Great post. i think we could add 'both sides' - frequently deployed to platform racism, sexism, and all manner of misinformation. Your insta-stories regarding desire to interview Jordan Petersen has had me fearing 'both sides' and distraction was encroaching upon the Wild podcast. It's a difficult space to navigate!
I'd love to hear you speak with Anand Giridharadas, Sarah. The space of dialogue and use of energy is fundamental to social movements - a podcast convo on this topic would be 🔥
yep both side-ism CAN be a tactic. Regarding JP - it would not be to "give him a platform" (he doesn't need that). It would be to genuinely ask him questions I'm confused about.
Sounds awesome Sarah, would be great to see you in conversation with JP! I could imagine it being a highly intelligent and illuminating discussion, especially if you can dive deep into some of his (and your) views.
I see JP as a master of time and energy suckage (distraction and chaos). Talks loops and ludicrous word salads, takes convo partner considerable time to deconstruct and put back together with logic, ethics and context. As a listener, I'd much rather hear an analysis of Peterson and associated culture/politics.
I would way prefer to have both sides (diverse views) in dialogue, than censor people (ie "not give them a platform").
Give diverse ideas and views the light of day, and trust that through that, the truth will come to light.
I personally would love to see Sarah have conversations with people on the "other" side (assuming there is an "other") such as Jordan Peterson. We may then be less prone to falling into an echo chamber, and be able to see the flaws and also some grain of truth in all sides of the debate.
Thank you for this, Sarah. It helps to know about these crazy tactics. I’ve experienced crazy-makers in my work life and wish I knew back then how to name it and how best to deal with them. I found myself often baffled and lost, like “what just happened?”
I came across similar definitions to the crazy-maker in Bo Seo’s book, “Good Arguments”. He says that both in the world of debating and in life we come across the Dodger, the Twister, the Wrangler and the Liar. He offers advice on how best to deal with each one e.g. stay the course, pin them to a position etc. Well worth a read.
Hi Sarah. I'm thrilled you've brought this up. I have been thinking the same thing - what a distraction this is and god help me if I have to listen to Dutton say "more detail" one more time. I hope that people don't get caught up on this and understand what the process is. There's no point putting the cart before the horse and banging on about the detail when we haven't even had the vote yet and also - why can't we all just wait until the referendum date is announced and then turn our attention towards it properly. I also look forward to reading your thoughts on your substack in the future about this vote.
PS - to the Chinese balloon category I would also add the radioactive disc thing which fell off the back of a truck in the desert and was being looked for yet it was a Breaking News story which went on and on for days.
My pleasure (I think?!). can I ask, do you see Albanese etc's response (which is to actually not get flustered by it all) as wisened to the whole distraction piece?
Yes, mostly I see this as a smart strategy. Personally, I'm fed up with ridiculous people and their inflammatory remarks, trying to get attention for themselves etc so I ignore them.
Sometimes I think the PM's taking the high road by not stooping to Dutton's level and getting embroiled in the debate that he's being pulled into. I also understand why Albo says that this referendum isn't coming from him, it's not a Labor policy they've dreamt up, it's coming from the Uluru statement / indigenous people and therefore they need to be the ones to put the case forward and it's just because it's a Labor government that supports this referendum, which is why it's coming up now.
In saying all that, sometimes I think "get in there Albo / don't let Dutton run away with this." Because at times it seems that Albo's lack of engagement means that Dutton is controlling the narrative. I've heard far more podcasts / news items which quote or interview Dutton on the Voice rather than the PM. Which means that Dutton's message is getting out there more than anyone else's. Also, people expect to see the PM debate this with the Opposition Leader, we're used to see the two squaring off over an issue, which I worry will make Albo seem weak and by extension the Pro Voice campaign.
Ultimately though, like you, I'm still just trying to listen and absorb all the arguments but I do worry that Dutton's 'More detail ra ra ra' nonsense is stealing the limelight on this.
