Why because it's de-platformed must people talk less about it? — Pseudonym

Isn't that the point and the goal of de-platforming? Whether it works is a different thing.

Yes, I still have major concerns. Positive discrimination, on the basis of race, is racist. If we want to help people out of a hole, we should help the people in the hole. Not the population of people who look like the people in the hole. It's not like we don't know how to identify the people actually in the hole and, to the extent the populations overlap, doing so would also have the desired affect on whatever correlated racial group.

But don't rebut that, it's beside the point. The argument I'm trying to make is an argument about arguments. Seems to me, people have a lot of difficulty being charitable to their opponents. It's too easy to profoundly misunderstand each other. I don't trust your hubris on this, that you would do more good than harm as Grand Curator of ideas. I have the same hubris and I don't trust it in myself either. These utilitarian calculations you're doing are impossible. Freedom to express earnestly held ideas and beliefs just seems foundational to the human condition to me. You need a really really good reason to suppress that and hurt feelings don't even come close. I'm a meta-ethical utilitarian and, like you, I've done the calculation. But, I emphasize, it's not that I'm correct. It's that self-righteous meddling is an indulgence that should be held in check.

Isn't that the point and the goal of de-platforming? Whether it works is a different thing. — BlueBanana

No, the goal of de-platforming is to prevent rhetoric that can incite people to take up ideas that are harmful to society. Absolutely nothing prevents those doing the de-platforming from rationally and publicly explaining why the ideas of the de-platformed speaker are harmful.

The argument I'm trying to make is an argument about arguments. Seems to me, people have a lot of difficulty being charitable to their opponents. It's too easy to profoundly misunderstand each other. I don't trust your hubris on this, that you would do more good than harm as Grand Curator of ideas. I have the same hubris and I don't trust it in myself either. — Roke

I'm glad that you're focussing on the 'argument about arguments' as you put it. That's exactly what I'm talking about too. Where I differ is that I don't see this meta-level as being in any way excused from ethics.

I don't trust my hubris either (though personally I wouldn't describe it as hubris if we're not trusting it, but just to keep the term, we'll go along with it for now), it doesn't mean we don't still have a choice to make.

These utilitarian calculations you're doing are impossible.Freedom to express earnestly held ideas and beliefs just seems foundational to the human condition to me. — Roke

I don't believe they are entirely utilitarian. On an individual level, I'm a virtue ethicist. I know we got a little sidetracked into government, but I did originally say that I felt 'community leaders' should be able to prevent certain people from speaking to their community. I think this is not a matter of utilitarianism, but one of virtue. As I've said earlier in this post (I think), I would not allow that kind of talk in my house as an expression of my values, such expressions are an important part of community ethics and I see it as just as much " foundational to the human condition " as you do with expression of ideas.

In Hunter-Gather societies, despite an almost total absence of coercion to do anything at all, those who do not share food are routinely ostracised. Sharing is such a fundamental part of their community virtue, that they need to express their intolerance of any transgression. I don't see how you could make an empirical argument to say that the free expression of ideas is foundational to the human condition, but then deny the fact that the ability to express virtues through taboo behaviours and attitudes is not.

I would argue that espousing the treatment of one section of our community such as to put them at a disadvantage, or maintain a disadvantage they have been put at historically, is against good human values, and any community has a right to express those values by ostracising those who transgress them. If anything has a claim to be 'foundational' it's that.

... it's not that I'm correct. It's that self-righteous meddling is an indulgence that should be held in check. — Roke

Do you see how contradictory this is, you claim humility in the face of a calculation about the position of out hypothetical speaker (you think he's wrong but are not going to be supercilious enough to say so with enough certainty to ban him), but then you make a statement that self-righteous meddling (as you put it) should definitely be held in check. Where's the humility in that decision? You seem all of a sudden to know exactly what's right and what's wrong on this meta-issue, and I just don't think it's that clear. Free-speech seems to be being given a place in the set of human virtues above all else, and I just don't see any convincing arguments to justify its commanding position.

