I mean on the one hand I agree with the sentiment of your view marrec, especially when it comes to certain people’s advocacy priorities, on the other hand it is also true that normative structures are one way in which a society addresses things like bigotry and injustice....paradoxically, it’s also a way that such bigotry and injustice can proliferate.
That part is where I get your sentiment, because you have to think about how the tools you want to use to correct those injustices could be used against you. If you want to impose more responsibility on government to determine what is acceptable speech, you better come to grips with what that means with a Trump in power.
Though if you’re just using your free speech to counter someone else’s? That’s where I’m consistently stuck in an internal back and forth, but mostly come down on the side of, meh, lots of greater problems out there than the slippery slope of a few amplified up lefties overly sensitive about Roseanne parroting Trump’s demagoguery.
Because on the other hand, I think about would we be up in arms over people protesting for the end to a show that took seriously and with a positive light the idea of improving society by removing all the Jews? Probably not. What about a show that attempts to dress down peaceful protests against systemic racism as beyond the pale and socially unacceptable? A little bit trickier. Both are espousing backwards, oppressive thinking that can be harmful, but objectively the stakes are much higher in the former. But in either case you are essentially just having a free speech battle, the person on the platform espousing a view, the person watching it espousing their’s. And abscent the person speaking back, you are just allowing the person with the backwards beliefs to speak without challenge.
Now is screaming about it on twitter as being the equivalent to “literal” Nazi’s the best strategy of protest or opposition? On that I would say no.
spoiler (click to show/hide)
way too long of a care post this early in the day.
