The Ethics around Offensive Expression

I think there's been some muddled thinking, over the last several years, around offensive forms of expression.  Obviously, like anyone with a heart, I agree that it's unethical to deliberately offend someone.  Obviously referring to a black person by the N word or deliberately insulting someone is unethical.

The problem comes in when someone expresses a sincere opinion and people respond that they find it "offensive".  I don't mean just any opinion, either.  I mean, obviously, expressing male supremacy at a take back the night march, or something like that, is offensive however straight-forward the expression is, because, unless we're dealing with someone with very poor social skills, we can probably assume that such a speaker intended their comments to offend by the situation in which they spoke them.  And I'm not particularly sympathetic to Neo-fascists or Neo-nazis expressing anything, because they're authoritarian creeps and I don't particularly think they care very much about my freedom of expression.[1]

What I'm getting at is ordinary expression of opinion that does not have an ulterior motive and is not being made by authoritarians who want their right to speak, but won't extend that same right to others. 

In a democracy, it's critical that people be able to share their opinions.  We all need to be able to say what we think, without fear of retaliation, even social retaliation, because that's what makes democracy work.  Unless we can all express ourselves freely, whoever controls our expression controls the nation.  The ethics, here, is that people shouldn't express things with the goal of offending.  Also, people should be careful not to make prejudicial or ignorant statements about a group.  But, just because you don't like what somebody else has said doesn't mean that they've offended you.  We all need to feel free to say what we think without people accusing us of offense.

Also, there are certain forms of expression, like satire, that need to stand, in spite of being offensive.  Satire is offensive by nature.  If it's not offensive, it's arguably bad satire.  Satire is an art form that has a moral dimension to it.  It pokes fun at society with the goal of making us see ourselves in a different way.  This is an important part of any society.  In fact, I'd say that satire is a canary in a coal mine for a free society.  When we start oppressing our satirists, we know we're going in an authoritarian direction.  The best satirists offend everybody equally, because their goal is not to hurt or to pick on any particular group or person, but rather to create a dark reflection of society in its totality so that we can learn something about our society that we otherwise wouldn't see (or at least see society through someone else's eyes).  So, satire is a special case.  Society needs to give satirists a special pass to offend.  In return, satirists can work hard to offend everybody by showing us all our dark sides that we don't like to see.  So, they hold a special place in a free society.

So, in short, it's unethical to express something, if your purpose with it is to offend.  We should also be careful to avoid prejudice.  Satirists have a solemn duty to offend everybody.  Apart from that, we should feel free to share our opinions and stop whining when someone expresses an opinion we don't like.

---
[1] Though, as a liberal, I keep falling back on that quote, usually attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Lay Diagnoses of Asperger Syndrome

One thing that's been distressing me for awhile is that I'm concerned we, as a society, may be overdoing it with lay- or self-diagnoses of Asperger or ASD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome).  I'll hear these gaggles of gossipers talking about someone who they seem to think is awkward or struggling socially or someone they find annoying and, rather than doing what people did before we were all talking about Autistism like saying "what a nerd," "...dork," "...weirdo," or whatever, they'll now say, "I wonder if that person has Asperger Syndrome."  After a few days of more gossip this will quickly morph into, "yeah, I'm sure of it, X has Asperger's".

While there may be cases in which people guess right, unless we're experts on the subject (and parents of Aspies, however "up" they may be on it, are not experts in terms of who can diagnose), lay diagnoses are a bad thing to engage in.  In this case, it's rude at best and nasty at worst.  Even if it's done with the best of intentions, it's still taking the person being considered out of the realm of social individuals and into the realm of psychological disorder.[1]

Instead of just saying that someone's annoying, or that you like them okay, but they seem to annoy others, or whatever, all of which is a normal part of being human, it reduces someone from a human agent with all their foibles, to someone with a disorder.  If we lay-diagnose, we go from griping about how we don't like someone to saying that there's something objectively wrong and dysfunctional with the person, and that's an evil thing to do.  Even if it's meant with the best of intentions, it's still reducing a human being, with all the personality, history, and emotional baggage that we all have, to a syndrome. 

