important to people. I'm happy to tolerate religion provided it's not weaponised against people. But my views on religion are views that many religious people don't want to hear and hate me for. I don't care- being dictated to about my morals by people whose entire belief system is built on hierarchy doesn't bother me- what bothers me is the hypocrisy (see the theme here) of people whose moral system is based on feelings not facts, whose favourite moniker is "facts over feelings".
The world would be a marginally better place if we could collectively agree to stop being hypocritical on free speech. There are, I would posit, no free speech absolutists in the world, just people who don't suffer from hate speech and its effects and therefore understand the problem that confusing free speech for hate speech causes.
People who aren't part of a minority group will often be the most vehement about free speech being under threat, yet I often see people from this group furious about being discussed; find incel streamers and watch their rage when women discuss them disparagingly and tell me there sits someone who believes in free speech. Listen to a typical Tate fan complain that women are allowed to speak and tell me that's the diatribe of someone who actually wants everyone to be heard.
And a great UK example has presented itself this week.
Kathleen Stock is a university professor in Philosophy. Stock was embroiled in controversy over her gender critical views for several years before electing to resign from her post to take up a different role. The UK press machine leapt into action, declaring Stock cancelled, silenced, hounded, blighted. How do I know this? Because I've had this information forced on me. I don't read articles by or about Stock because she and her views don't interest me, but the press and it's insistence of reminding me how silenced, how cancelled Stock is rings somewhat hollow when this week I've seen her in, I believe, four newspapers, I've seen her on a chat show and GB news (which I refuse to label a 'news' channel), she was apparently invited to speak at Oxford union, she was in a Channel 4 documentary- and the prime minister Tweeted about her positing that free speech is vital even as his own government sues itself over the COVID enquiry because he, irony of ironies- doesn't want to provide evidence to it.
So even the government is proving hypocrisy in its actions- but once again, the maddening part is trying to prove to the morally bankrupt in and around Sunak's creaking cabinet that they are hypocritical. If someone unashamedly disagrees with your stance even in the face of incontrovertible evidence- you can't win by discussing things with them. A flat denial of reality cannot be argued with- so why try?
This is about much broader an issue than just the gender critical movement- white nationalism, anti feminists, racism, homophobia, all of these issues have huge support and those behind it refuse to acknowledge the reality that being hateful towards a demographic of people is wanting to deplatform or "silence" them or whatever moniker you wish to give it. And yet this debate roils on, because people like myself are honest about it, honest that we think free speech naturally has limits, that talking about certain demographics hatefully is but the first step of a very short staircase of escalation towards governmental and societal violence towards them- and the other side argues endlessly that they are pro free speech without ignoring the asterisk and "terms and conditions apply".
The maddening part of the great free speech debate is not just that people are so selective in where they apply, and admit to, their biases but also how easy it is for people to pretend they're not hypocritical- and until we find a way to collectively debunk the nonsense that so many people on the right are free speech absolutists, this frustration will only continue. I'm not even asking for my heady dreams of bigots being cast from society to be fulfilled, just- if you truly believe in free speech, actually listen to both sides and limit your hypocrisy to the realm of "at least I hear both sides out fairly", instead of the incessancy of victimisation the "free speech absolutists" are immersed in.
No comments:
Post a Comment