I am a fan of Dave Rubin’s Rubin report for the opportunity it provides to be exposed to a variety(relatively speaking!!) of positions regarding all sorts of things. He has people from the right, left and centre talking about politics, media and related stuff. Even if he claims to talk with people from all points view, you will realise quickly that there is a relative centre right and libertarian(stressing on free speech, limited government, liberty etc) predominance in terms of points of view represented. And at least from the You tube comments, the followers also seem to belong to that category. Maybe that is just the most vocal group. But compared to other shows like TYT there is atleast an attempt to be open to correction and to new ideas. He makes a big deal of changing his viewpoint over institutional racism when challenged by Larry elder on the show. I think that ability is a great asset, irrespective of the truth of that particular issue.

I am a big fan of his attempt to bring multiple points of view to the discussion table. He is ‘free speech absolutist’ in that he is willing to let other people say anything including things which most people will consider hurtful as long as people don’t call for physical violence. I also support free speech especially given the current political climate around the globe. God knows we want more of ability to openly criticise viewpoints we consider to be false without fearing government backlash or vigilante violence. But from a theoretical basis, I am sceptical of the absolute position he takes.

My readings in history and social psychology have convinced me that humans are primarily social and emotional animals and only secondarily individual and rational. Regarding social versus individual, humans are not ‘born free’ in any real sense. Any species which need years of parenting and who literally die without touch are not individualistic at root. Any individualism we have is layered above this fundamental social reality. And once we think about it, that is exactly what we want. The good aspect of individualism is not about all humans living completely independent of each other with each having their own set of moral values. Thats why things like family, friendship, love etc create a positive vibe in us while loneliness and selfishness have a negative reaction. ‘Leaving someone alone’ cannot be an ultimate policy. It has to be nested inside a larger social togetherness to make any sense. The scientific literature on this I think is conclusive. Human beings function well only if they are in good relationships and loss of their social bonds are destructive. As a side note, irrespective of its truth claims that is one of the key benefits of religion which an honest sceptic should consider. That may help to calm down the angry atheists a little bit. If religion is a product of evolution, may be just accept its social benefits along with the problems it creates instead of calling it a mind virus.

Similarly, regarding emotional versus rational, I think the evidence that social psychology(or a little bit of honest introspection!!) provides is conclusive. Reading Jonathan Haidt’s book,The Righteous mind, and taking a Coursera class by Dan Ariely have made me realise the limitations of human rationality and also appreciate the wisdom of older cultures which have figured out these questions over millenia. So if rationality, however useful, is limited in its ability to help us sort out our deepest differences we should cautious before declaring free speech an absolute good irrespective of circumstances. Dave and his allies in this fight like Jordan Peterson may be mistaken in their belief that if we just bring out all people with different viewpoints and let them discuss it, there will be a rational conclusion which everybody will accept. This exercise is ultimately beneficial only if people are willing to change their minds based on reason and evidence. But that is very unlikely on a large scale going by the evidence we have. It may definitely work in the case of individual people and even then we have to be sceptical whether the change in mind is because we have some other motivations like peer group pressure, money, how much we admire the person giving the argument etc. For example in Dave’s change of heart about institutional racism, the fact that a black man is arguing against the existence of racism and that the changed belief nicely dovetails with the viewpoint of many of his new friends on the right makes it a bit suspect.

The question I am raising is that given what we know about decision making and how opinions change, is it warranted for us to believe that rational discussion about facts is going to reduce our differences? On the other hand, getting people to talk to each other may actually change opinions. Not because we reached some rational conclusion but because interacting with each other in a friendly manner humanises the other side and leads to a change of heart which may end up in a change of mind. But in such a case it is not ‘free speech’ which works but the contact between people who come to see the other side as more or less similar to them. Moreover, the change of mind that this leads to may not be actually lead to a rational conclusion. Religious conversions are classic examples of this at work. Religious change of mind is only rarely the result of a rational thought process but instead is often an intensely emotional process which has the power to completely change the outlook and behaviour of the people involved. Religion gives a litany of examples of highly dysfunctional people who have lead exemplary lives after conversion. Similarly normal people have been convinced to do horrible things in the name of religion. This has almost nothing to do with ‘reason’ in the sense rationalists use it.

Given this discrepancy, I think we should be concerned about turning a blind eye to highly divisive language used by both the right and left in the name of free speech. Nazi memes, Milo’s provocations and calling others ‘deplorables’ is not going to convince the other group. Many on the right rightly pointed out the language of racism and sexism used by the Clinton campaign is not going to attract anybody to their side. These same people happily ignore, even though they don’t encourage, the divisiveness from the right. I am interested in Ben Shapiro‘s arguments but when he says that we shouldn’t have friends on the left, I seriously don’t know whether to keep listening. ( I am not sure he is serious, but I never heard him clarify)

My theory is that these aggressive language displays are not really to convince the other group. Whenever I am exposed to a line of thought that is deeply inmical to my beliefs I am comforted by somebody who is willing to use hostile language against the opposing group. While a part of me is worried about the name calling, another part is thinking that if somebody has enough confidence to defend my position aggressively in public, may be they know their stuff. There seems to be a pre rational willingness to follow that aggressive leader and also a nearly cathartic internal experience in feeling your doubts washed away in the ocean of certainty provided by the leader. This has almost nothing to do with the content of their beliefs. I have witnessed religious people, atheists, right wing, left wing or people discussing any other contentious topics undergoing this dynamic. Above all, I have experienced these emotions in myself. Interestingly, I myself am tempted to be hostile exactly when I do not have clear and rational arguments in favour of my position. Also, the other side using unnecessarily hostile language has always turned me off to whatever rational content in their message. On the other hand, people who present their position with rational arguments in a non combative and friendly manner often force me to stop and think about the problem while trying to overcome my prejudice. I want to stress the point that, at least in my case, the hostile reaction(usually I try to keep it inside my head) is the natural and automatic one. It is very easy and comforting to think that your opponent is evil and hence you are justified in feeling that rage. To give the opposing opinion a fair hearing is the unnatural thing to do.