I'm struggling to find an example from history which demonstrates the effect you're claiming, perhaps you could provide the examples you're working from? — Pseudonym

For a start, there are plenty of people saying that Trump got elected from people reacting against what they saw as an excess of authoritarian political correctness, incorporating such things as harrassing people that express unpopular views. Even if that's only a tiny bit true, the effects are enormous - apparently it could even end up in a nuclear holocaust.

I personally seem to come across plenty of people who are not particularly committed either way, but speak very disparagingly when they see aggressive demonstrators on the TV news, then keep referring back to it at regular intervals from then on.

You say the above is irrational. Well, yes, most people do not vote rationally - as I said, not like Chidi Anagonye. Ask any spin doctor.

Lets say the students behave and let the person speak, some academic responds in the media rebutting his racist claims (though what would have prevented him from doing so anyway I don't know but we'll skip over that for now). What difference would that have made to your voter? — Pseudonym

Then the issue would not have moved them to vote against whatever cause the students support. So they will vote based on some other (quite possibly irrational) consideration. But the bias against the progressive cause has been removed, so the expected number of votes against progressivity has reduced. That's a win for the progressive camp.

what's going to happen when the racists speaks, tells everyone how badly treated white minorities are in some ghettos, how positive discrimination is robbing white people of jobs, how white girls can't even walk the street in areas dominated by immigrants? — Pseudonym

The voter will probably never hear what the racist says, because they didn't go to the rally, and the rally won't make the TV news, because it was only the violent demonstrations that made it newsworthy. The demonstrators were essentially providing free publicity for the racist's cause.

People are not so impressed by dignified protest that they're going to turn away from the persuasive and powerful rhetoric that's saying exactly what they want to hear just because the opposition to it are well-behaved. — Pseudonym

We differ there. I think people are impressed by dignified protest. I think of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. And Nelson Mandela only became an international hero after he had been in jail long enough, and conducted himself in such a dignified manner, that people had forgotten he was arrested for arms offences. In Northern Ireland the most notable phenomenon leading up to the Good Friday agreement was not the violence of the IRA and UDA, but the increasing size and prevalence of peace marches.

I don't think Rosa Parks would have had nearly as much of an impact if, when arrested, she had started screaming, striking out at and spitting on the police officers that led her off the bus.

But it just occurred to me that maybe you're American (apparently many people on here are). If so then the biggest platform problem you've got is that your head of state is a fascist. So he can get horrifically mean and discriminatory views on the national news simply via twitter. I think that's a much bigger problem than a few white supremacist rabble turning up to a rambling diatribe at a lonely lecture hall of some university. But I'm afraid I have no suggestions for 'de-platforming' your leader other than to work towards (1) reducing his power via a loss of his party's majorities in Congress at the mid-term elections, and (2) removing him completely in 2018.

I think people are impressed by dignified protest. — andrewk

The voter will probably never hear what the racist says, because they didn't go to the rally, and the rally won't make the TV news, because it was only the violent demonstrations that made it newsworthy. — andrewk

I think these two quotes really summarise a large part of our disagreement, and as both are essentially judgement calls, I'm not sure that I can persuade you any more than you could persuade me.

Firstly, I think people are impressed by causes, ones the support for which confer membership of a social group to which they want to belong. Non-violence is often part of that cause. I don't think there is overwhelming evidence of people like Gandhi having more success in their cause than, for example, the anti-segregation riots. I respect Gandhi's approach more, but that's because I'm a reasonable person who doesn't want anyone to suffer needlessly. That means I already agree with Gandhi's cause, his non-violence isn't something that would win me over unless I already thought that needless suffering was a bad thing, and the might of the strong oppressing the weak, was a bad thing. The ethical position must come first in order for me to find the lack of violence compelling.

