Defining Hate Speech (Stuart Torr)

Guest Post: Stuart Torr

There are many people from vulnerable sections of the intersection matrix who do defend Freedom of Speech, like MLK as a tool in the Civil Rights Movement. Freedom of Speech as an issue in the first place is precisely to protect vulnerable from the powerful. Oppressive governments are very resistant to Free Speech, because it hinders their repressive efforts. Plenty of Jewish people are opposed to laws banning Holocaust denial (this opens a new fork in the road where members of these vulnerable groups can get vilified by other members of "their group" for not adopting the "correct" line. This is quite common and is very unpleasant). Of course, things get into weird territory pretty quickly when it comes to antisemitism. So, the example of Jeremy Corbyn objecting to an antisemitic mural being wiped. Would that mural have been illegal, or are Jewish people now too powerful to be included in the vulnerable category even when the past stuff is being referenced?

Freedom through Free Speech

One way I've seen Free Speech defended is something like this. Suzie doesn't care about Free Speech but has a pet issue she cares deeply about that's not socially acceptable (like she lives in the 30s and is in favour of interracial marriage). Bob doesn't care about Free Speech but cares deeply about his theory that Israel arranged 9/11. They both would be happy for other people's pet issues to be constrained but they feel more strongly about advocating for their pet issue. If you feel confident enough that you can get your way, then maybe you're happy to restrict speech. The less confident you are that the restrictions will go your way, maybe the more willing you'll be to accept a deal where they can say their crazy shit so long as you can say yours. This is a 2nd best (you'd rather say your stuff and stop other people from saying theirs) but the more niche your views are and the more you care about it, the better deal it becomes. 

Trans issues are a good current case study, because unlike many issues to do with racism and sexism I don't believe that all right-thinking, even "woke" people are on the same page on this. Like if a 12-year-old "assigned female" has gender dysphoria and wants to transition, maybe right-thinking people agree that he can choose a name, clothes pronouns etc for himself. But then what about hormone therapy, top surgery and then bottom surgery? The clock is ticking puberty-wise, but a 12-year-old is a child and this surgery is a big deal. There are (few) instances where young people get surgery and then regret it and detransition. Some of these people wish they hadn't gotten surgery. 

Ok, so is the paragraph above Hate Speech? I don't think so personally, but some Trans people would think it is. How about allowing Trans women who have not had surgery but who feel vulnerable and try to go to a shelter for abused women. Some Feminists don't think it's a no-brainer that this should be allowed, is it Hate Speech to argue this? This is also (often quite hectically) contested. 

To me, it seems like these issues are difficult and need to be debated etc, but it also seems like the freedom to debate them is exactly what is at issue. I think Free Speech very neatly cuts the Gordian knot of how to proceed in discussing difficult issues where it would otherwise be impossibly difficult.

Hate Speech v Free Speech

Cutting the Gordian Knot

Stuart and I have been friends for almost two decades. He has changed my views on some pretty significant topics. I have a lot of fun spending time with him. He teaches Mathematics at the University of Cape Town.

Other posts by Stuart Torr

Nationalism v Globalism; To Ooze; Admiration and Reward; My Fellow Americans; The Revolution

Put the Rock Down

It is important to be able to state what it is you think the person you disagree with believes. To state it in a way they say, 'Yes, that is what I believe'. Ideally in a way that they say, 'wow, that really gets to the heart of it. I couldn't have said it better.' You are then in a position to say where you agree and disagree. Why you disagree. Too often we parody people's opinions as if they are evil, stupid, selfish or disgusting. 'They believe this'. With no They actually agreeing that that is what they believe. We can't then moan about a divided world when we ourselves have created little (or big) groups of people to throw rocks at. If you throw a rock at my buddy, I am not going to help you figure out what he did wrong. I am going to throw a rock back at you. Put the rock down. Let's speak.

Bad Ideas

In Liberal Democracies, we have way better tools to build the world we want than waiting on hand and foot for a benevolent Government. People are in charge. As long as it isn't hurting anyone else, you don't even need to change other people's minds. Just find enough people who already agree with you. And do what you need to do. I truly believe in Free Speech. I want to know where the Crazies are. I want them to speak. To speak to them. They are OUR crazies. Knowing where the bad ideas are, allows us to engage with them. As bad ideas, rather than essentially bad people. Outside the courts. Of course, words have consequences and people should be held responsible for those consequences. Like vaccines, it is best to have some exposure to the hint of the diseases to strengthen the immune system. But once it is a disease, you take more drastic action. Prevention is better than a cure, but prevention isn't pretending something doesn't exist.