I hear you...mercifully the polls are showing australians support The Voice. The Voice voices will start to ram things up soon...I think it's wise to come out and be proactive and not reactionary to PD
I am not an Indigenous Australian but it seems that most often there’s a loud, white voice drowning out and distracting the masses from listening to their voices. We could call it White Noise.
Pat Anderson, Co-Chair Uluṟu Dialogues commented on the noise recently.
“We never wanted this to be a political football & that’s… one of the reasons why the mob at the regional dialogues gifted The Uluru Statement from the Heart to the people of Australia - not to the Prime Minister, not to the politicians.
Referendums are not about detail. The Australian public are not being asked to vote on the model. The Constitution… we’re talking about the principles, the idea of what is being proposed. An enshrined voice gives us the power to be part of the decisions that affect us, in this country, our land.“
I hope it leads to foundational change. Turn the White Noise down so we can hear Indigenous voices.
I like what you shared from Teju Cole inviting white people to catch up.
Just shoosh, take a few, big steps back away from the mic and put in the effort that does justice to the invitation being made… for decades!
Sure, a diverse range of views and critical discussion is a crucial aspect of a thriving democracy, but amplifying bad faith actors and blatant misinfornation only undermines effective communication and participation in democratic processes. Climate change denialism is one such example (you'd think we'd be past 'both sides' on that one).
Hi Nikki, your message appears to be contradictory because it says that "a diverse range of views and critical discussion is a crucial aspect of a thriving democracy," but then says that "amplifying bad faith actors and blatant misinformation only undermines effective communication and participation in democratic processes." Those two statements seem to be in conflict, as amplifying bad faith actors and misinformation would still be part of having a "diverse range of views." Your message seems to be saying that it is important to have diverse views, but not if those views are not truthful or come from people acting in bad faith.
Are you open to diverse views, even if they are not truthful? Even if they are coming from people acting in bad faith? And on what basis do you judge what's truthful or who's acting in bad faith? My view is that if they are acting within the bounds of the law (ie don't incite violence) then free speech is the rule.
It's so commonplace nowadays to label some views as misinformation, disinformation or conspiracy theory's, or label people as bigots, or racists etc. and therefore mount a case to censor such views.
As concerning as some views may be, I'm more concerned about jeopardising core principles that make up a healthy, free and democratic society: freedom of speech and diversity of view points.
These principles allow individuals to express their opinions, ideas and beliefs without fear of censorship or reprisal. By having a diverse range of perspectives and ideas (as incorrect as they may or may not be), society is better equipped to address complex challenges. For example, the Civil Rights Movement in the United States was fueled by the exercise of free speech, as activists and supporters spoke out against racial inequality and advocated for change. Similarly, the fall of the Soviet Union can also be attributed to the power of free speech, as individuals and groups openly criticized the government and called for reforms. In both cases, the ability to freely express one's views was a key factor in bringing about positive change.
I don't see Sarah advocating for censorship. Although I do see how these lines of arguments (ie just asking questions, seeking more details etc.) could justify or lead to that. The question i have is, what's more important, combating "misinformation", or ensuring freedom of speech and diversity of view points?
Censorship and “not amplifying” aren’t the same thing. Considering how heated discussions on this have become in the US, I think it’s important to differentiate these. I’m not saying you’re conflating the two; just that it seems to happen pretty quickly whenever we start to have critical discussions on the concerns of misinformation and truly harmful rhetoric. Trump. You want an example of a specific bad-faith actor perpetrating real harm here. Trump. Jan. 6 if you want (just one of many examples) a specific time. And still, he’s not being censored. He just isn’t being given the same platform any longer.
Brene Brown did a really interesting interview with a constitutional lawyer from the ACLU on free speech and censorship. It was quite insightful and I think he did an excellent job of discussing it from multiple perspectives.
We seem to be living in polarised times, and the US particularly seems very polarised and heated around some of these hot button topics (i live in the land of OZ).
I believe a solution to this is for diverse (and polarised) viewpoints to come together. Existing in our own echo chambers doesn't seem healthy or productive to me, on the right or the left. An example of this could be Sarah speaking with Jordan Peterson (without putting either of them in a box!)