This I think is at the heart of the first element of where we differ. You're seeing all political views as morally neutral, or at least seeing their potential supporters as neutral members of society, but I don't believe they are. Someone who is a potential supporter of Trump, or some other racist is not the same kind of person as someone who is a potential supporter of Gandhi, so the kinds of behaviour that will genuinely appeal to them (not the kinds of behaviour they say appeal to them) will be different. So whilst Gandhi's non-violence might have persuaded someone previously only slightly sympathetic to his cause, I don't see anything to convince me that the non-violence of antifa students is going to do anything to persuade someone previously slightly sympathetic to racists to be less so. What would the lack of one group oppressing another appeal to someone at risk of being persuaded by policies proposing exactly that?

Besides, the student's wouldn't have to protest violently if they had the right to say to their university that they did not want that speaker on campus, so focussing on the violence of the protest is missing the point. It's the right of a community to say that they do not wish to hear from people with certain opinions.

The second, unrelated issue, is that I think you're placing too much hope of some spurious presumptions like the one I quote. The voter will 'probably' never hear what the racist says. Do you think it's safe to take that chance, knowing what we know about the power of rhetoric? I certainly don't. Someone's going to hear what they say, and those people are going to feel more entitled to spread that message until you end up with a situation like we had in Nazi Germany, or with the rise of fascism in Europe. I just don't think it's worth the risk.

But it just occurred to me that maybe you're American (apparently many people on here are). If so then the biggest platform problem you've got is that your head of state is a fascist. So he can get horrifically mean and discriminatory views on the national news simply via twitter. — andrewk

For some reason revealing of my own unacceptable prejudice I'm slightly offended that you think I'm American. Anyway, I'm English, Our biggest problem is the BNP, UKIP etc., but the problem of Trump I see as an example, not an exception, and the British response has been instrumental. We've basically said that we don't want him over here to speak, that nothing he's got to say is of any interest to us. I think that's a very powerful expression of the contempt in which we hold his views, much more powerful than letting him over here and debating them, as if they had any kind of legitimate reasons that might require some thought.

For some reason revealing of my own unacceptable prejudice I'm slightly offended that you think I'm American. Anyway, I'm English, Our biggest problem is the BNP, UKIP etc., but the problem of Trump I see as an example, not an exception, and the British response has been instrumental. We've basically said that we don't want him over here to speak, that nothing he's got to say is of any interest to us. I think that's a very powerful expression of the contempt in which we hold his views, much more powerful than letting him over here and debating them, as if they had any kind of legitimate reasons that might require some thought. — Pseudonym

I think that's exactly the correct response in that case. I hope it lasts. Do you think May will give in and invite him over at some stage, despite the unpopularity of such a move with the British people?

For the first part of your post - I think your assessment of our respective positions is correct. We seem to agree on aims, but disagree on methods - at least as far as local talks and demonstrations go. And we seem unlikely to persuade one another. I hope you turn out to be right and I turn out to be wrong, because that will mean that your 'de-platforming' efforts have been successful in diminishing the influence of the UKIPs, BNPs and Milo Yiannopoulos's of this world..

I think that's exactly the correct response in that case. I hope it lasts. Do you think May will give in and invite him over at some stage, despite the unpopularity of such a move with the British people? — andrewk

On this rare occasion I actually have some faith in the population (I'm generally fairly despairing of modern humanity), I think it would be political suicide for May to go against popular opinion on this. My only concern is that that political suicide seems to be something May is drawn to like a lemming.

Can someone define what exactly is meant by de-platforming? How exactly does it work? What justification can be given to de-platform racists while not de-platforming other groups?

In terms of the paradox, I'm not entirely sure that the paradox exists. First, I'm not sure that the extremes of rationality or irrationality required for the argument to work hold true. Some people are more prone to rationality in some areas of their life than others. Second, I don't see how de-platforming becomes irrelevant if people are rational; "you might find an argument stating on the Dark Web" doesn't seem like that strong of a position. Third, rational argument may be "best" for reasons other than pursuading opposition, which it seems to be operating as. I may use rational arguments in educational settings in order to shut down and redicule the absurdity of racist claims, for example, preventing the spead of ideas that way, making it "best" in my eyes.

