@CathyYoung63: “Re Alt-Right…” 

CK MacLeod in reply to Tod Kelly says:

Alternatively, you can defer to the judgment of a trusted longtime colleague that there is something there of interest, and can attempt to read with an open mind, without feeling obligated to pass a blanket judgment, or re-pass the same blanket judgment with which you tend to begin. Is it really controversial to say that there were for-real card-carrying Fuehrergrussing Nazis of renowned learning and accomplishment? It shouldn’t be. Unless we are to declare all of their works streng verboten – perhaps hold public bonfires of copies of their (so-called!) greatest works – then we should consider the possibility that with all that commentthread Scheissdreck and among all those Scheissdreckige posts, there must be a pony somewhere.Report

CK MacLeod in reply to greginak says:

Absolutely. I wonder why you’d think otherwise, other than under a self-reinforcing commitment to ignorance.Report

CK MacLeod in reply to RTod says:

A discussion with people who have anti-feminist views would be fine with me – as would a discussion with people who have illiberal views on the question of discussion itself. Indeed, the fact that I’m engaging in discussion here at all shows that I am willing to engage people with illiberal views in discussion. However, no discussion worthy of the name can be conducted without a mutual commitment to respect for all discussants. All discussion that is authentically discussion will therefore be discussion under in a certain sense liberal and even progressive presumptions: We speak with each other here under the presumption that there is some point in speaking to each other, that we have some shared concept of the common good in common, that agreement is possible and desirable, and that each of us is bound, eventually, to alter his or her views upon the presentation of more reasonable ones. Anything else is not a reasonable discussion, and a discussion that is not a reasonable discussion is not authentically a discussion.

It is likewise impossible to have an authentic discussion if discussants conduct themselves without due regard for agreed-upon conventions, beginning, necessarily, with the conventions of language. I, for example, have a working familiarity with languages other than English, but I am not capable of conducting an authentic “live” discussion of any complex topic with someone who is not also fluent in English. I also cannot have an authentic discussion with someone who is threatening and insulting me, or, on the other hand, looking to detect or invent threats and insults at every opportunity, or incapable of forgiving my imperfections, which will surely show themselves, not least because the objective of an authentic discussion includes discovering imperfections in one’s own ideas, presumptions, and approaches. If I were convinced that all of my ideas had achieved a state of perfection, I would have no interest in discussion at all.

So, if we were to hold a symposium on feminism – and parallel concerns would hold for any other topic – it would on the one hand have to be expected that the implications of some arguments would be anti-feminist, but there would be no reason for us or anyone to exploit that expectation as a license to indulge in “say[-ing] whatever the hell they wanted.” An authentic discussion begins with the presumption of freedom of inquiry for all participants, and with the further presumption that all participants’ views may be subject to improvement, but freedom of inquiry is not the same as “freedom of expression.” Expression is a different and often contradictory aim. Rather than undermining the goal of freedom of inquiry, careful moderation of expression – preferably beforehand by each participant, if necessary by active moderators – will tend to be essential to it. If would-be participants cannot abide by such rules and conventions, reasonably – if they are not in fact consistent committed practical reasoners of good intentions – then they disqualify themselves from discussion.

There is no good reason to expect a set of perfect objective rules for discussion to be available (such expectation is itself disqualifyingly unreasonable), but there is no reason for a reasonable (reason-capable, adult) discussant to object if certain identified expressions or modes of expression are declared off-limits (e.g., no profanity, no personal insults, etc.). Anyone seeking whatever available common good through mutually respectful discussion should easily be able to make whatever point of argument without resorting to demonstrably inflammatory terms, and, by the same token, should be able to tolerate whatever incidental errors in judgment their fellow discussants might make.

How’s that?Report