The first Polio vaccine

Context & Space

I am part of a whatsapp group with some close friends called 'Oozers'. I write fairly freely on my blog, but words mean different things to different people. We know people in specific contexts, that develop a shared language. Out in the open, and without the benefit of time together, we can end up reading multiple levels of meaning into other people's words that may not even be there. If there is no benefit of doubt, then our words can have unintended consequences. The great thing about Oozers is that it is a 'Safe Space'. Not in the sense that no one will say anything that will hurt anyone else's feelings. It is safe in that we can vent our thoughts and frustrations, trusting that we will still be friends, or put the work in to repair friendships, should that be required.

mRaf Lamina

The opposite of thought control may be just as scary. Without being careful, Animal Farm in reverse may mean we focus so heavily on the bad, we miss the good. With a world connected so that information flows, you don't have to use bullets to tear things down. You just have to feed the hatred. Truth lies in relationships. A post-truth world would be one that tears down those connections by focusing on the divisions. Good news builds slowly. Good news is the decrease in child mortality, war, disease, and poverty we have witnessed over long time scales. I am a free speech fundamentalist. I don't think law should control words, but I do think relationships should. Words matter. We must choose them carefully.

see Animal Farm in Reverse

by Bryan Caplan

Free Speech (Tim)

The Debatable Right to Free Speech

(Human Rights Series Part 1) 

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to… receive and impart information and ideas through any media.” Sounds completely reasonable, until you realise that the first item returned on a Google search ‘Did the holocaust happen?’ is ‘Top 10 reasons why the holocaust didn’t happen’ published on the anti-Semitic, hate speech website Stormfront.org. Is that an opinion which has a right to dissemination through any media and regardless of frontiers?

I find holocaust denial a very compelling case because it’s not just an aberrant opinion; it’s an opinion that makes very specific claims about historical reality. That the Nazis killed six million Jews is an undeniable fact, and to deny it is to make specific claims about reality. If even the most basic research shows that holocaust denial is demonstrably false, why bother to proscribe it? My argument is that even easily falsifiable facts may be more harmful that mere opinions. If you post an article about why you personally hate Jews, it’s obvious to any reader that it’s just your opinion. However, opinions become something a lot more dangerous when they distort facts to try and win converts. It’s facts rather than opinions that need protection sometimes.

Donald Trump told a great many lies in his presidential campaign. Not strongly worded opinions, or political doublespeak, but out and out lies. The most notorious of these lies was the promise to build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it. If he merely expresses the opinion that the US government should make more effort to seal the border with Mexico, that’s his right. The problem is that he made appeal to actual real-world facts. He made a promise to do something which cannot actually be done. You can’t actually force another country to pay for your public works. But the lie is told, the seed is planted in people’s heads and the harm is done. The same might be said about the claims which were pushed by the Leave campaign in Britain.

Fact-Checking the Donald

I don’t really mean to get political, but these events do highlight the fact that increasing numbers of people are being duped by claims that could easily have been falsified.  Fake news is the hot topic of the day, but it’s really just the extreme version of various forms of counterfactual and spurious claims which float freely around the internet. See the anti-vaccination movement for another example. My question is; what should be done about it?  Should these sorts of falsehoods be allowed to survive?

I don’t have an answer. I just want to start the discussion. Maybe governments should start by banning fake news. Maybe politicians should be censured for making claims that are demonstrably false. Does the internet need some kind of watchdog? Or is it simply up to us to educate future generations so that they are less susceptible to BS? Let’s just hope it’s not too late by then.  

--- Other posts by Tim Casteling ---

One Side

I am a strong believer in Free Speech. In all its uncomfortable, messy, hurtful, poorly constructed, ugly glory. That doesn’t mean I don’t think if the goal is progress, or living well together, there aren’t better ways of communicating than throwing away your filter. I think it is a problem that much of our training in debate is ‘seeing two sides of the argument’. It castes the search for a better way as a fight. It forces the picking of sides. It can be fun, and can feed our animal instincts, but I don’t think it is the best way to chip away at ignorance. 

In most heated debates, whether on social media or in person, very few people I know of are consciously trying to understand the views of people they are engaged with. They are looking for holes. Each and every time a single point doesn’t make sense, they hold on to that. They look for chinks. 

Daniel Dennett suggests four steps to being able to criticise. Starting with being able to clearly, vividly, and fairly express their position in a way they would be happy to agree with. Not one of those loaded jibes where you restate their view in a way that obviously makes them look like a critter, ‘So what you are saying is we should throw all babies into flames?’ 

The second step is to find some sort of common ground. Points of agreement. Ideally not obvious tokens, but an area where you have clearly both thought about something and come to a similar point of view. If there is nothing where you have a similar point of view, what are the chances of you working your way to a solution that works for both parties? Most of us have something important in common. As Sting said, 'the Russians love their children too.' It takes some effort to find it. If we aren’t willing to do that, why bother arguing? 

