| VGPolyglot said: I'm not eloquent at all, but I guess I was wondering what people's thoughts were on ContraPoint's video on free speech, as generally I agree with her perspective (for those confused on the use of the pronoun, this video was made before she started transitioning)
|
I'm a fan of Contra's, but I think that while her free-speech video brings up valid points and clearly dissects the various ways in which speech might be limited, her characterization of her "oppositions" viewpoints are not nuanced enough. For example, much of the video is criticizing Christopher Hitchens, but it doesn't seem clear to me that Hitchens would have a problem with certain people deplatforming views they don't like in those contexts where they control the platform. His major criticism was about legal abridgements of free-speech in the United Kingdom. She did find that one contradiction in which Hitchens mentions that he is fine taking abuse, but we don't really know the nuances of Hitchens' position and what he'd say to this criticism. Heck, he might even had owned up to it being his fault, and nobody can truly live up to his ideal -- as we are human, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Now her criticisms of Dave Rubin, and other center-liberals, is valid to some extent, but I think Rubin's criticism goes beyond this. Much of the abridgements to speech are induced by people using physical violence (or the threat thereof) against other people who want to speak with one another. There is no dichotomy here, as Contra tries to frame it. The right for conservatives to choose speakers of their desired paramters does not interfere with the right of leftists to choose their speakers, this is not a zero-sum game. Afterall, a conservative might find Communists and Anarchists threatening and therefore wish to deplatform the left's speeches. This is not to equate anarchism and fascism, but is to highlight the practical problems with just saying "oh well they're fascists anyway." This is the core of Dave Rubin and other center-liberal's criticism. The leftism of academia would be bearable if violence wasn't used by non-involved persons to restrict the speech of two groups unrelated to them. I also don't think most center-liberals would say "that's the internet, deal with it" when abuse prevents somebody from voicing their opinions. Most center-liberals are definitely in a camp where they argue against actual abuse. Now a large minority might say, "I can't control it" or "there is not much we can do about it" but that is different from "deal with it, this is the internet."
This also highlights my problem with Contra's more recent videos as she moved more left (nothing wrong with that by the way.) She is right in that there are actual fascists using centrists to gain powerful positions, but she is also ignoring the broad interpretation of the word "fascist" used by many on the left to apply to perfectly mainstream conservatives and right-wing liberals. She is also ignoring the undercurrent of anti-capitalism in the anti-fascist movement. That isn't to say that anti-capitalism is wrong (I'm there), but don't frame such a movement as inclusive to liberals (who mostly support capitalism) if it's not. If anti-capitalism is a pre-requisite to ANTIFA membership, then ANTIFA should more rightly be called ANTIFA/ANTICA. I mean, I am anti-capitalist myself, but I think there are legitimate reasons why people are attached to capitalism and it is wrong to be explicitly against them for it. She thinks people are being naive when they can't recognize the fascists, but most people on the center-right (or even center-left) have been called or know somebody who has been called a fascist/white-supremacist/etc wrongly, and therefore are no longer sensitive to the actual fascists in our midst. Because the popular media is complicit in this, to some extent, people can't really trust any information they see about someone based on second hand characterizations. Hence, you have people like Roaming Millenial -- who are obviously anti-fascist, interested in hearing the views of Richard Spencer from the source, because that is the only verifiable source. If she didn't see many people around (and including) her called, wrongly, alt-right and/or fascist, she probably wouldn't have even cared to interview Richard Spencer, an actual alt-righter.
Having said that I love Contra because she makes you think about these things, and isn't outright dismissive of "right-wingers." She understands that the vast majority of people are not anarchists, communists, feminists or even socialists and therefore wishes to hold a conversation with them. She also knows when and for what reasons to criticize the left (and the left sure does need criticising, its ineffectiveness is why we are where we are.)
