[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not trying to be a dick, but can I ask you how much material you've read from the supposed contemporary left-wing? Indigenous scholars, feminists, anarchists, etc.? These people are very aware of the values they're rejecting.

Then they're fools who don't understand history. The only reason they have platforms to call for reform is because of liberalism. In illiberal societies minorities stay oppressed unless they have strength and raw numbers to violently overthrow the dominant group.

Originally Posted by rubecube

What dissenting views are we talking about here exactly? If we're talking about racist or homophobic language, there's an element where the supposed ideals of free speech inadvertently end up suppressing the voices of marginalized people. We're also not really talking about dissenting viewpoints when we're talking about discriminatory or oppressive statements, as these have largely been the more widely-held views until very recently, and have been given enough of an audience as is.

But there is no consensus on what constitutes offensive and harmful speech, and never will be. Not long ago any public reference to homosexual sex acts (or even heterosexual sex acts) was regarded as grossly offensive. Not long ago you couldn't say the word 'pregnant' on TV. In a liberal society, norms change and evolve all the time. In an illiberal society, they remain locked in place. And leftists themselves are highly selective about whose feelings need to be protected. They will call for public condemnation of someone who makes an insensitive comment about Native spirituality, but criticism of the Catholic Church is cheerfully encouraged.

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is a bit of a non sequitur, don't you think?

Not at all. If you look at the Chinese culture, the Indian culture, the Middle Eastern Islamic culture, and Western culture, the latter is the only one where women, minorities, and people of non hetero sexual orientation are afforded equal rights and respect. Why? Why in the West and not others? What sequence of cause and effect led to this state of affairs?

That's why I think reason and empiricism are alien to the new left; if these questions don't come to mind, then you're simply not attuned to systematic and logical thinking.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Come on now. We circumscribe speech and behaviour to enforce peace and conformity in almost all aspects of everyday life. There is almost universal acceptance that there are reasonable limits on just about any right. At minimum you are expected to be accountable for your words and actions.

And in a liberal society, those limits never stop changing and evolving. In an illiberal society, they get locked down. Don't you see how hypocritical and unprincipled it is for groups whose progress was enabled by the tolerance of unpopular speech to turn around and restrict speech expressing other unpopular ideas?

The world 50 years from now will be very different from today, in ways we can't begin to anticipate. Many social norms of today will be reviled, and things we consider beyond the pale will be perfectly acceptable. In a liberal society, that future will be born of the widest scope of values and ideas. In an illiberal society, we will have fewer options, and fewer possible eventualities. History has shown the societies that afford the widest possibilities - the West - makes greater social and material progress than the societies that restrict those options.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Pop culture and language are influential and pervasive. Why wouldn't people be concerned with crafting both in a manner that doesn't perpetuate damaging cultural norms and stereotypes?

Because a society in which we do not tolerate any speech that offends would mean no criticism of religion, no criticism of government, no criticism of anyone. It would be totalitarian.

It really is simple: If you want to live in a society that tolerates dissent, you have to be prepared to be offended.