The third point is to identify what you have learnt from the other person’s position. If there is nothing, there is again no point in pushing forward with criticism. Rather wait. Try understand why they would think what they think. What could have led them there? If you can’t do that, then it is time to work on your empathy. 

After all those steps, which take time and willingness… then you get to criticise. A little. Our views tend to morph rather than spontaneously combust and spring from the ashes into a completely different form. That sounds like a lot more effort than Free Speech where you can just reshare articles, throw gas on the fire, or play devil’s advocate by lighting a few matches. Another word for the devil's advocate is trolling. The reason I believe in Free Speech is we know where our crazies are. Both in the sense of other people, and our own crazy views. 

Conversation is far more interesting. Listening, understanding and slowly figuring out how to co-exist and feed potential rather than flames. We are all on the same side. There is only one side.

Overlapping Circles

Gossip has power. We are talented self-policers. We care what other people think, particularly our closest network of relationships. A friend recently told me 'you shouldn't be afraid to use the word 'I' more often'. I care deeply what other people think. At times excessively so. I do adjust my behaviour according to who I am around, what I know of them, and what brings the best out of our relationship. Context makes communication richer. I think there should only be a very small set of things we aren't prepared to adjust. Most of those things are what I think should be laws. A few of them should be flavoured fences. Most should be relationships.

Part of the power of free speech is we know where our crazies are. Laws would hide them. The positive of Donald Trump, for example, is that we can't pretend that we don't have issues with racism, xenophobia, and all sorts of other fears and prejudices. Shutting Trump down would be like hiding the last veg you don't like under your Gem squash. It is still there. Mom will find out. The only way you grow is by dealing with what needs to be dealt with.

Gossip only works if there are big overlaps in relationship circles. Another thing that Donald Trump shows is that there aren't enough people who are friends with our crazies. You don't have to agree with everything someone says to be friends with them. Think of parents and their children. Sometimes the little critters are absolute monsters. Parents become master strategic Generals in warfare, using the art of distraction. They know the kid they love is in there. They ignore some things. Put boundaries around other things. They engage.

I have been sitting around a pool with a big group of friends laughing about someone who keeps posting overly personal 'self promotions' on Facebook. You know that next time anyone in that group is posting something, they are going to wonder whether they will be the subject of a group conversation at a later stage. The conversation wouldn't have happened if there weren't a majority of people who saw agreement in others. Those conversations would have spread as people discovered Facebook, tried it out, made mistakes, heard the moaning, and slowly learnt how different people feel about different behaviours. Then adjusted.

I don't have the aversion some people have to selfies. I know lots of people who do. So I don't send them to those people. My Mom loves my selfies. My friend Lou would kill me if I sent her a bunch. Annoyance rises if I send any, but that is called teasing. Other than some Black Scorpions around the world, I limit them on Facebook. As to #Hashtags, I don't use them very often at all. They drive some people nuts. One or two make sense to me sometimes when there is a genuine 'category of things', e.g. if you are talking about #RhodesMustFall or #FriendshipMustRise. #When #someone #starts to #HashtagTheWorld and there are #more # than #words, it #drives some #people #nuts. Slowly we #learn.

I think Facebook is improving. I notice less overtly self promotional stuff. I see more conversations that are meaningful. I think Whatsapp is improving. More people put their phones on silent, and so don't get driven crazy by continuous beeping as a group conversation gets going. 

Facebook doesn't need laws. Whatsapp doesn't need laws. Speech doesn't need laws. What we need is more people we care about, who we are willing to adjust our behaviour for. 

Festering Ooze

There is a lot of talk around Safe Spaces at the moment, but two very different ideas of what that means. My understanding of the first way, is that we need to choose our words very carefully. Words are powerful and trigger emotional responses. We may be unaware of the effect of what we are saying because other people have had different experiences. A Safe Space is an area where someone will not feel judged, and will not be made to feel uncomfortable. Some describe it as a place that feels like home.

The second idea of a Safe Space is quite the opposite. It is similar to the idea of 'holding space'. Heather Plett wrote a wonderful post suggesting ways to be there for people you care about. Holding space for them. An awareness that people are processing all sorts of rubbish. We don't really know what we think or feel. We try things out. We get angry. We say things we don't mean. We say things we know we don't mean just to see what happens. We test boundaries. We scream. We fall apart. A Safe Space is one where this can happen and we know the people will still be there afterwards. We will have gone to the toilet to get rid of our rubbish feelings.

