Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:As for 'hate speech fetishists', that must be a deliberate misconstrual of free speech supporters. Those of us who think free speech is really fucking important tend to believe that the only rational response to hate speech is more speech, rather than the use of force by authorities to silence it.
No, it's a deliberate description of the kind of sites leading the outrage against the students, such as Reason or Breitbart -- which have very much advocated hate speech.
That there are more reasonable people who also believe that the Yale students are at fault I will not dispute, but they're not the ones leading the internet outrage machine in this case.
Possibly the most depressing scene was that poor immigrant girl who got shouted down with cries of "PRIVILEGE PLUS POWER!" when she made the mistake of saying she'd experienced racism from other minority groups. What a depressing scene. Some of the most privileged children of some of the nations most powerful families at one of the nations most elite schools shouting down a girl for saying that it's important to judge people as individuals and that she'd experienced racism from people of all colours because they're such racist, arrogant and hateful people that the only way they can defend themselves from accusations of racism is to redefine it such that it can never apply to their own actions.
Their point is that it is an entirely different beast
when someone is being hateful to you vs. when someone is being hateful to you with all the weight of the institution and society behind them. While I disagree with vehemently with the idea that being part of the "oppressed group" gives you a get out of jail free card (which, honestly, I'm not sure is what they're saying, I'd need to review the incident, care to provide a link?), I can definitely understand being frustrated when you're attempting to point out how the deck is stacked against you and people keep trotting out "well, that can't be important because people have been hateful to me without all the baggage you guys are actually complaining about" -- esp. when they're argument seems to be, if I'm reading you correctly, "minorities can be bigots too, therefore bigotry against minorities isn't a problem worth addressing."
I've definitely seen anti-bigot crusaders falling prey to soft bigotry against "neckbeards", and I've seen textual evidence of plenty of harder bigotry against "whites", bred from what was arguably once-reasonable distrust of those complicit in the system against them. It definitely happens, and it's disheartening, but it seems obvious to me that the more pressing problem will always be addressing the bigotry that is causing the most damage at the current time and place. (In Cambodia, that was once bigotry against intellectuals and the rich. In America, it can be the opposite, where the poor and uneducated are treated as if they prefer
their circumstances and are "leeches" if they seek welfare assistance. There are tons of differences that can be turned into a knife.) The pressing task seems to be making sure that there is, at least, not a well-funded and armed machine at the bigot's beck and call.
Tho, yeah, it's pretty ridiculous to be chanting "privilege plus power" in a, by definition, powerful
display of solidarity.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.