So my lesson from all this is that hateful language in an argument is not really intended to convert the opposite side. It is fundamentally a reaction of the poorly informed whose natural response is to lash out trying to hide their insecurity. But more importantly, it is a type of preaching to the choir where people of a similar opinion try to reinforce their beliefs by insulting others. The only way to create a strong in group identity is to have clear boundaries of belief which are defended by name calling trolls. Nuance and self doubt are not something particularly conducive to creation of cultural warriors. But I do not want to imply that all the hate is result of some top down planning and execution by nefarious forces. As Jordan Peterson says these are forces which live inside each of us. This kind of cultural mob frenzy is only a reflection of our own capabilities of evil which become manifest in history when social forces align with each other. That’s just part of the human experience. Everything from the holocaust, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, ISIS, alt right and the regressive left are all varying manifestation of the same thing. I do not intend to say that holocaust is same as the alt right. Just that these are all manifestations of the same dynamic. Given the right cultural, historical and social forces alt right can become the Nazi regime and regressive left can become the next cultural revolution.

Like in my own case, I sense in these collective partisan forces a ready willingness to believe the worst about the opposite side. If there is one thing people get out of this article, I think it should be this. The movies are wrong!!! It is so easy in the movies where the good and bad sides are nearly always clearly demarcated. More challenging than this is the self acceptance displayed by the villains about their evil nature. Joker and Voldemort doesn’t believe that they are the good guys. They have themselves accepted the role of the villain with gusto. This cannot be further from the truth as far as real life is concerned. The group on each side of a culture war believes strongly in the moral purity of their vision and in the obvious evil nature of their opposition. This is a recipe for disaster. The day we realise that ISIS fighters are equally convinced about the moral rightness of their actions as its most strident new atheist/American right wing critic, we would be a little bit closer to realising what really is going on. Similarly for the SJW and their mortal enemies. We are all sure we are on the right side. This is exactly the reason why name calling and trolling will only make it worse. We have an automatic presumption of guilt for the opposite side and on top of that we see them behaving uncivilly. I take it as an interesting fact about human morality that we automatically take unkindness and incivility as markers of immoral behaviour. That is a bridge too far for almost all of us to cross. To realise the kernel of truth in the opposing point of view through all of the bias and rhetoric is nearly impossible.

The ability of these cultural forces to morph into much more aggressive forms of itself over time is a point not given enough credence by the people who are free speech absolutists. By the time the call for violence comes, the forces set in motion are so out of control that nobody can keep them in check. I see exactly that happening in the USA with the two sides at each other’s throat figuratively at present but I am afraid of what is coming next if the good people do not stand up.

Having raised this issue I think it is incumbent upon me to give an answer to where I will draw the line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ free speech. But sadly I really don’t have anything new to add. In the right environment free speech is obviously a exceedingly good thing which brings out the best ideas and let them fight in the public sphere to decide the ultimate winner. But when does that cross over to being unhelpful and downright dangerous in the long run? If we do not raise our voices against falsehoods and hate in the name of free speech and this leads to a either a right or left wing extremist movement which destroys civilisation as we know it, I am not sure what good our free speech will be. I am afraid Voltaire’s dictum ‘I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it’ works only in the world of pure rationality.

As regards the question of who decides what is hate speech the answer is murky. Describing problems using historical and sociological lenses is much easier than prescribing answers. I would generally be happy with strong social institutions of disapproval which indicate the immorality of gratuous violence, be it verbal,emotional or social. It is important that the critique should come from within the group in question and not the opposing outgroup. But then, governments in Europe have enforced laws against holocaust denial for decades. Their historical experiences probably justify their positions. I want to raise a helpful idea raised by Dr Jordan Peterson regarding the harmoniousness of life lived at the edge between chaos and order. There is an inherent risk at this location of slipping into either too much chaos(too much free speech) or too much order(too much restrictions). But Dr Peterson’s point is that it is our only option. To continually strive to get that balance right in our personal, familial and social lives is the only worthwhile way to live. The illusion that there is some utopia where there is no need for any restrictions or where there is a perfect moral code which beeps when we have crossed the line is just that, a utopia. To live is to struggle. The only way out is continuous vigilance against that which is out to destroy our souls, be it within us or without.

N.B.1 I am not sure I have made complete sense in the above discussion but hope my overall point comes through. There is an important subtopic to be discussed. What about the state of the underlying society in which this free speech doctrine is to be implemented? Does it work the same in India, Middle east, Russia and the USA given the markedly different cultural status of these societies? What about across time? Are we fair in decrying the lack of free speech in older societies? Hoping to address these in part 2.

N.B.2 As I am trying to think through these issues I remain stumped by the issue of the role of rational discourse in our search for truth. If humans have evolved to cooperate based on emotions rather than reason, is rational truth ultimately knowable by our advanced chimpanzee minds?

N.B.3 As you read through the article I think one notices a dwindling of the references in the second half of the article. That is because most of these are my random thoughts which, while I must have read somewhere, I am not able to come up with supporting literature now. So I welcome any critique of my ideas and also if more knowledgeable people can provide some links to relevant articles or books regarding these topics, that would be great.

Jacob