For me school was a very controlled bubble. At one stage a group of us started pushing the boundaries in a school newspaper. We were quickly reined back in by the censors. University on the other hand was a place where we were (mostly) the censors. We tested the boundaries of everything we held dear. There is a difference between things said in jest and things that are malicious. The Free Speech Board was often silent, but would burst into reams of debate. There were songs that were all sorts of bad. Not everyone agreed with pushing boundaries, and there were vocal supporters of both sides.

Rational, considerate, patient, inclusive discussion is clearly the aim. The ooze I was moaning about yesterday does get in the way. As Stuart said, if you never Ooze because you have developed super powers of control, you may be a super villain. Occasional ooze is very human. I am also all for opinions I find offensive being given a little air time. It means I know where they are. We should encourage crazies to speak. We can only tease out our own craziness in the open. Otherwise it just festers.

Don't Let Our Crazies Fester

Hearing the Listeners (with Brett)

Trev:

I loved the Free Speech board at my university residence. Most of the time it was empty, but occasionally it would burst into activity. The silence came in part because people were busy, but also because we suffer from what I call the 'Picasso Problem'. We are worried that our views aren't 'good enough'. I thought there were some people who were intelligent deep down in their bones. Now I think everyone is incompetent at lots of things and good at a few. Noisy people just tend to be less bothered by their incompetence. I would love to figure out how to hear more from the listeners.

Brett:

i am actually about to write something on listening for my 'How to Be an Ally' series looking at helpful Race conversations. i suspect another problem might be that the loud ones tend to dominate the conversation and, combined with the rushed-busy-everything-in-an-instant generation we find, like you said, that incompetence can be instantly vomited out. One of the Ten Commandments of Communication Brian McLaren put together contains this one, 'If you tend to be quiet, "step up". If you tend to dominate, "step back". If everyone could play that rule for a week, imagine what it would look like. How do we foster something like that?

Trev:

I think we need to listen for how people communicate. "Stepping up" is just not something that appeals to some people. And I will speak for those who find it tough to not speak. I had a buddy who used to have a lot of fun with me. I would prep myself going into meetings to hold my tongue. To just listen. To not get passionately involved. He knew exactly the right thing to whisper to me just before a meeting to get me going. How people communicate is a part of how they are wired. They don't change that easily. You can only tweak.

Brett:

i hear you, although a big part of me feels like we have been conditioned that way. If i have not had the experience of speaking, or if i had a bad moment of it, then i will identify myself as someone who doesn't speak [also not me!], and sometimes it might just take a nudge or the right context to get speaking to happen. My wife and i have taken to throwing dinners with 6 to 10 people and then diving deeply into significant conversations which i think feels like a safe space for a lot of people not used to speaking out. But like you say, the not speaking for guys like us can be as much of a challenge.

Trev:

Isn't every part of our identity conditioned? Amy Cuddy does one of my favourite TED talks on the power of body language to shape 'who we are'. I like the idea of using Drama techniques for communication. Part of why we don't say things is because saying things is hard. Something gets lost between our mind, our tongue, their ears, their experiences, their feelings and their minds. Perhaps at the dinners you could allocate personas. The character could include a brief history and personality. But if we want to speak to who someone 'believes they are', we have to speak in the way 'that are is' and 'that are understands'.

Brett:

i agree that there is a lot of interference between what we say and what is heard. Which is why arguments online are so hazardous as it is almost impossible to detect tone from the written word. So face to face at least helps with that. But like you say, perhaps it is important to work first on making sure that we understand the communication styles and language of the person we are talking to before we attempt any kind of deeper conversation and wrestling. Or at the very lest do what you can to remove as many of the boundaries and obstacles to good communication as possible.

Wave Interference 

by Bernice Abbott

Trev:

There is an analogy to Investments here. One of the problems with Investing is that the feedback is very delayed. If you buy a business, you only know if that was a good decision 5 to 10 years later. Even then noise might mean you were just lucky. What you can focus on is the process. How the decision was made. With communication, we have spoken about how people don't change their minds quickly and mid-conversation. We often think of the result of the conversation as whether someone changed their mind. More important should be the quality of the conversation. The process of the conversation. Whether or not they changed their actions will over time reveal itself. Time is powerful.

Brett:

i think to add to that Trev, the idea that the conversation itself can be the important thing. i imagine it's a typical western idea that we converse for a reason - an outcome, or an answer, or end point. Yet conversation as a relationship builder can be such a beautiful thing. Conversation for the act of conversation brings about a connection and listening and trying to hear and understand and intimacy and more. That is something we could probably do with cultivating more?

Trev:

For sure. Conversation, kuiering, relationships, time, connections to things that matter. This is the stuff that gives life its richness. Debate is probably something we spend too much time doing. There is probably a balance between the search for truth and the appreciation of truth. If you haven't got an agreed kernel of something that matters to both of you, and a feeling that you enjoy each other's company, there is almost no chance you are going to agree anyway. We change the way we feel first. We then make up an argument to back up our conclusions so they seem rational. Cultivating conversation is a beautiful thing. For its own sake.

