I disagree entirely. Compare that with the 1st Amendment to the U.S. constitution. C-16 abridges the speech acts of individuals. 1st amendment restrains the government from abridging the speech acts of individuals. Everything the state does is implicitly backed by violence.
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto @vgr
Civility norms will always exist in mass scale societies, because when they collapse beyond a certain point so does the rest of your society. Using the force of law to control the speech of others (even unkind speech) is a massive leap towards societal civility collapse.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @vgr
You can claim now that you are "protecting the sensitivies of the weak" but no faction stays in power forever and corruption, frailty, and opportunism are constant features of societies and those who govern them. Giving tools like this to the government is begging for it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @vgr
and it's a mistake to think that PC is necessarily protecting the sensitivities of the weak. that couldn't be further from the truth. PC is just the enforcement of group norms in speech and other public behavior. it is not always done with benign intent.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @vgr
religious fanatics who attack people for blasphemy are also enforcing their own PC norms. in fact, that type of PC enforcement is historically the more prominent one.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @vgr
if you're still claiming that explicit rules and implicit PC norms are the same then no we aren't
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto
No, I'm claiming that multiple informal *sources* of explicit legal rules are (decorum, civility, notions of PC) are basically equivalent modulo power.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
the thing about an explicit rule is, regardless of where it came from or who's power it reinforces, you know what you get up front and someone violating their own explicit rules reveals themselves as a hypocrite (or tyrant) and suffers an appropriate loss of credibility.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @vgr
implicit PC norms are inconsistently enforced and result in unpredictable and often wildly disproportionate penalties. there is also no loss of credibility or any other mechanism of accountability because they are enforced by the mob and the mob has no credibility to protect.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
As for whether the norm gets enforced by a mob, a guy with a gun defending his honor, or a cop, I am likely more indifferent to the 3. I think all 3 do involve a prevailing notion of honor, including the mob. Mob honor is just not the same as gunslinger or cop honor.
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.