Does this also apply when someone say: expressing X has consequences and is damaging/dangerous?
-
-
Replying to @oreil_m @Metamagician
They're justifying punitive consequences. Obviously, ppl hope speech will have consequences in terms of persuading others.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Opponents of free speech often fear people will be influenced by the bad ideas whilst defenders usually think it's the way to defeat them
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Metamagician
Yes, I think that's the difference in a nutshell.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Opponents also seem to think that someone expressing a controversial view will likely cause others to believe that view and act on it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @oreil_m @Metamagician
I think it's coz they are pessimistic abt society & view things like racism & sexism as dominant discourses which construct social reality.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Metamagician
So opponents think discourse largely constructs our society, while FS proponents think discourse is more a reflection of it
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @oreil_m @Metamagician
More that opponents undervalue the role of individuals in this. We are all situated within dominant discourse. Hence, all white ppl racist.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
We can tackle this on an individual level but by dismantling the discourse which defines us according to a certain understanding of it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The idea that a white individual could hear different discourses around race, involve herself in them, assess them, make own arguments? No.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
She either adopts the critical race theory view & uses it to dismantle her own racism (imperfectly) or she perpetuates the racist discourse.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.