More About Skeptech: Individual and Societal Responsibilities

So at the conference this weekend we spent a fair amount of time talking about censorship because hey, we were talking about the internet and censorship had to come up at some point or other. Zach Weinersmith (edited because I fucked up Zach’s last name. Sorry) of SMBC gave a talk about comics as a natural experiment in censorship and argued that we should have no censorship (except maybe yelling fire in a crowded theater) particularly of art, because art needs to reflect life, and the best art reflects ALL of life, not just the pretty parts.

We also talked some about Reddit and the r/jailbait fiasco. Some people argued that the subreddit never should have been shut down, because protecting free speech is more important and we should be able to talk about illegal activities if we so choose. Should we be able to shut down the r/trees (edited because apparently the subreddit about marijuana is called r/trees. Way to confused me guys) thread simply because marijuana is illegal?

These are all really important concerns, and I am most certainly a free speech advocate. However I tend to think that our morality should be more about harm than about rights. I don’t think we should do away with the concept of rights entirely because it’s incredibly important for the safety of minorities, but in general when you have to invoke a “right” to justify a harm, you’re doing something wrong. Something that was rarely brought up in these discussions was at what cost do we allow completely unrestrained free speech. Because there certainly are harms. Zack Weinerstein made the argument that with this unrestrained free speech, we now have the most tolerant generation in history, so it’s no big deal that certain parts of the internet are steaming cesspits of hate. But that completely overlooks the damage that that hate directly does to the people who have to witness it. We may be “more tolerant” of women, but if a woman gets harassed every time she logs on to her favorite website, that is a harm.

And in addition to that, what do we really mean by “more tolerant”? A lot of these websites normalize horrific behavior by arguing that they are tolerant. They say that cat-calling a woman is no big deal, that African-Americans are just practicing reverse racism, that slurs are simply free speech, but that they think everyone should be equal. This is lip service to tolerance. But if we can actively see online through their writings for all the world to see that they treat other people like shit, clearly they aren’t tolerant. And they normalize that behavior.

For some reason, this conference seemed to focus entirely on personal responsibility in terms of free speech. You might be exposed to any number of things, but it’s your job as a responsible human being to not be influenced by any of it if you don’t want to be (apparently). But here’s the thing: societies have responsibilities too. As skeptics, we should know by now that NO ONE is immune to the influences of society. All of us internalize the messages that get sent to us, no matter how hard we try to resist (hello eating disorder that reeks of internalized misogyny. How are you today? Oh you’re all my fault because I should have just made a better personal decision? Thanks). It has been well-documented how easy it is to influence people. And when you’re constantly bombarded with certain images and certain messages, there’s only so much personal choice that you have. That limits the amount of personal responsibility you can have.

Media has to be responsible for the messages it sends. Now I don’t necessarily think this should lead to government censorship of unpleasant topics. As a lot of people said, ignoring things doesn’t make them go away, and often bringing them out into the open can help us deal with them. I’m honestly less worried about some of the unpleasant topics and far more worried about some of the glamorized topics. Take for example binge drinking. We see binge drinking all the time on TV held up as fun and awesome and hilarious and completely normal. If someone has a predisposition for alcoholism, can we hold them completely responsible if they fall into the trap of alcoholism when they are seeing how great alcohol is all the time? Do we have to take some responsibility as a society for the pain caused that individual and their family? I think we do.

Society has some responsibility to try to create media that isn’t damaging. It should be free to discuss any topic it so chooses, but I think it’s entirely possible to legislate ADDITIONAL information be available about any topic that could be triggering or influencing in a negative way: for example if a TV show depicts rape, we could require that it includes a short discussion of the characters involved and why they acted in a negative way to deconstruct the negative actions they made. And as individuals, I think that we are entirely allowed to exert pressure on media to stop perpetuating shitty stereotypes and harmful messages. We are 100% obligated to be as careful as possible about the media we consume (tell TV networks when their shows are sexist, tell advertisers when they’re perpetuating rape culture).

