This is a truly depressing sign of the times. To some extent, I suspect it issues from a more general conflation of some immoral action or unjust norm (such as rape, racism, or religious discrimination) and having an open conversation about that action or norm. Although this is not always as clear-cut a distinction as in the case of rape, the conflation is nonetheless significant and extremely unfortunate, because you cannot confront an immoral action or unjust norm by not talking about it. As the piece says, such - undoubtedly well-intended - de facto quietism is a disservice to the victims, but it is also a major problem for democratic society at large. We do not want to live in a society in which we cannot discuss the things that hurt and humiliate - that is an insight that goes back at least to Kant, and which is no less true today. This is not itself a reason for saying unreasonable, prejudiced, or hurtful things (unfortunately, many seem to also conflate freedom of speech and the duty to be an idiot, or at least defend them), but it is a reason to arm yourself with a certain kind of hard-nosed attitude and consider the emotional distress that might result from free and open debate a tax you pay in the general interest of being able to openly contest and confront injustice in the public sphere.
Posted on: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:03:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015