Free speech is a complex topic. I understand the need to protect people from harmful (ie misinformation) content.
The question is, who defines misinformation? If misinformation is defined as “false information that is spread", then are we all only supposed to share true information? How do we know what's true? For me, a pathway to truth is a conversation or dialogue with different perspectives.
I do think that deamplifying someone, or deplatforming them (as was the case with Trump) is a form of censorship. By removing access to a platform or reducing the visibility of their content, their speech is effectively limited and suppressed.
When speech is limited, it can lead to the suppression of dissenting voices and the spread of homogeneous perspectives.
To be clear, i don't like or support Trump, but i do support his ability to share his views (within the bounds of the law). Same goes with Peter Dutton on the voice issue etc.
I may not agree with their views, but i agree with their right to them. Ideally the views would be shared whilst being respectful of other people (no adhominun attacks, which was not the case with Trump!)
Is trump a bad faith actor? Almost half of voters voted for Trump, i'm sure they don't see him as a bad faith actor. I don't agree with what happened on Jan 6th, AND i see other events such as the BLM protests (which didn't get the same critical media coverage as Jan 6th) as being more violent and costly. Point being, both extremes on the right and left are problematic, and censorship is not the answer, in my opinion.
For me, the answer lies in dialogue, and a respect for human rights (including freedom of expression).
Free Speech is complex. I think your concerns and questions are genuine and important. Who do we let define misinformation and truth? Certainly no one source (or “side”). We can consider multiple perspectives and verify information (how many actually do this esp before spreading it?), consider the facts of a matter as well as the impact. Getting caught in an echo chamber isn’t helpful, I agree.
One of the things I’ve paid attention to in the past couple years especially: is this source simply giving me information? OR telling me how to feel or what to do because of/with this information? The latter is a big red flag for me. I’m realizing now - because of one of your questions - that’s one way I’ve used to consider whether someone is acting in bad faith, though it’s honestly not a term I’ve used before now. The serious concern is that a lot of these people use strategies like “asking questions” without asking from multiple perspectives themselves. They claim their audience is intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions without giving anywhere near a balanced view. They aren’t truly open to nuanced dialogue or complex discussions, which I guess is another flag for me. I’m not interested in amplifying any one side, but I’m also not interested in amplifying those who refuse nuance and complexity.
I don’t want to get into the differences between BLM and Jan 6, but I will say I think the right to protest is just as important as free speech. While I always hope for peaceful measures, there are certainly times that call for non-peaceful resistance: women’s rights, labor rights... My concern with the attempted insurrection are the “leaders” (politicians) who incited that violence with Knowingly false information.
I hope you find the podcast interview interesting and insightful. It’s so complex; I actually need to listen again. Thanks for making me think harder about some of this. I struggle to articulate, esp in web comment form. Also, does land of OZ refer to Australia? Or do you live in Kansas? Lol
You've made a very generous response here, Allie. I agree with almost all the points you've made, but I don't share your confidence in the questions as genuine. Conflating BLM protests with the insurrection is inconsistent with an espoused orientation toward human rights. I can't post a picture here, but I'm reminded of this 1967 political cartoon depicting Dr King and civil rights action.
I agree with you on conflating BLM and the insurrection. Considering the history of racism, slavery, and violence against black people, rage and violence would be an appropriate response AND YET, BLM protests have been more peaceful than a single day of nationalist extremest outrage. I just didn’t want to even attempt to get into that on this thread. They don’t feel like a logical comparison so it’s strange (but not shocking) it became one: one movement is about human rights and addressing systemic racism; the other... attempting an insurrection. It feels like one of those distractions right? Asked for a bad faith actor example. You give one, and then suddenly you’re having a different conversation.
Ethics still matter. The Civil Rights Movement had ethics and evidence at its core. There's a difference between that and distraction and bad faith actors.
I agree and I would argue that freedom of speech is essentially an ethical principle. It was enshrined as a human right after the atrocities of the second World War for a reason.