There are lots of different types of people and a huge spectrum of human normal.  Human beings can be introverts, ambiverts, and extroverts, we can be thinkers or feelers, intuitives and sensates, judgers and perceivers, and that's just Meyers / Briggs.  We can have different ideas about how to behave with one another, different manners, different attitudes toward when we think we should do things like give moral support vs helpful advice, when we think we owe it to someone else to listen compassionately to them, and when we don't think we need to care, when to roll with it and when and how to stand up for ourselves, different ways of setting boundaries, different forms of communication, different thoughts, values, and philosophies etc., etc.  When we assume that someone has Asperger's, we reduce the person by substituting a mental disorder for all of those things.

Take, for example, a nerd.  What is a nerd?  Since it's slang, it's never had a precise definition, but thinkers (in the Meyer's / Briggs sense) who are highly intelligent seem about right.  Throw in introversion, and you've nailed it (though I know extroverted nerds).  Superficially, we nerds can easily seem like Aspies.  Thinkers are likely to react differently to other people's emotions than feelers.  They might want to offer advice on the problem that's making the other personal emotional, rather than give moral support, for example.  They may have lower emotional intelligence than many feelers, just because they're less cued into what's going on with others, emotionally.  They may miss social cues for the same reason.  To a socially adept, emotionally intelligent, feeler extrovert, this may appear like social awkwardness, which is also a symptom of Asperger's.

Introverts may very well be interested in talking about certain topics that interest them, but not be particularly keen on small talk.  This could look like an Asperger's symptom in which people become fascinated with a particular subject or of wanting to walk to strangers at a social event and tell them about a subject that fascinates you.  We introverts may well respond negatively to an extrovert yelling with joy at us from across the room, because we find it overwhelming, and this might sound like the Asperger symptom of finding sounds or bright lights overstimulating, though, with us introverts, it's being socially overwhelmed, rather than perceptually overloaded.

Some people just operate according to a different set of manners than we do.  For example, I've noticed that Southerners seem to have a whole pile of manners that nobody else gets taught, whereas they do things that I, as a non-Southerner, find rude.  Differences in etiquette can cause one person to think the other person is being rude, while the other person is satisfied that they are perfectly well mannered (and may be according to their culture, family, or what have you).  If we think that someone is rude, we may assume that there's something wrong with their social skills.

And, just because there's something wrong with someone's social skills, doesn't mean they have Asperger Syndrome.  There's all sorts of reasons they may have trouble.  Introverts probably go to fewer social functions than extroverts and, therefore, acquire less practice.  Thinkers may never have really gotten that some things they do are annoying to feelers (though they might be fine with the other thinkers).

Also, some people are better at reading others.  These same people tend to expect others to read them.  People who are good at taking hints are more likely to get annoyed when others don't take hints.  The truth is that, middle of the bell curve, humans are hit and miss with reading others and taking hints.  Hints can very by culture.  We may use a canned hint in our culture, like asking a date if she wants to come back to our place for coffee to mean sex, but someone from a different culture might not get it.  And some people strongly dislike the whole notion of hints on ethical grounds, preferring to communicate in a direct way.  Just because someone's not so great at these talents, doesn't automatically mean they have Asperger's.

And there's no absolute right or wrong when it comes to social interactions anyway.  There are plenty of things extroverts do that I think are rude or abrasive that they just think of as friendly.  Different people like different things.  Just because you find someone annoying, doesn't mean everyone does.  As an introvert / thinker, I like people who talk about their interests as long as they don't go into more detail than I can handle (I love to learn new things), whereas I find small talk boring.  On the other hand, extrovert / feelers often seem to be the opposite.

And, so what if someone doesn't have good social skills?  If they're neuro-typical, it's still a problem to label them as Asperperger's when they're not.  And... sometimes people aren't always nice.  So what?  None of us are nice all the time.

Human social normal is very broad.  Not everyone is a sensitive, empathetic, extrovert, social butterfly who's always the life of the party.  Just because they're not, doesn't mean they have a mental disorder. [2]

The bottom line is that, unless the person is objectively socially dysfunctional, it's a matter of opinion how they should act.  Introverts, thinkers, and lots of other people, are perfectly normal.  If you think they're socially awkward, maybe you just don't like them, but that doesn't make them socially dysfunctional.  And, even if they are socially awkward, so what?  Lots of people are socially awkward for lots of reasons.  If you see nothing wrong with assuming they have Asperger's maybe you don't have the best manners yourself.  How would you feel, extrovert / feelers, if there was some psychological disorder in which people bored everybody with small talk and all us nerds were whispering about you, "X probably has that small talk disorder; they're always trying to make small-talk?"