Brett:

Which brings us back to beginning of how do we hear more from the listeners? Perhaps it is up to us (those who tend to speak dominate) to work at creating safe spaces for others to engage in with a strong view on stepping back and observing more than directly participating. To foster spaces for all those beautiful things you mentioned in your last comment. But also by intentionally removing the overbearing or abrasive nature that we might bring to a conversation, hopefully inspiring those who speak less to feel more free to use the space well.

Other Conversations with Brett

• Breaking Bread
• Finding the Words

Guest Posts from Brett

• Learning & Relearning: Steps to a United Future

Check out Brett's blog 'Irresistibly Fish' or follow @BrettFishA on Twitter.

Tipping Forward

One of the consequences of Social Media and the ease with which ideas can now spread is that the issues most nations are dealing with seem more common than diverse. America is struggling with racism in a country where whites are in the majority. South Africa, more famously, is struggling with racism where whites are in the minority numerically, but not economically. Same problem, just a different flavour.

The path of transition to a more tolerant world is important. One of the questions that people sometimes ask about South Africa is what happened to all the racists? Clearly the system was supported by a majority of white voters for a very long time. In the last race-based election in 1989, the Democratic Party only won 20% of the vote, up from 14% for the predecessor anti-Apartheid Progressive Federal Party in the 1987 election.

But then there was a rapid transition. Immediately it was simply not acceptable to be racist and public support for Apartheid became a fringe political view. Old South African flags mostly disappeared. Public support disappeared. There is no way that people change their inherent prejudices in private overnight. The difference in South Africa and America is that the transition was very tangible. Literally the only black people I came into contact with pre-1994 were in service roles. I can remember the discussions about an Iranian girl while I was at primary school. Was she white? Is Persian white? When I was 13, the first few brave parents were sending their kids to white schools. The transition was slow. I can't remember the percentages in my last year of high school, but I was still firmly in the majority (even though only c. 9% of South Africans are white). It was slow, but it was happening. I can imagine when the oppressed are in the minority, life can largely carry on in the same way. Prejudice may be private, but prejudice filters action and what we don't do matters as much as what we do.

What I find interesting now is the transition happening with the SCOTUS ruling in the US. The speed with which the change has happened over the last few years is mind boggling. Looking at other human rights struggles (it is amazing looking at how recently women got the vote in some countries) it shouldn't be that surprising how recently it was illegal, even in Britain, to be homosexual. The death of Alan Turing portrayed in 'The Imitation Game' is symbolic of the price we have paid for institutionalising and normalising prejudice.

Is this change more like the American racial transition than the South African racial transition? The majority of people look for relationships with the opposite sex. We have gotten better at empathy though. People who are oppressed in one way ideally should know what it feels like, irrespective of the cause of the oppression. The progress here is that all people get treated the same by the law and the government doesn't try to regulate something that doesn't affect other people.

People who have experienced the prejudice of the law enforcing no 'mixed-marriages' because they are sinful, should be able to empathise with those whose life is being restricted. People who get irritated with what Steve Hoffmeyer, Donald Trump or Nigel Farage should be able to see when their own words are hurtful.

There seems to be a tipping point. If your view, though wrong, is in the majority, Politicians will be able to pander to you. They won't call out your prejudice because in a democracy they need your vote. But as prejudice dies a slow death, there comes a time when it is no longer acceptable.  It is not acceptable to say calling something a sin and calling for laws that don't treat people equally is simply 'disagreeing with someone's life choices'. Free Speech means you can say it. Free Speech means people can respond. 

Being in the majority allows you to ignore reality. I think the tide is turning. I think we are reaching a tipping point. Our human rights progress over the last century isn't about one battle. It isn't about the battle that applies to you. Close your eyes and imagine a world where you don't know which character you are.

Human Rights is about the battles that apply to us. 

Bundles of Ignorance

We know there is too much going on around the world to wrap our heads around. Many people I know have chosen to stop listening to the news because it just gets them down. Instead they focus on those they care about, get on with something useful and try be helpful. Challenging our views is also tiring. It is one thing to be able to think about what we do. It is another thing to think about how we think about what we do. But we also need to do. At some point most of us accept whatever bundles of ignorance happens to be ours and get on with it.

The world is changing rapidly. We really live in a vastly different place from the one where our cultures were marinated. It wasn't long ago at all when the world was mostly rural, borderless, and everyone around us was quite similar. Now more than half the world's population live in cities. Our bundles of ignorance have to change.