I'm not sure if there's a universal definition of a bad faith actor. Who you consider to be a bad faith actor, may not be in the eyes of someone else. Can you give an example of a bad faith actor and what they did specifically to be considered as one?
If someone is genuinely acting deceptively, an open discussion would normally bring that to light. I think history has proven that the other approach - censorship - leads to pretty dark places for society.
Climate change, as an example, has many nuanced aspects to it, and would benefit from a discussion that highlights multiple parts of the issue. Bjørn lomborg is an example of someone that brings a different perspective to that issue.
I love this. You’ve given such great language to articulate what my gut feeling is toward the chaos creators. Planning to use “catch up” a whole bunch!
Do we need a voice to parliament or to amend the constitution to declare the indigenous people were here before we invaded and have the same constitutional rights as every Australian?
Admittedly, I’d forgotten that’s how referendums worked (vote on principle) ..or was I distracted?! Surely Dutton can’t have forgotten, and he’s betting that many voters don’t know the process at all.
But I sometimes think we give certain people too much credit for masterminding their distracting/dividing/delaying strategies, when perhaps it’s just hope-for-the-best, prejudice-driven reactive-ness/panic . In contrast, I see Albo as a high-end strategiser, and (putting their obvious differing viewpoints aside) doubt he’d even consider a move like Duttons
Great post. i think we could add 'both sides' - frequently deployed to platform racism, sexism, and all manner of misinformation. Your insta-stories regarding desire to interview Jordan Petersen has had me fearing 'both sides' and distraction was encroaching upon the Wild podcast. It's a difficult space to navigate!
I'd love to hear you speak with Anand Giridharadas, Sarah. The space of dialogue and use of energy is fundamental to social movements - a podcast convo on this topic would be 🔥
yep both side-ism CAN be a tactic. Regarding JP - it would not be to "give him a platform" (he doesn't need that). It would be to genuinely ask him questions I'm confused about.
Sounds awesome Sarah, would be great to see you in conversation with JP! I could imagine it being a highly intelligent and illuminating discussion, especially if you can dive deep into some of his (and your) views.
I see JP as a master of time and energy suckage (distraction and chaos). Talks loops and ludicrous word salads, takes convo partner considerable time to deconstruct and put back together with logic, ethics and context. As a listener, I'd much rather hear an analysis of Peterson and associated culture/politics.
This is fabulous if you can tolerate the delivery https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo
I should be clearer - as a listener and reader of your work, I would love to hear you in conversation with someone critically analysing JP et al.
I loved your convo with Lech Blaine so much, I had it included in set course materials for students in a sociology course I was teaching into.
Stay tuned on that front!
I would way prefer to have both sides (diverse views) in dialogue, than censor people (ie "not give them a platform").
Give diverse ideas and views the light of day, and trust that through that, the truth will come to light.
I personally would love to see Sarah have conversations with people on the "other" side (assuming there is an "other") such as Jordan Peterson. We may then be less prone to falling into an echo chamber, and be able to see the flaws and also some grain of truth in all sides of the debate.
Thank you for this, Sarah. It helps to know about these crazy tactics. I’ve experienced crazy-makers in my work life and wish I knew back then how to name it and how best to deal with them. I found myself often baffled and lost, like “what just happened?”
I came across similar definitions to the crazy-maker in Bo Seo’s book, “Good Arguments”. He says that both in the world of debating and in life we come across the Dodger, the Twister, the Wrangler and the Liar. He offers advice on how best to deal with each one e.g. stay the course, pin them to a position etc. Well worth a read.
Bo is on my list as a Wild podcast guest!
Yay! Looking forward to it!
Hi Sarah. I'm thrilled you've brought this up. I have been thinking the same thing - what a distraction this is and god help me if I have to listen to Dutton say "more detail" one more time. I hope that people don't get caught up on this and understand what the process is. There's no point putting the cart before the horse and banging on about the detail when we haven't even had the vote yet and also - why can't we all just wait until the referendum date is announced and then turn our attention towards it properly. I also look forward to reading your thoughts on your substack in the future about this vote.