I'm not saying that you should never suggest to anyone that they have Asperger's.  Nothing wrong with broaching the subject directly with the person, as long as you treat them like an adult, and back off if they don't think they have it.  And, if someone tells you they do, it's probably good for us to be concerned about their needs.  All I'm saying is that, the next time you feel the urge to label someone "Asperger's", think twice about what it means about your own social skills and ask yourself whether you're just saying that because they're different from you.

---
[1] I don't mean to in any way disparage people who actually have Aspergers, by the way.  I know that that's a serious condition, but also one that can be managed and that many people with Aspergers (or ASD) manager, heroically, to live fairly functional lives.
[2] And, even if they do have Asperger's, that's not such a big deal.  I know plenty of people with Asperger's whom I like real well.  And, even if they do have, they still shouldn't get lay-diagnosed.

Please Tell Me Human Rights Aren't Dead 2

Part 2: Why the Alt-Left is Authoritarian

In Part 1, I began to express my concern that not only the conservatives, but also an alternative far left (what I'm calling alt-left) is turning its back on human rights.  I explained what human rights are, their history, and why they're so critical to a free society.  In this Part 2, I'll explain why I think that this alt-left has become authoritarian.

http://ivanrichmond.blogspot.com/2019/12/please-tell-me-human-rights-are-still.html

Please don't misunderstand me.  I'm a life-long progressive liberal myself.  The last thing I want to do is argue for anything conservative, particularly in these dark times when the conservative leaders are traitors and they've put a dysfunctional authoritarian in the White House.  I'm a classic liberal and my concern is that classical liberal ideals are being jettisoned from contemporary progressive thought, at least in this alt-left mileau.

What Human Rights Currently Grant Us (Or Should)

We currently have a lot of avenues available to us to combat conservatism, supremacism, Neo-Facism, Neo-Nazism, nationalism, and similar ideas (and if we don't, we have the unalienable right to).  These include:

• Offense.  We have the right to offend people with our expression.  We may not think it's polite to do so as our primary deliberate goal but if, say, a black person writes something from a black perspective that happens to offend white people, sucks to be white.  And I'll stand by that, because I'm a classic liberal and I support the right to your freedom of expression (as well as my own).  I can also see the need for it.
• Satire.  We have the right to satirize the expression of others.  So, if some, oh I don't know, imbecile happened to get into the White House, we have every right to make jokes about the antics of the orange-haired orangutan.
• Deviance.  We have a right to break step with our peers.  For example, the LGBTQ+ community has, very rightly, marched down the streets of major cities and small towns shouting, "we're here.  We're queer.  Get used to it."  Yes!  They are, we should, and I'm proud of them for expressing themselves.
• Plain talk.  We have the right to express our political ideas in a plain, straight-up manner, even if we're socialists, anarchists, or even communists (and, yes, the McCarthy era oppressed those rights), as long as we're not threatening violence (you can't call for an armed communist revolution, but you can express communist political ideas).

Yes, many people feel these rights are being oppressed, and they may be right.  As a classic liberal, I support those rights as unalienable human rights and am opposed to their oppression from every quarter.  So, keep these rights in mind as you read the rest of this.

Human Duties

With our rights come corresponding duties.  If we have freedom of expression, for example, we must make room for others to express themselves, even when we disagree with them very strongly.  Freedom of expression means nothing if it only applies to expressions we agree with.  Comparable duties exist for freedom of religion (we must afford basic, egalitarian respect to members of other religions), the right to justice (even people suspected of terrible crimes have the right to a fair trial), etc.

Offense

It's very common these days for me to hear people complaining that they're offended by some other political or social opinion.  While it's reasonable for us to expect others not to deliberately try to offend us as the primary goal of their expression, it's not reasonable to use offense as an excuse to say that someone else doesn't have the right to their opinion.  A free society depends on all of us making room for others to express things we disagree with, even if those expressions are offensive.  A very personal example for me is that, as a non-Christian, I'm livid at Christians who tell me I'm going to "burn in Hell" (or "not go to Heaven" -- yeah... I know what they're really saying).  However, if that's what they sincerely believe, they have a right to think that.  They have a right to express it, too, up until I tell them to leave me alone about it (though they can still express it among themselves).  I don't like that, but I recognize that, in order to have a free society with freedom of religion, I have to accept the fact that people can and will have radical differences of religious views from me. 