Urbanisation

I am a big fan of free speech and social media as a way of airing our ignorance. I don't think anger is that useful in responding to things we disagree with. People don't seem to change their mind when they are on the defensive. Making mistakes in public is a good way of progressing if people are helpful in the way they support us in changing our views. Banter and feedback work best when people know you are on their side. Ideally, there is only one side.

Hans Rosling is one of my favourite presenters. In the TED clip below, they talk about how to challenge our ignorance about the world with some basic rules of thumb. In a democratic world, we want people's views to be implemented by those in charge. We want to empower people. But... in truth, this gets uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable. There are lots of crazy views out there. Often the really crazy views are held by small groups. More often than we'd like, they are held by lots of people. Even most people. Modern systems put checks and balances in place to give people a voice but have certain things you don't get to vote on. While it is okay for most of us to create bubbles and get on with it, there are some very complicated things we really need someone to think about deeply and go beyond basic rules of thumb. There are some things where we all benefit if the decision maker goes beyond personal bias, outdated facts and media bias, and makes unpopular decisions.

You can't not be ignorant. You can try be less ignorant. Pick a better bundle.

The Crazies

There are lots of crazies in this world. Fortunately they do not represent the majority. In the past they did. Fifty years from now we may look back and think that today they do. When I look back 50 years now, I am very glad to live in a world that is less violent, less racist, less homophobic, less sexist and more able to have discussion, be friends with, live with and even marry people who are very different from us.

I like the fact that the crazies are allowed to speak. Free Speech is awesome. If someone is free to open their mouth and say, 'Look at me, I am a crazy.' that lets me avoid them. When someone posts a facebook status update that makes my jaw hit the floor, I can be grateful that I have a little insight into a person that allows me to artfully reduce the time in their company.

There is a fascinating story, I think from Freakonomics, which tells the story of how the response to 9/11 increased the circle around an airport where people would rather choose to drive. Driving is far more dangerous than flying. Road accidents are the 8th on the rankings of leading causes of death, not far behind HIV/AIDS. By increasing security the time it takes to fly from A to B increases. This means more people will choose to drive instead. So they choose the more dangerous method to save time. The increased security ironically leads to more deaths.

Like terrorism, sharks and tidal waves, certain stories scare us more. We aren't wired to look at the facts. I think the same is true with free speech and 'crazies'. Trolls on the internet use this approach to hijack conversations and provoke a response. I think the appropriate response when someone says something dodgy is to quietly suck the air out of the room. Secretly, you can be grateful to the troll for letting you know they are a moron. Trolls do not reflect the majority opinion. Increasing the policing of trolls will likely ironically lead to their opinions gaining more value than they deserve.

Megan asked some interesting questions about the consistency of our criticism of some forms of speech in her guest post 'We need to talk about Charlie'. Another issue that often gets brought up in teasing out difficult issues is the creation of 'Safe Spaces'. I find the idea of a safe space appealing in the sense of making even trolls feel comfortable saying what they want to say. That doesn't mean we need to feed them though. I mean comfortable in the sense of a lack of physical attack. They can feel free to say their stuff though. I would say universities and social media are awesome places to be safe spaces in this sense. I think they are terrible places to be safe spaces in terms of providing trigger free retreats for people who are trying to protect themselves as they recover from trauma.

I do think we can create little protected bubbles to protect holy stories. I don't think these places are the places where ideas change or develop though. They are respites. On Bloggingheads TV, Robert Wright and Judith Shulevitz discuss the ideas of safe spaces, free speech, political correctness and whether or not universities are creating a generation of people that are soft by protecting them too much.

Fighting trolls is feeding trolls.

See the talk at Bloggingheads

Hopeful Inconsistency

'There should be no boundary to human endeavour. No matter how bad things may seem, where there is life, there is hope.' - Stephen Hawking

I love great stories. 'The Theory of Everything' is beautiful. One of the things I have always admired about Stephen Hawking is that he follows what philosopher Karl Popper called conjecture and refutation. First, use a wild, uninhibited, creative imagination free from boundaries to come up with ways to understand the world around us. Then, have the ability to turn on your own ideas with no attachment. Be the loudest and most convincing in pointing out where you have been wrong. Steven Pinker believes this is why Free Speech is fundamental to progress rather than just one of many competing values that we trade off against each other.

Stephen Hawking

The emotional trade off is hard. I wrote a guest post for a friends blog called 'Trying to Unsquiggle'. It takes bravery to constantly be finding the holes in your thinking. I don't believe there is such a thing as a consistent thinker. We are good at solving individual problems. We are good at responding to individual wants and desires. But things get left out. The solution to one problem may be in direct contrast to the solution to the other. You then have a choice whether to ignore the inconsistency and live your life or dig. Megan asked some tough consistency questions in 'We need to talk about Charlie'. Megan is a digger.

