 Many of the advocates for free speech claim that offensive language is really just trying to push the envelope Which is kind of counterproductive because as everyone knows envelopes are stationary Two events in the past month have drastically changed the tenor of any conversation about free speech First following a number of violent threats and a hacking assault which caused millions of dollars in damage So many pictures entertainment still chose to release the interview a comedy about the assassination of North Korean political leader Kim Jong-un Second a terrorist attack on the headquarters of the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo Presumably in response to a number of anti-muslim cartoons left 17 people dead There has been a massive response to these events to crying the violent and ignorant actions of the terrorists in both and Rightfully so I don't think that any person or group should have to fear for their lives because they might offend someone But here's the thing in the uphelling of advocacy for free speech in response to these attacks There are some useful discussions that are getting buried for example Is it ethical to make a movie about killing foreign heads of state who are currently in power? I mean, it's easy to laugh about fomenting revolution when you're watching Seth Rogen in your PJs But maybe that's something that should be decided by the people whose country would be plunged into revolution as a result Is it ethical to publish cartoons which have no reasonable purpose but to offend people I mean the journalists at Charlie Hebdo are being held up as martyrs of free speech Even though the things they were publishing are of questionable literary value See that's kind of what I'm talking about when extremists act the entire context of conversation gets massively polarized And as anyone who watched last week's thunk is no doubt aware when you have a waveform with enough amplitude You're going to get some clipping Sorry about that guys It's easy to lose the subtleties of a message when there's the weight of an atrocity behind it You can be against censorship and still believe that something should never have been published in the first place You can be against terrorism and still believe that the people that the terrorists were targeting weren't doing good things But when people have suffered or died because of the actions of extremists It becomes much more difficult due to the context of the conversation to make those sorts of nuanced statements and be understood Or even to finish stating them before That happens even with unambiguous and socially contiguous values Stuff like murder and terrorism are bad Like if you want to talk about anything that's even tangentially related to the terrorist attacks You have to put a massive disclaimer up front to say that no you don't think that terrorism is a good thing You can only imagine what would happen if you were talking about something truly complicated That intelligent and reasonable people still disagree about stuff like feminism or economics or social justice These topics themselves are really intricate Such that it takes an awful lot of time just to establish what somebody's opinion is let alone why they hold it There are many differing and complicated and valid viewpoints on just about anything that's worth talking about Which is a good thing. I mean if we all thought the same stuff, there'd be no reason to talk at all anymore I certainly wouldn't have any need to make thunk videos I might even have to go outside Unfortunately, there's a real tendency to browbeat or dismiss anyone who might be starting to say something that we disagree with If there's an issue that we really care about Especially if we're still coping with tragedy That's kind of what these terrorist attacks were about Trying to get people to shut up through fear and intimidation out of a concern of what might happen if they were allowed to keep talking That's part of what we're fighting here Now as I've said before there is absolutely a responsibility for any speaker to take the context of their statements into account Because careless speech can really inflict serious harm Like if someone says women belong in the kitchen when what they actually mean is that women Or men or people of any sex or gender should learn how to cook for themselves They're just being obtuse Nobody is off the hook for thinking hard about how their words might be interpreted That also means that people should have well-defined structures of thought behind what they're trying to say Instead of just gesturing vaguely their general feelings and hoping that somebody else will fill in the blanks for them Spiral population will cartoon government robots You want to watch gurren login again? But there's also an onus on whoever's listening to hold off on any response Whether it's endorsement outrage or dismissal Until they've invested some thought and patience in making pretty sure that they understand what's actually being said That's why in the coming year I'm trying to make a point of genuinely summarizing what I think someone's saying before I disagree with them Poking holes in an argument is really easy convincing someone that you're actually listening That's harder. Have you ever gone off on someone that you ultimately agreed with or gotten jumped on for something that you didn't actually say? Please leave a comment and let me know what you think. Thank you very much for watching. Don't forget to blah blah subscribe blah share And don't stop thinking