Hate Speech & Microaggressions - Feminist Scholar Laura Kipnis

Can you believe in free speech and still have this stance on hate speech? Professor Laura Kipnis of Northwestern University explains the difference between hate speech and microagressions and how they should be handled on campus.

FOLLOW US:

LEARN MORE:

LEARN LIBERTY

[Butmunch]

You either believe in free speech or you don't.

This woman doesn't.

[Kobaruon]

"I'm someone who's a free speech advocate, but..."

If you're saying "but" then you are not a free speech advocate anymore. You are just defining your own comfort zone.

[sheilashaver]

We don't need more laws. Grow up and take care of yourself and stop demanding more laws. People are still going to hate and creating more laws is not going to stop that.

[dankarino]

I thought this channel was for liberty?

[jackmcslay]

Think of the most heinous, offensive, disgusting thought someone could ever say, draw, write or otherwise disseminate through any other means. If you don't defend people's right to do so as long as it doesn't directly harm or infringe other's property, then you do not support free speech at all.

[DeaconParsons]

Hate speech is free speech. Period. America was founded on the principle: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". For me to be able to say what I want, I have to make sure that everyone else has the same right, ESCPECIALLY if I disagree with them.

[WitchyWagonReal]

*Hate Speech is Free Speech.* To sum up: “Bad ideas” should be answered and countered by “Better ideas, ” and this woman’s position is utterly incongruent and hypocritical. She says that she cannot abide so-called “hate speech” with a “free speech absolutist” position, and in the next breath she says that “microaggressions” are perceived slights that should be used as an opportunity for honest dialogue and discussion. Yet....

“Microaggressions” are born of the very slippery slope caused by so-called “hate speech” in the first place— the notions that “hate speech” should be discouraged or stigmatized or persecuted or criminalized inevitably leads to alternative methods of expressing the same opinions or ideas vis-a-vis “hate speech.” (Or, the flip side of the same coin— artificial suppression of “hate speech” inevitably leads to the perception that the motivating beliefs behind “hate speech” must naturally manifest itself in alternative “hateful” expressions, thus the suspicion of “microaggressions” develops and becomes recognized to varying degrees by the offended parties.) So, that same dialogue and discussion can be initiated by accepting “hate speech” in precisely the same way as a “microaggression”: by not being offended, by accepting the opinion as one held by another person regardless of one’s own feelings about it, and by “being the bigger person” and allowing the “hate speaker” or “microaggressor” to elaborate on his thoughts and opinions. Will this always lead to mutual understanding, or some kind of social epiphany that bonds both parties in harmonious spirit and vision? Umm... no. But then, that’s life. More to the point— that is true free speech, as it allows for individuals to freely harbor “bad ideas” or “better ideas, ” and respects the freedom for both to be heard as representatives of free human thought.

Hate speech is free speech. Most other views are merely equivocating rationalizations based on one’s own personal feelings, and not a healthy respect for the freedom of human thought and expression. This woman seems to be doing just that: i.e., “I don’t feel that hate speech should be free speech because it is especially bad, whereas microaggressions are only kinda-sorta bad, and leave some plausible deniability for butthurt feelings to be soothed by talking about things.” It’s downright silly, almost childish. *Hate speech is free speech.*

[Namasknight]

anyone is allowed to say anything as long as it dose not effect a persons rights. your feelings aren't a right.anyone can be as unproductive as they desire. stop censoring people.

[EmpperorIng]

0:02 "Free Speech Advocate, but-"

Goddamnit.

[AJ]

On hate speech and the censorship of it in the west:
"Where are your priorities, ladies and gentlemen? You’re giving away what is most precious in your own society, and you’re giving it away without a fight, and you’re even praising the people who want to deny you the right to resist it. Shame on you, while you do this. Make the best use of the time you’ve got left. This is really serious."
-Christopher Hitchens, November 2006

[hunterkirk]

She is showing her hand that she was only for free speech she liked or could tolerate.

[LukeLovesRose]

I just got banned on FB for 30 days for insulting my own race in a sarcastic, satirical joke.... This world is insane.

[WorgenGrrl]

I'm sorry but people who believe in Microagressions  *don't want* to engage in honest conversation.  If you disagree with tnem, then you are automaticly shut down.

[FosterBaba]

What ever happened to nutting up and living with words like a functioning adult? "What you said offended me" "I honestly don't care about you or your feelings and will continue to say what i feel like. I met you like 5 minutes ago. I'm not changing my mannerisms to please some stranger"

[machinemythos]

The potential of offense is fundamental to open dialogue. Subjective feelings have nothing to do with arguing the merit of ideas.

[AleadaA]

You cannot define what is "hate Speech" except for a call to physically attack other people. Students need to have their minds challenged with many other opinions because this time in life is not a time for coddling but it is a time for exploration and expanding ones horizons.

[derekreed]

People sometimes use the phrase "hate speech" to refer to speech that is designed to create concern or fear, not to create hatred. Complaining about the behavior of certain groups of people, for example, might lead to hate but could easily lead to appropriate fear or concern about the behavior; labeling such a complaint as hate speech helps to suppress it and shame the complainer without addressing the facts.

[rmps]

"I'm a free speech advocate, BUT..."
There it is. But.
No. You are NOT a free speech advocate. You are FOR suppressing speech. Period. No one cares if your feelings are hurt. "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me"...remember? Am i the ONLY ONE that remembers this from back in the day?

[recynd]

I went to a VERY diverse college before speech codes were implemented; it was diverse enough that the Nation of Islam passed out pamphlets next to Evangelical Christians...and no one batted an eye, let alone killed each other.

Even after the Rodney King Riots in L.A. (which impacted my school very much, as it was pretty much in the middle of it), racial tensions did not run particularly high, and I never heard a slur from ANYONE, white, black, brown, yellow, or mixed. Not ONE. So where's all this oppression we're hearing about?

[coopersmith]

1st amendment. You can’t always have what you want or hear what you want to hear.