PS - to the Chinese balloon category I would also add the radioactive disc thing which fell off the back of a truck in the desert and was being looked for yet it was a Breaking News story which went on and on for days.
My pleasure (I think?!). can I ask, do you see Albanese etc's response (which is to actually not get flustered by it all) as wisened to the whole distraction piece?
Yes, mostly I see this as a smart strategy. Personally, I'm fed up with ridiculous people and their inflammatory remarks, trying to get attention for themselves etc so I ignore them.
Sometimes I think the PM's taking the high road by not stooping to Dutton's level and getting embroiled in the debate that he's being pulled into. I also understand why Albo says that this referendum isn't coming from him, it's not a Labor policy they've dreamt up, it's coming from the Uluru statement / indigenous people and therefore they need to be the ones to put the case forward and it's just because it's a Labor government that supports this referendum, which is why it's coming up now.
In saying all that, sometimes I think "get in there Albo / don't let Dutton run away with this." Because at times it seems that Albo's lack of engagement means that Dutton is controlling the narrative. I've heard far more podcasts / news items which quote or interview Dutton on the Voice rather than the PM. Which means that Dutton's message is getting out there more than anyone else's. Also, people expect to see the PM debate this with the Opposition Leader, we're used to see the two squaring off over an issue, which I worry will make Albo seem weak and by extension the Pro Voice campaign.
Ultimately though, like you, I'm still just trying to listen and absorb all the arguments but I do worry that Dutton's 'More detail ra ra ra' nonsense is stealing the limelight on this.
I hear you...mercifully the polls are showing australians support The Voice. The Voice voices will start to ram things up soon...I think it's wise to come out and be proactive and not reactionary to PD
I am not an Indigenous Australian but it seems that most often there’s a loud, white voice drowning out and distracting the masses from listening to their voices. We could call it White Noise.
Pat Anderson, Co-Chair Uluṟu Dialogues commented on the noise recently.
“We never wanted this to be a political football & that’s… one of the reasons why the mob at the regional dialogues gifted The Uluru Statement from the Heart to the people of Australia - not to the Prime Minister, not to the politicians.
Referendums are not about detail. The Australian public are not being asked to vote on the model. The Constitution… we’re talking about the principles, the idea of what is being proposed. An enshrined voice gives us the power to be part of the decisions that affect us, in this country, our land.“
I hope it leads to foundational change. Turn the White Noise down so we can hear Indigenous voices.
I like what you shared from Teju Cole inviting white people to catch up.
Just shoosh, take a few, big steps back away from the mic and put in the effort that does justice to the invitation being made… for decades!
You want bad faith arguments and misinformation to occupy billboards and broadcasts, in the interests of democracy?
I'm not getting it, because that is absurd and it couldn't be your argument 😆
See ya Matthew
Sure, a diverse range of views and critical discussion is a crucial aspect of a thriving democracy, but amplifying bad faith actors and blatant misinfornation only undermines effective communication and participation in democratic processes. Climate change denialism is one such example (you'd think we'd be past 'both sides' on that one).
Hi Nikki, your message appears to be contradictory because it says that "a diverse range of views and critical discussion is a crucial aspect of a thriving democracy," but then says that "amplifying bad faith actors and blatant misinformation only undermines effective communication and participation in democratic processes." Those two statements seem to be in conflict, as amplifying bad faith actors and misinformation would still be part of having a "diverse range of views." Your message seems to be saying that it is important to have diverse views, but not if those views are not truthful or come from people acting in bad faith.
Are you open to diverse views, even if they are not truthful? Even if they are coming from people acting in bad faith? And on what basis do you judge what's truthful or who's acting in bad faith? My view is that if they are acting within the bounds of the law (ie don't incite violence) then free speech is the rule.
It's so commonplace nowadays to label some views as misinformation, disinformation or conspiracy theory's, or label people as bigots, or racists etc. and therefore mount a case to censor such views.
As concerning as some views may be, I'm more concerned about jeopardising core principles that make up a healthy, free and democratic society: freedom of speech and diversity of view points.