Lastly, the paradox only potentially exists for specific subgroup of free speech advocates. Not everyone holds the two statements to be true. I can weaken the statement to, "I believe that de-platforming a racist position can cause a small but sizable number of people to garner sympathy and potential support and I also believe that rational arguments against racism is a good way of stopping the spread of these beliefs." With that, I'm not sure the paradox exists.

The humility in my position is that I put myself on even ground with everyone else. When someone talks about silencing 'some ideas' I assume none of them will happen to be their own. My position doesn't depend on free speech being the pinnacle of virtues because I find it perfectly consistent with all other virtues. In the end, we can't control other people and they're capable of far worse than speech.

Edit - and look, I want to acknowledge that I follow your argument and I consider you a reasonable guy. But I'm tending to disagree subtly, yet strongly, each step of the way. That's all it takes to end up with very different conclusions. That's exactly what makes me feel we should be very careful with this.

Can someone define what exactly is meant by de-platforming? How exactly does it work? — Chany

De-platforming, as far as I'm aware, was coined by the National Union of Students in the UK, and refers to attempts by that union to prevent certain people from finding opportunities to speak to certain groups. They campaign to their respective university authorities to refuse to host these people. The concept within ethical debate (at least those I've been party to) has been extended to essentially saying that people have a right to try and prevent others from speaking within their communities if they feel their speech may be harmful.

What justification can be given to de-platform racists while not de-platforming other groups? — Chany

The justification arises from the harm to society. Racism harms society.

First, I'm not sure that the extremes of rationality or irrationality required for the argument to work hold true. Some people are more prone to rationality in some areas of their life than others. — Chany

This is true, but the only way this would limit the paradox would be if people were consistently irrational when it came to agreeing with those ideas which appear suppressed, but suddenly rational when it came to assessing debate. I don't deny people vary in their rationality, but I really can't see them doing so in such a way as to consistently undo the paradox in this way.

Second, I don't see how de-platforming becomes irrelevant if people are rational; "you might find an argument stating on the Dark Web" doesn't seem like that strong of a position. — Chany

Perhaps you could expand on why you think this position is weak?

Third, rational argument may be "best" for reasons other than pursuading opposition, which it seems to be operating as. I may use rational arguments in educational settings in order to shut down and redicule the absurdity of racist claims, — Chany

That sounds like 'persuading' to me. Ridicule only works with an already sympathetic audience. We ridicule Nazis now, the silly walks and Hugo Boss uniforms, how successful do you think ridicule would have been in 1940s Berlin?

"I believe that de-platforming a racist position can cause a small but sizable number of people to garner sympathy and potential support and I also believe that rational arguments against racism is a good way of stopping the spread of these beliefs." With that, I'm not sure the paradox exists. — Chany

No, that's is the paradox exactly. By what empirical justification do you believe this, how are you defining these groups? I can only see one way in which this statement could make rational sense and that it you postulate a group of people who become irrationally more sympathetic to a cause because people deny it a platform, and a separate group who are willing to be rationally persuaded by counter arguments. I concede that two such groups are possible, but you've not provided any evidence that they are probable, nor that they outweigh the third group who irrationally believe that because the ideas are given platforms, that makes it OK to believe them.

To summarise I think it is possible to identify three reactions to de-platforming;

1. Become more sympathetic to the cause because it has been denied a platform.
2. Become more sympathetic to the cause because you've heard no rational rebuttal or ridicule (because the debate didn't take place).
3. Become less sympathetic to the cause because it seem like a fringe position that most of your community are so opposed to they don't even want to hear it again.

All I'm arguing is that;
Groups 1 and 2 can't be the same people, because 1 is irrational and 2 is rational.
Group 3 ties in more closely with everything we know about human psychology, crowd following, Zeitgeist, paradigms etc. and so represents the most likely and largest group.
Group 2 is a strawman because these arguments have been heard before and there's nothing to stop people rationally rebutting and ridiculing the old version of it, we do not need to hear them again and again.
And finally, that notwithstanding the above utilitarian argument, there's a virtue ethical argument to be had which says that a community has the right to express it's virtues through define behaviour and rhetoric it considers taboo.