Conor Friedersdorf

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

I take a significant faction to believe, at bottom, that it makes sense for enlightened people to marshal whatever power they have, within institutions or as individuals, to increase the cost of uttering wrongthink, thereby changing society not — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

This thread as a whole captures my thoughts on deliberative democracy. Now I want to sketch one of the perspectives that I take myself to be arguing against and see if you all agree that it's an actual position or not. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@HamasakiLaw I don't understand this tweet but I am suspicious when people send screenshots rather than links. I wonder what they're trying to prevent me from seeing. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

Those behaviors are the subject of the complaints about "cancel culture" that I find most persuasive, and I think it would improve our civic life if we cultivated norms in public discourse that reduced the frequency or efficacy of such behavior. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

3) Alas, many self-censor on issues society is still working through not bc they are unwilling to have their ideas tested by fire, but bc they so frequently see others personally & viciously attacked, arbitrarily & capriciously punished, or unjustly shamed or shunned. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

2) Fulfilling attendant civic obligations sometimes requires the courage to air ideas publicly despite the possibility that those ideas will be criticized or even ridiculed. This is the *many people need to be braver* part of the equation. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

Here are some claims: 1) Deliberative democracy depends on the willingness of citizens to air earnestly held positions, including wrongheaded positions, on matters that society is still working through. https://t.co/aCetyYfkVr — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@RTodKelly I mean, a 1 dollar tip on a single four dollar beer remains fine, but good luck finding a four dollar beer in big cities these days — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@jesseclain @JamesSurowiecki @ijbailey @jbouie It is accurate, not misleading, to portray top tier college culture as a place where deplatforming has sufficiently widespread support among students to result in chilled speech, disinvitations, etc. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

Back then we still used physical dollars while drinking together in person, and this led to disagreements about whether to tip the bartender, say, 1 dollar per beer on a four dollar beer or a percentage per drink or wait till the end and tip. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

I would like to assure young people that tipping discourse was just as contentious when I first encountered it on the relative idyll of the 2008 or 2009 Internet — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@jesseclain @JamesSurowiecki @ijbailey @jbouie I mean, I am a liberal, and sometimes the reason I disagree with a thing is because of its departure from liberal values. Why should that be verboten? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@jesseclain @JamesSurowiecki @ijbailey Yes, the student newspaper was clearly engaged in Constitutionally protected speech. And no, UVA has not yet taken an action that violates the 1A--as far as I know Pence is coming. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@jesseclain @JamesSurowiecki @ijbailey Okay, we agree. And do you agree that would violate the 1st Amendment? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@jesseclain @JamesSurowiecki @ijbailey Lobbying an administration... to do what? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

The latest Up for Debate starts with my take on the NYT free speech editorial before bringing in other voices, including @Popehat's critique, which is worth reading if you missed it. https://t.co/aCetyYfkVr — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@jesseclain @JamesSurowiecki @ijbailey Do you agree that it would be a First Amendment violation if the University responded, "We have read your editorial and we agree, it is dangerous to platform Mike Pence, he can't come anymore"? Or do you think that would be consistent with free speech working itself out? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@XBillups @ijbailey @JamesSurowiecki "So-called “perspectives” should not be welcomed when they spread rhetoric that directly threatens the presence and lives of our community members." What does "directly" mean? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@XBillups @ijbailey @JamesSurowiecki The administration is asked to "do better." Meaning what? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@XBillups @ijbailey @JamesSurowiecki "The... Editorial Board does not condone platforming an individual that not only denies the existence of our diverse community, but participates in the violent rhetoric that perpetuates harm against these individuals. To our administration-we implore you to do better." Question: — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@jesseclain @JamesSurowiecki @ijbailey The rights of other students are implicated when they are the ones who've extended an invite and are planning an event. Asking administrators to side against them is objectionable in a way *we don't like the commencement speaker our president picked* (say) would not be. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@XBillups @ijbailey @JamesSurowiecki They're asking administrators at a public university to side with them — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@XBillups @ijbailey @JamesSurowiecki No, it's getting traction because it's noteworthy that the newspaper at a major public university thinks Mike Pence, a former VP, is beyond the pale as a speaker and literally threatens the lives of students. *That* is what people are focusing on, not the also true fact — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@jesseclain @JamesSurowiecki @ijbailey The context is other students invited him. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@DavidAstinWalsh Must be accurate then! — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@XBillups @ijbailey @JamesSurowiecki Like I said, Ryan, I have no interest in going to the mats to defend "must" but neither am I clear on / convinced that it's misleading. So maybe I'm wrong, and it would be best to just discuss the actual words rather than adjudicating "must." — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@XBillups @ijbailey @JamesSurowiecki I didn't put that in quotes and I def acknowledge they did not use the word must. I think it basically captures their view but I see others disagreeing and I have no reason or desire to contest that point. Maybe I'm wrong. Best to focus on their actual words while debating — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @JamesSurowiecki I notice you avoided answering the question. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @JamesSurowiecki If a newspaper editorialized, *Hosting Democrats as outside speakers is dangerous and impermissible because Democrats are pro abortion baby killers* but the newspaper also printed a contrary view, would you say the editorial expressed a narrow view of who should be platformed? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @JamesSurowiecki What do you mean "agreed with that decision even as they explain why they disagreed with it"? — PolitiTweet.org