These principles allow individuals to express their opinions, ideas and beliefs without fear of censorship or reprisal. By having a diverse range of perspectives and ideas (as incorrect as they may or may not be), society is better equipped to address complex challenges. For example, the Civil Rights Movement in the United States was fueled by the exercise of free speech, as activists and supporters spoke out against racial inequality and advocated for change. Similarly, the fall of the Soviet Union can also be attributed to the power of free speech, as individuals and groups openly criticized the government and called for reforms. In both cases, the ability to freely express one's views was a key factor in bringing about positive change.
I don't see Sarah advocating for censorship. Although I do see how these lines of arguments (ie just asking questions, seeking more details etc.) could justify or lead to that. The question i have is, what's more important, combating "misinformation", or ensuring freedom of speech and diversity of view points?
Censorship and “not amplifying” aren’t the same thing. Considering how heated discussions on this have become in the US, I think it’s important to differentiate these. I’m not saying you’re conflating the two; just that it seems to happen pretty quickly whenever we start to have critical discussions on the concerns of misinformation and truly harmful rhetoric. Trump. You want an example of a specific bad-faith actor perpetrating real harm here. Trump. Jan. 6 if you want (just one of many examples) a specific time. And still, he’s not being censored. He just isn’t being given the same platform any longer.
Brene Brown did a really interesting interview with a constitutional lawyer from the ACLU on free speech and censorship. It was quite insightful and I think he did an excellent job of discussing it from multiple perspectives.
Completely agree, Allie (including about that ACLU interview - it was excellent).
We seem to be living in polarised times, and the US particularly seems very polarised and heated around some of these hot button topics (i live in the land of OZ).
I believe a solution to this is for diverse (and polarised) viewpoints to come together. Existing in our own echo chambers doesn't seem healthy or productive to me, on the right or the left. An example of this could be Sarah speaking with Jordan Peterson (without putting either of them in a box!)
Free speech is a complex topic. I understand the need to protect people from harmful (ie misinformation) content.
The question is, who defines misinformation? If misinformation is defined as “false information that is spread", then are we all only supposed to share true information? How do we know what's true? For me, a pathway to truth is a conversation or dialogue with different perspectives.
I do think that deamplifying someone, or deplatforming them (as was the case with Trump) is a form of censorship. By removing access to a platform or reducing the visibility of their content, their speech is effectively limited and suppressed.
When speech is limited, it can lead to the suppression of dissenting voices and the spread of homogeneous perspectives.
To be clear, i don't like or support Trump, but i do support his ability to share his views (within the bounds of the law). Same goes with Peter Dutton on the voice issue etc.
I may not agree with their views, but i agree with their right to them. Ideally the views would be shared whilst being respectful of other people (no adhominun attacks, which was not the case with Trump!)
Is trump a bad faith actor? Almost half of voters voted for Trump, i'm sure they don't see him as a bad faith actor. I don't agree with what happened on Jan 6th, AND i see other events such as the BLM protests (which didn't get the same critical media coverage as Jan 6th) as being more violent and costly. Point being, both extremes on the right and left are problematic, and censorship is not the answer, in my opinion.
For me, the answer lies in dialogue, and a respect for human rights (including freedom of expression).
Thanks for the tip of the Brene Brown interview.
Free Speech is complex. I think your concerns and questions are genuine and important. Who do we let define misinformation and truth? Certainly no one source (or “side”). We can consider multiple perspectives and verify information (how many actually do this esp before spreading it?), consider the facts of a matter as well as the impact. Getting caught in an echo chamber isn’t helpful, I agree.
One of the things I’ve paid attention to in the past couple years especially: is this source simply giving me information? OR telling me how to feel or what to do because of/with this information? The latter is a big red flag for me. I’m realizing now - because of one of your questions - that’s one way I’ve used to consider whether someone is acting in bad faith, though it’s honestly not a term I’ve used before now. The serious concern is that a lot of these people use strategies like “asking questions” without asking from multiple perspectives themselves. They claim their audience is intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions without giving anywhere near a balanced view. They aren’t truly open to nuanced dialogue or complex discussions, which I guess is another flag for me. I’m not interested in amplifying any one side, but I’m also not interested in amplifying those who refuse nuance and complexity.