Now, all that ends the moment they get theocratic about.  They may have a right to think I'm going to "burn in Hell", but they have no right to enforce a sort of Christian Sharia law on the rest of us, because that would violate my freedom of religion.  They, in turn, have a duty to acknowledge my right to believe something else and express it.  If I tell them to get lost, that's their problem.  Ditto if I offend them by making fun of the crazy type of Christian who comes to my door or on my TV and tries to convince me of things I think are bat-shit crazy.  And... although I don't think they're going to burn in Hell, if I did, I'd have a right to.  Victor Anderson, the founder of a religion called Feri, thought that the God of Abraham from the Bible was a false god (in fact, he thought He is a big, mean dust devil).  That was his right too.  These days, those sorts of Christians need to deal with the fact that Muslims also have the right to think Christians are going to burn in Hell, so long as they don't try to force Sharia law on us.

The same holds for other sorts of freedoms and expressions.  As long as it's sincere, being offended isn't a good enough excuse to squash other people's freedoms.

Shutting Down Speakers

I've heard a ton of reports about our colleges and universities that radical leftist students are coming in with bullhorns and the like and physically disrupting speakers so much that the speaker literally can't speak.  At first I thought they were only doing this to Neo-Nazis and Neo-Fascists [1], but I've heard too many counter examples to believe that it's just tghat.  At my alma mater, Reed, a Lesbian professor's lecture on the ancient female homosexual love poetry of Sappho was shutdown by leftist students who felt it was too westo-centric, causing this Lesbian professor, who also had PTSD, to have a nervous breakdown in front of her class.  Harvard intellectual Stephen Pinker, who seems about as even-keeled and bland, politically speaking, as one might like a professor to be, was similarly shutdown and harassed.  The feminist Cristina Hoff Summers has to go with a security detail now, simply because she's not the type of feminist that radical leftist students seem to prefer.  She's reported how both her and another feminists, whom they do like, both got shutdown, because, although these campus radicals like her loyal opposition, they don't like their feminist enough to let her even have a debate.

This sort of behavior is wrong.  People have the unalienable right to express their opinions and universities are appropriate places for a wide range of expression.  College should be as place where a wide range of opinions can be debated, not a place where only one, approved, set of opinions should be.  It doesn't matter how leftist the approved opinion is.  Oppression is oppression.  What these students are doing is creating a sort of social authoritarianism.

PTSD

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a psychological diagnosis.  People can be triggered by just about anything.  If a particular individual is triggered by something, we can take steps to accommodate them, but claiming that we should, categorically, avoid certain terms, actions, etc. on the off-chance that someone might have their PTSD triggered, is bad psychology at best and oppressive / authoritarian at worst.  Let's avoid using PTSD as an excuse to oppress.

Equality of Expression

I've heard members of oppressed groups say that, because their expression has been oppressed, they expect members of the corresponding non-oppressed group (whites, men, heteros, etc.) to stop expressing themselves.  An example of this is the so-called "progressive stack," (I call it an authoritarian stack, for reasons that will become clear soon) in which people who raise hands to ask questions of speakers, or contribute to a conversation, are called on non-white and female first, then female or people of color, and then white men.[2]

As much as I support the right to freedom of expression of oppressed groups, as a classic liberal, my solution is that our society should stop oppressing them, period.  However, I cannot condone inequality or unfairness of any kind, no matter how non-normal or subversive it may be.  If we believe in the human rights of freedom of expression, equality, fairness, and egalitarian respect, we should simply call on people in the order in which they raise their hands.  Note that oppressed groups would still be able to express themselves and straight, vanilla, white, male, Christian, or non-working-class have the duty to accommodate us just as we have always accommodated them.  And I as a hetero but not-so-vanilla, white, male Pagan also need to respect the freedom of expression of people of color, women, and LGBTQ+ folks.[3]

These "stacks" may be technically "progressive" by somebody's definition, but they're not liberal (which has to do with liberty).  They are themselves oppresssive and two wrongs don't make a right.  As such, they are a form of social authoritarianism.

Justice and Oppressed Groups

We all have the right to justice.  Oppressed groups have the human right to justice, as we all do.  To a large extent, I agree that our government and society frequently oppresses that right and that's wrong.  However, as a classic liberal, I do understand all that in terms of a right to justice.  As soon as members of oppressed groups demand something that's unjust, they've abandoned human rights as much for themselves as for everyone else.

