Protecting Academic Freedom

[Philosophy Now]

Dieter Schönecker makes five arguments for freedom of expression.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/135/Protecting_Academic_Freedom

[Scott Mayers]

Dieter Schönecker makes five arguments for freedom of expression.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/135/Pr ... ic_Freedom

I feel for this author's views and share the same kind of problem even outside of the University setting. "Hypocrisy" is the point at which we can point to regarding those who deny others' freedoms to express their views. If it is okay to BE hypocritical, then any actions of those who act out in 'violation' of civil order is also justified. Those denying platform when the issues are relevant to the issues at question are themselves acting 'violently' in the way one might prevent someone being cornered to escape their isolalation by a mob that surrounds them on all sides.

I think this has escalated to the world stage now for two general reasons: (1) smart technology is successfully isolating individuals in ways that we are yet able to handle. (2) those with the common specific views being echoed because of these technologies are coincidentally able to be empowered by the shared pluralism among many collective groups that have a general common belief: that the 'group' is the smallest minority....not the individual.

These factors are encouraging isolation of inidividuals everywhere to be forced either to take sides with some 'group' or be interpreted as being against the concept of any 'group' itself. Those empowered today FOR the group are forcefully defining those with less clear defined beliefs as individuals to comply to the binary definitions of inclusion of the collective group-thinkers or risk being seen as intentionally attempting to conspire against the coallition of groups altogether.

This is similar to what you see when some particular Union of workers in some particular area get support by the collective Unions by agreeing to strike together regardless of whether the areas themselves are distinctively more unique. If a library Union strikes against some city due to funding cuts that affect their wages when the nature of the conservative idea what a library is for has lost its utility in light of the Internet, why does a Union of workers in the area of sewage agree to strike WITH the librarian other than to be treating the workers in each separate field as relevantly equal?

This issue is affecting the world today because we can now literally do something akin to mind-reading: that technology now permits us to only speak directly to those we WANT to, we no longer require acquainting ourselves with others even indirectly. Thus, you no longer get to know the family of some friend you know, for instance, because you don't call one's home phone (land-line) anymore but call upon individuals directly. When you search something ('Google' it), you have to intentionally look past an increasing number of first posted links that are being sponsored and/or 'optimized' to favor what preferences the search engine wants to categorically point you towards. So we are then also getting 'censored' by unseen forces that also tend to further isolate us in ways beyond our personal control.

When I got to this site today, I even was forced to 'accept' the cookies (ubiquitously unavoidable) that are going to enhance the powers of others to further enhance group-associating, regardless of independent views. [Note that the laws of various governments have contributed to this requirement now, not necessarily the specific forums.]

I don't know if there is a way out of this present set of problems. I'm hoping it is only just a phase. But it is tiring if you happen to belong to the targeted 'enemy' classes that most of the empowered groups tend to share in agreement against lately. Mostly, at present, is the tendency to target indirectly, by exclusionary tactics, the predominantly male and white people everywhere simply because this combination class has been traditionally the most relatively favored or "privileged" group. And if you are male and/or white who is an individual at odds with the presumption of being actually privileged today, you are expected to suck it up and accept the 'sacrifice' for the good of the whole (and its accepted unions within). This is not a 'sacrifice' though.....it is a 'scapegoating' by those among those groups who are forcing the onus of particular past problems to be transfered to a broad class (a group) to alleviate the guilt among those within those groups (who may also happen to be white and male).