Digging is emotionally difficult. Most people run out of energy and want to get a balance between shutting off and enjoying individually solved problems for a while. Even if it is just to build up the strength to have another go. Others prefer to let others do the digging for them. Others get annoyed if you dig in their general vicinity. You may have family and friends who don't want to know about your other competing thoughts. You may live in a society with two competing and inconsistent ideologies who would rather live separately or have their thoughts dominate than try figure it out. You may live in a society where there is no competition of ideas. The ideas are set and you live by them or get ex...cluded/ecuted.

There are few things that fill me with the sense of awe than of a universe with no boundaries. It boggles, inspires and seduces the imagination. And along with all of our inconsistencies, we give it hope.

They're Losing

When we are taught to debate at school we are given a side of the argument. The objective is to win. I know there are many styles of debating, but I it would be interesting to see if there was one that could incorporate philosopher Daniel Dennett's four steps to arguing intelligently. The style I was used to was 3 speakers from the opposition (Opp) and three from the proposition (Pro). The order was - Pro 1, Opp 2, Pro 2, Opp 2, Opp 3, Pro 3. There was then a team that won the debate. It would be interesting to see if you could design competitive debates around finding agreement. I still struggle with party politics now where policies and ideas almost by definition have to create differences between the two options. What someone 'believes' is then decided by the party rather than the individual. Most supporters become members for life. They often define themselves in opposition to half their countrymen.

What if the role of the 2nd speaker was to articulate what the opposition said. The third speaker could then point out the stronger points in their argument, and ask some questions. The final speakers could then speak with the ability to change their view, and show the ability to incorporate new information after their ideas had been challenged. I am not suggesting a world where no competition exists and everyone is handed participation certificates, but it would be good if we practiced getting to really understand where alternate beliefs come from.

The counter argument is that some alternate beliefs are stupid and harmful. Free Speech doesn't mean we should give everyone the platform to speak. This is one of the challenges of public broadcasters being expected to maintain neutrality and giving equal time to various views independent of their merit. Perhaps the reason it is difficult is a reason Public Broadcasters shouldn't exist. With the spreading of ideas through Social Media (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Blogs etc.) becoming near free, we decide what to spread and what to block (for ourselves). We don't have to feed trolls. Perhaps the ease of spreading ideas means an end to party politics is near? We can all be on the same side. If we were able to take more regular votes nominating representatives for specific issues, perhaps we wouldn't have to give blanket power to individuals for a bunch of issues. The necessity for parties could make way for individual representatives? The individuals would be freer to seek to find agreement than to have to find areas to make their party unique.

While the year seems to have started quite violently, I think it is worth taking a step back. Space permits us to see the bigger picture and look for consistency in our ideas. We can also get perspective. Steven Pinker makes the strong case that we live in far more peaceful times than ever before in 'The Better Angels of Our Nature'. While we should carry on trying to make things better, we should also realise just how lucky we are. The most dangerous things we face at the moment are poverty, cars and what we put in our mouths. While an end to poverty is almost a choice, Google et al. try work on driverless cars and we can stop stuffing our faces with fat and sugar, we are also slowly winning the war against the much less potent but much more noisy forces. The reason they are terrorists is because they are losing.

We need to talk about Charlie (by Megan Butler)

Guest Post: Megan Butler

Megan is braver than me. So are Dean, Brett and Shingai. When it comes to the really sensitive topics, I always feel very aware of how little I know, or how badly placed I am to have a view, and do some reading but try not to grate anyone too badly. Perhaps I am still shaking off corporate sensitivities where your voice is constrained since employees become brand ambassadors even once they take off their suits. I am also aware of how bad people are at stomaching disagreement. We form tribes and ooze vitriol at those who disagree with us. I don't like being oozed on. I am busy watching the Borgias and I am certainly very glad that incidents like Paris are rarer than they were in 1495. In free societies you should be able to express your opinions and be mocked for them... but not killed. In her second guest post, Megan looks at the Free Speech in the context of recent events and asks some good questions about the consistency of our criticism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We need to talk about Charlie

by Megan Butler

On 12 November 2014, scientists landed a spacecraft on a comet hurtling through space. It was a project 10 years in the making and an incredible scientific achievement. The next day, Dr Matt Taylor gave a press conference. It's almost impossible to find out what Taylor actually said because subsequent media reports focussed on only one thing: his shirt.

The shirt featured scantily-clad gun-toting women and two days later Taylor was forced to give a grovelling apology for his "sexist" shirt. His defenders were thin on the ground.