People are innocent until proven guilty and that's an unalienable right, not merely a legal one.  People have the right to have a fair finding of facts about any misconduct they are alleged as having made.  They have the right to be confronted by their accusers (or at least their representatives[4]).  They have a right to a fair trial (or the social equivalent thereof) and to have their side of the story listened to and taken into account.  When people say that those who accuse someone else of a crime should be believed, rather than merely taken seriously, they've actually saying that they expect someone they've accused to be assumed to be guilty without proof, or even any fact-finding.  Yet, universities, at this moment, force a student accused of sexual assault to not attend classes until the fact finding is complete, which, effectively punishes someone who might not have done anything wrong (no fact finding has taken place yet).  Yes, if they really assaulted their accuser, their accuser needs to be safe, but there are other solutions.  And, yes, we should take accusations seriously, but then make a fair finding of the facts.  And, yes, we, as a society, need to be prepared to make those findings.  For example, all police stations should have all the rape kits they need to gather forensic evidence when reports come in.

Also, we need to use the right terms.  When misconduct has only been alleged and no fair fact finding has yet occurred, we only have allegations, an accuser, and an accused.  To speak of an assailant, a victim or survivor, and a crime or misdeed before the fact finding is unjust.  Likewise, to summarily fire or expel someone without hearing their side of the story is unjust.  Human rights do not end at legalities.  Anyone who supports summary or unilateral firing or expulsion without a finding of facts, with secret tribunals, or by just believing the accused, is a social authoritarian, because they're oppressing the right to justice of the accused.  They're no better than the Bush administration for throwing people only suspected of terrorism in Guantanamo Bay without a trial.

Alt-Left Social Authoritarianism

What I've hoped to have demonstrated here is that this type of alt-leftist is, even unwittingly, socially authoritarian.  If your rights are being oppressed, I'll stand by you, even if all I do is vote and blog.  However, as a classic liberal, I cannot condone this sort of social authoritarianism.  There are better ways.  Remember what I said at the beginning of this blog.  You have the right to express yourself, offend people, satirize other views, and speak plainly.  What's more, if we oppress the rights of people we don't approve of, they'll only express themselves in secret.  It won't change their opinions.  However, if we let them speak, their crazy ideas come out in the open and we can use our own expression to respond.  If we're worried about our groups getting justice, we need to make we advocate for justice for all.  Only then can we demand justice for ourselves.

And, if you call yourself a "social justice warrior," I, for one, will expect you to really be on the side of justice.  If what you really mean is that you're a social authoritarian, with all due respect, I see a social injustice gestapo.  And, if that offends you, see the top of this post, because that's what I sincerely believe.  (I don't want to offend anybody, but I have to speak my mind, because it's my duty as a member of a free society to do so.)

In my final post, I'll elaborate on this final point by showing how classic liberalism is actually stronger and less hypocritical for achieving our political ends.  Until then, I'll leave you with this final thought.  The real authoritarians (the theocrats, the Neo-Nazis, the Neo-Fascists, etc.) would love nothing better than for the left to pave their way by convincing everyone to stop thinking in terms of human rights and, instead, start thinking in terms of authoritarianism.  The best way to stop them is to consistently proclaim everybody's human rights and to consistently resist all forms of authoritarianism.  Then, we can cite ourselves as specific examples of this basic world view, rather than an exception to it.  By promoting a free society, we help ourselves and block the would be tyrants.

Unite we stand.  Divided we fall.  I hope we stand united on human rights, equality, fairness, democracy, and justice for all.

------------
[1] I theoretically affirm their right to freedom of expression, too, though I acknowledge the fear many of us will undoubtedly have of them, and note that they certainly don't have the right to call for an armed revolution, advocate violence, or the like.
[2] Sexual orientation, class, or religion do not seem to be taken into account by this, nor does trans and non-binary gender, since it's all based on what the person who calls on people can see.  That would seem to imply that a short-haired person in jeans and t-shirt who has a vagina but identifies as a man (or also identifies as a woman, but prefers to present themselves that way) would get called on last, along with white men.
[3] On the LGBTQ+ front, though, I've often wondered why kinky folks are not included in that, since kink is typically understood as being sexually deviant in our culture, and often get in trouble with the law for consensual, if non-vanilla, sex.
[4] I understand that people may not feel comfortable confronting someone directly, but a nosy neighbor is not a representative.  You're only a representative if the person who's actually alleged wrong done against them says you are.  There are too many instances, these days, in which it's not the alleged victim who makes the accusation (they're fine with things), but a third party.  Example: a man and woman are making out at a party and a third person reports the man as "violating" the woman, when the woman he was touching consented and says so.