We cannot always be critical consumers, even when we want to be. Oftentimes we’re lacking in the choices to be ethical about the way we consume media. If I want to watch a movie that is free of sexism and racism, I would be hard-pressed to find one. We need to exert some pressure on media to provide us with more options. Weinerstein suggested that when censorship is taken away, then more types of art flourish. I do agree with that, but I think that we also need to be active in promoting different types of art and different perspectives. We need to vote with our money, and I think as a society we need to discuss larger fixes to the problems of sexism and racism in media and on the internet. If an individual has only ever been exposed through the internet to individuals who say that a woman might owe you sex if you buy her dinner, are they entirely to blame if they rape someone? No. They have some responsibility, but not all of it. We are products of our society.

There is serious harm in unmitigated free speech. I don’t know what the solution is, but ignoring the fact that there are places on the internet that actively normalize hate crimes, sexism, racism, rape, cissexism, and homophobia is not helpful to anyone. We DO have an interest in trying to keep people safe from each other and safe from internalizing negative and destructive messages. I think that people who host websites and people who host other people on their websites need to be clear about what they will and will not accept: you OWN that space, and you can easily say that you will not tolerate bigotry. People do that in meatspace all the time. Why is it unacceptable online? You can get your own damn website and spew hatred. But we will minimize the damage that you can do.

I am so frustrated with the idea that individuals exist in a vacuum and that “personal responsibility” trumps all social issues. NO. Individuals should be held responsible for their actions, but their actions should be taken in context so that we know what led to the problem. If we simply keep pointing to bad behavior and saying “don’t do that” we’re just trying to take care of symptoms, not the etiology of the bad behavior. We are all a part of systems, and our whole systems are broken right now.

3 thoughts on “More About Skeptech: Individual and Societal Responsibilities

  1. Nitpicky things first: Weinersmith is the name of the webcartoonist, and r/trees is actually the name of the Marijuana enthusiasts subreddit. r/marijuana is actually about Trees enthusiasts.

    Additionally, I think r/creepshots might have been a comparable atrocity to r/jailbait. While the latter relied on underage women, the former relied on candid/voyeur photos of unconsenting women. I think it was a similar problem that didn’t get brought up during either the censorship discussion or the internet sex discussion.

    Finally, you are correct. I’m tired of the laissez-faire “just internet comments, don’t be that guy” attitude. Those of us who have the energy do need to make the effort to thoroughly and actively critique and lambast the unexamined misogynistic/transphobic/racist/etc attitudes prevalent in internet comments. Additionally, those of us who have administrative power over the comments need to find a wise way to address these attitudes when they crop up, either by banning, snarky editing, or posting with follow-up rebuttals.

    • oj27 says:

      Hey, sorry thank you for the corrections. For some reason I can’t remember Zach’s last name to save my life. I’m going to edit those.
      I definitely agree about the creepshot reddit. I think that’s also an important example because it illustrates that something doesn’t have to be illegal to be totally not ok and something we should censor.

  2. nadith says:

    Wow, a lot of projecting our expectations onto how things are.
    I am ignorant, of that I have no doubt. That said though the whole premise behind free speech to me is that it may be offensive, but it is less so than oppression. The right to express in a way that does not put upon another I believe to be inalienable. It is up to the individual as to how to hand and take that information. Their actions and reactions are their own and that is totally empowering, because if it were otherwise we would be at others mercy rather than the free willful beings we are.
    Yes, it is so easy to convince people and coerce them. People are sooooo malleable. But that is a statement of how often it is the case, and it is not because we innately are, but because we desire to be. There is no one so readily willing to accept something as someone desiring to hide something themselves. Nor is there someone so interested in believing something regardless of the truth as one who believes a certain result to be beneficial to them.

    So while there is a lot of power in being able and capable with yourself, on the flip side wrong can be taken so many ways. Yes, there are more universal ones, like killing, but even a few articles earlier you spoke of killing not being so bad. Or maybe just killing humans and things we hold to be cute or important is bad? The point is that we live different lives, and speech itself is simply expression. It can be many things, and I agree that corporal acts are not the only ones with impact, but at the same time it is a means for both parties to grow and develop.
    To hear if someone wants or needs help, or simply to help yourself or them in listening or sharing. It also is a great way to divine what people care about and whether your interests and care align or they are actually interested in a dialogue. Also, to know where your boundaries are, I personally love it when people anger me or rile me up. It tells me where I have ideas and shoulds, where I think the idea is more important than the matter, listening, or understanding what is happening. Heck, if it weren’t for peoples willingness to speak to their conflicts I am afraid I would have little reason to talk to a great deal of the people I relate with right now, partly because they’d likely have so little to say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s