I don’t want to get into the differences between BLM and Jan 6, but I will say I think the right to protest is just as important as free speech. While I always hope for peaceful measures, there are certainly times that call for non-peaceful resistance: women’s rights, labor rights... My concern with the attempted insurrection are the “leaders” (politicians) who incited that violence with Knowingly false information.
I hope you find the podcast interview interesting and insightful. It’s so complex; I actually need to listen again. Thanks for making me think harder about some of this. I struggle to articulate, esp in web comment form. Also, does land of OZ refer to Australia? Or do you live in Kansas? Lol
You've made a very generous response here, Allie. I agree with almost all the points you've made, but I don't share your confidence in the questions as genuine. Conflating BLM protests with the insurrection is inconsistent with an espoused orientation toward human rights. I can't post a picture here, but I'm reminded of this 1967 political cartoon depicting Dr King and civil rights action.
https://www.fishbowlapp.com/post/cartoon-for-birmingham-news-circa-1967-the-irony-isnt-lost-on-anyone-i-hope-when-his-quotes-are-used-by-conservatives-now
Thanks. Hopeful I guess.
I agree with you on conflating BLM and the insurrection. Considering the history of racism, slavery, and violence against black people, rage and violence would be an appropriate response AND YET, BLM protests have been more peaceful than a single day of nationalist extremest outrage. I just didn’t want to even attempt to get into that on this thread. They don’t feel like a logical comparison so it’s strange (but not shocking) it became one: one movement is about human rights and addressing systemic racism; the other... attempting an insurrection. It feels like one of those distractions right? Asked for a bad faith actor example. You give one, and then suddenly you’re having a different conversation.
Exactly this. I'm working at how and where I put my energy. Your engagement here has been generous and considered, Allie, thank you 🙏
Ethics still matter. The Civil Rights Movement had ethics and evidence at its core. There's a difference between that and distraction and bad faith actors.
I agree and I would argue that freedom of speech is essentially an ethical principle. It was enshrined as a human right after the atrocities of the second World War for a reason.
I'm not sure if there's a universal definition of a bad faith actor. Who you consider to be a bad faith actor, may not be in the eyes of someone else. Can you give an example of a bad faith actor and what they did specifically to be considered as one?
If someone is genuinely acting deceptively, an open discussion would normally bring that to light. I think history has proven that the other approach - censorship - leads to pretty dark places for society.
Climate change, as an example, has many nuanced aspects to it, and would benefit from a discussion that highlights multiple parts of the issue. Bjørn lomborg is an example of someone that brings a different perspective to that issue.
Sure! They can say it. How much time it's worth? How much air time it warrants? That's the question Sarah is progressing here.
Of course, you could countenance that everything warrants all the air all the time... You end up with nothing. Nothing but noise and confusion.
You've offered nothing in your argument but the suggestion that discerning engagement is the enemy of free speech. It's a straw man, IMO.
Ta.
I love this. You’ve given such great language to articulate what my gut feeling is toward the chaos creators. Planning to use “catch up” a whole bunch!
Do we need a voice to parliament or to amend the constitution to declare the indigenous people were here before we invaded and have the same constitutional rights as every Australian?
What I mean is- the voice to parliament is in itself a distraction from what we really must do to honour our indigenous
Admittedly, I’d forgotten that’s how referendums worked (vote on principle) ..or was I distracted?! Surely Dutton can’t have forgotten, and he’s betting that many voters don’t know the process at all.
But I sometimes think we give certain people too much credit for masterminding their distracting/dividing/delaying strategies, when perhaps it’s just hope-for-the-best, prejudice-driven reactive-ness/panic . In contrast, I see Albo as a high-end strategiser, and (putting their obvious differing viewpoints aside) doubt he’d even consider a move like Duttons
Sarah, Thank you for sharing this. The tactic of distraction seems to be everywhere. D