If you read the classical texts defending freedom of speech (Mill, Spinoza, Kant, et.c.), you’ll see that the point was supposed to be to get as many ideas as possible up on the table, so they can be rationally discussed and considered.
They were quite clear that harassment, shaming and other ways of shutting people up, goes against this purpose - and while they might not want the government to get involved, I don’t think they’d have a big problem with platforms doing content moderation to prevent those sorts of things.
It is possible to harass and shame people by misgendering them, e.g. by conspicuously and repeatedly referring to them in the third person. I think some people do try to chase trans people off the public square using tactics like that. Beyond that, my gut feeling is that if it’s a belief that’s presented honestly and curiously, those philosophers would want it expressed.
The whole trans debate is a bit of a mess in this regard, I think. For trans people, it is very personal, and it’s been jazzed up so much by the whole culture war bs. Everyone who has an opinion on it, seem to finish presenting it with “END OF DISCUSSION”, not really in line with those enlightenment ideals.
If you read the classical texts defending freedom of speech (Mill, Spinoza, Kant, et.c.), you’ll see that the point was supposed to be to get as many ideas as possible up on the table, so they can be rationally discussed and considered.
They were quite clear that harassment, shaming and other ways of shutting people up, goes against this purpose - and while they might not want the government to get involved, I don’t think they’d have a big problem with platforms doing content moderation to prevent those sorts of things.
How should this work if someone doesn’t go along with the trans agenda?
Trans people will say they’re being harassed/shamed if someone doesn’t see them how they want to be seen.
It is possible to harass and shame people by misgendering them, e.g. by conspicuously and repeatedly referring to them in the third person. I think some people do try to chase trans people off the public square using tactics like that. Beyond that, my gut feeling is that if it’s a belief that’s presented honestly and curiously, those philosophers would want it expressed.
The whole trans debate is a bit of a mess in this regard, I think. For trans people, it is very personal, and it’s been jazzed up so much by the whole culture war bs. Everyone who has an opinion on it, seem to finish presenting it with “END OF DISCUSSION”, not really in line with those enlightenment ideals.
Surely we aren’t striving for quantity over quantity. Because that’s where this sorta leads
That’s exactly the idea. The process of rational discussion and consideration is supposed to take care of the quality.
Obviously this was before the birth of the internet, and also before the birth of the think tank :l
Maybe there should be quality criteria for what constitutes an idea worth discussing. Not every social media post is an idea.