In contrast, three million people marched on Saturday for freedom of speech. Apparently, we are all for the publication of pictures of the Prophet as a gay porn star but not for ugly shirts to be portrayed in the media. The distinction boggles the mind. Free speech is always a vast, grey, uncomfortable area. We are quick to rally to the banner of freedom of speech when it supports messages we want disseminated. But would we be so quick to defend the publication of the Pegida manifesto? Or the Kouchi brothers' diaries? Or Mein Kampf? Supporting free speech does not mean supporting hate speech but this can be very much in the eye of the beholder.

In the hype around the Charlie Hebdo killings, it is easy to disregard the very uncomfortable questions we all need to ask ourselves about three important freedoms: expression, religion and speech.

Carol Rossetti, a Brazilian graphic designer, has produced a brilliant set of cartoons on gender discrimination issues. Here's a sample:

It's somewhat ironic that it is Susan who represents an idea that makes a huge number of liberals extremely uncomfortable. In France, all religious symbols including headscarves, veils, crucifixes and yarmulkes are banned in public institutions. The burqa is completely outlawed in public places. Apparently, it is completely okay to publish pictures likening burqa-wearing women to sacks of potatoes but it is not okay for a woman to wear one. As far as the world is concerned, if you want to sketch a nude caricature of the First Lady, you can go right ahead but please keep nudity off your clothing.

I need to point out that I think both Taylor's shirt and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are awful. But freedom means that people are free to choose well as well as to choose badly. I'm Catholic and have very limited experience in the headscarf-wearing department. However, for me, supporting free speech and freedom of expression means supporting more than the right to publish drawings; it means supporting the right for people to wear what they choose even if it isn't what I would choose.

So, while "Je suis Charlie" is the campaign gathering the media attention, we need to be able to say "Je suis Susan" or "Je suis Matt" with as much conviction.

Megan (and the headscarf) visiting Smolnyy Convent, St Petersburg.

Megan lives in Johannesburg where she can wear what she likes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Megan's first guest post was on 'The Art of Non-Choosing'. While we are programmed to look for options, there is some evidence that we may be happier if some choices are taken were taken out of our hands.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In writing a blog about several topics in which I admit to being a complete beginner, I am going to have to rely heavily on the people I am writing for who cumulatively know most of what I am likely to learn already. I would love it if some of you found the time to write a guest post on the subject of happiness or learning. The framework I use for thinking about these things is what I call the '5 + 2 points' which includes proper (1) exercise, (2) breathing, (3) diet, (4) relaxation, (5) positive thinking & meditation, (+1) relationships, (+2) flow. Naturally if you would like to write about something that you think I have missed, I would love to include that too. If you are up to doing something more practical, it would be awesome if you did a 100 hour project and I am happy to do the writing based on our chats if that is how you roll. Email me at trevorjohnblack@gmail.com 

Granny Perspective

Grannies are cool. One of the coolest things about Grannies is perspective. A favourite happiness story I have heard is of a young angsty teenager talking to his Gran about his problems. She listened, and then at the end said to him, 'When your Grandfather was your age, he was fighting the Germans.' Perspective.

I went to the US for the first time earlier this year and visiting Washington DC was rather grounding. It a city full of monuments and reminders of sacrifices made. Wondering the Newseum (a museum dedicated to news - or more accurately to free speech and the history of world) is like paging through your photo album - but in this case the bigger your. In the search for happiness, the approaches that appeal to me the most are very practical. Exercise. Relax. Eat Well. Breathe Well. Have a Positive approach. Do something Meaningful. Invest in Relationships. I am regularly struck however by how lucky those of us are that get to focus on these things.

I do believe more and more of us are getting to, and I don't subscribe to the 'Good Old Days' theory. If you choose a bunch of measures of what is important to you, and look over a long enough period, life tends to get better. 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' takes a look at the history of violence and makes me very grateful to be living today.

We live parallel lives though. While many of us get to live a world that is less racist, less sexist, less violent, more engaging and becoming happier - war rumbles on. Last night I watched 'Dirty Wars' - a documentary about the Joint Special Operations Command - effectively a modern day assassin group. I am always wary of conspiratorial stories. I am also aware that we can't possibly vote on all decisions that need to be made and that many are really tough with no clear answers. While adding a dose of Granny perspective to my own problems, the documentary did make me feel proud, if that is the word, that we have this constant self reflection and debate. I don't know what to think about many of these issues that I haven't applied my mind to sufficiently. Israel-Palestine is a another conflict that I feel completely lost in the woods about. I like that there are lots of really smart people who live in a world where we can debate our way inch by inch closer to solutions (see the Affleck-Maher debate below) to very difficult questions. War is messy. I am not sure you could have a documentary Civil War meaning 'Courteous and Polite'.

Bullets aren't as effective as Ideas, but we haven't learned how to retire them yet.