A university president makes a case against cowardice

> That's because the extent of the illiberal behavior of the radical left was yelling and "cancel culture" while the present behavior of the illiberal right is abductions and overseas slave camps. You can see why people might find having the two equated a little ridiculous, right?

You are correct - one is objectively worse than the other.

The unfortunate truth is that, also, one is a consequence of the other.

Trump is simply doing what his voters wanted[1]. And they voted for him precisely because `of the illiberal behavior of the radical left was yelling and "cancel culture"`.

Had the first thing not happened, then the consequence would have been a fictional story in an alternate timeline.

But here we are, and we don't get to say "Sure, we were assholes to 50% of the population, but your response is worse".

[1] Spoiler - they may not even want it anymore!

Eh, you can prove anything but starting history at a particular point.

For instance, "GamerGate", where a bunch of anonymous people on the internet tried to get a number of women in the game industry fired, predates "cancel culture" by a year or two.

Or how the whole #MeToo movement was, you know, a response to powerful people abusing people in their power, and firing or otherwise limiting their careers if they resisted.

If <insert famous talking head from ten years ago> didn't want to be "canceled", well, he could have always just not sexually harassed his underlings.

Free speech in the US is about not having consequences for what you are saying. In particular not having consequences from the government. Therefor you can only say that it is a legitimate consequence if you disregard free speech. Free speech in the US is about being able to be an asshole to 10%, 50% or 90% of the population without having to be responsible for what that part of the population does. And even more so what they do with the government. As such if you believe in free speech the government's actions stand on their own. What you actually don't get to say is that it is a consequence. Because that is what free speech in the US is supposed to prevent. Consequences from the government.

In many countries in Europe we have hate speech and defamation laws, we don't have at-will employment and many of our universities are public. This means there is less freedom to make others upset, questioning someone's character, firing them and ways to affect our education. This is by definition illiberal. (Worse or not is an open question). In Europe we can't say that "I might have offended 50% of the population, but sending me to prison is worse" because our laws says it isn't. In the US you can.

Does US law also say that the government can do all kinds of things, including pardoning criminals? Yes, but it still goes against the credibility of free speech in the US. One of the things the US still had over other countries.

> Eh, you can prove anything but starting history at a particular point.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything; I'm merely pointing out that while it is true that $BAR is objectively worse than $FOO, it is equally true that $FOO is a direct consequence of $BAR.

In my other response to another poster I pointed out that many of us on forums that effectively silenced opposing viewpoints reminded readers that it's best to refrain from going to extremes because the pendulum always swings back, and that is what we are seeing now.

In much the same way, I'll point out that the pendulum always swings back and we are going to see a return to the previous extremes when people get tired of this extreme.

> Therefor you can only say that it is a legitimate consequence if you disregard free speech.

I didn't say it was a legitimate consequence. I was aiming for "it was a predictable consequence".

Sure, that is what I said as an argument. Free speech being a right means there is no merit to it being a consequence.

Being in a car crash might be the consequence of driving a car. But if someone drives at high speed in the wrong lane and then crashes into you it is a consequence of them not respecting traffic laws and not of you just being in a car. That is why we have traffic laws, so you are able to be in a car without someone crashing into you.

You could never be in a car, and you could also never speak. But then you wouldn't need free speech. Free speech exist so you can speak. In the US without consequences from the government. If you then speak the consequences of that speech aren't a consequence of you speaking but of the government not respecting free speech. Because to not have consequences you would have to not speak and then you wouldn't have free speech.

Someone getting deported by the democrats once they get into power would now be a predictable consequence. They then equally can't say "Sure, we were assholes to the other 50% of the population, but your response is worse". So then you have no free speech.

The unfortunate truth is that, also, one is a consequence of the other.

This is just the 'you made me do it' defense argued by every abuser ever. Someone is behaving as an ass, they get told 'you're an ass, stop that' and then they escalate and say 'you made me do this'. It happens in families, it happens in schoolyards, it happens on streets, it happens in business, it happens in dictatorships. Just yesterday, the president of South Korea was formally removed from office after trying to stage a military coup and this was his whole defense.

> Free speech in the US is about not having consequences for what you are saying.

If a mob harasses you, your friends, you family, your workplace and your children with mass amounts of harassment and death threats, I would say that the target of the harassment has had their rights infringed on even though it wasn't literally the government.

No, you cannot have a mob send mass death threats to people, stalk them, and harass them because you didn't like a tweet that they made a decade ago.

The person who called it "cancel culture" chose the wrong word.

They should have called it "death threat culture" or "illegal mob harassment culture", as that would really drive the point home about what the issue is.

But, of course, you don't care about that or what happens to people's families when they are targeted. Instead, the only thing people care about is "Oh, but what was in that tweet that they made 10 years ago? I need to figure out if their family deserved it!" ("it" being the death threats and harassment, of course)

> This is just the 'you made me do it' defense argued by every abuser ever.

Meh. You can say that about every consequence ever if you determine a priori, like you have, that consequences are only performed by abusers.

In any case, it's not a defense when many many people were saying this before it happened.

IOW, it was a prediction before the fact, not a defense after the fact.

> But, of course, you don't care about that or what happens to people's families when they are targeted.

I made an effort to have a conversation. This breaks the rules of Hacker News by assuming bad faith.