The Coddling of the American Mind

[deleted480308]

Exactly, but the ruling in no way compels speech. If anything, it said "go figure it out yourself" to the state.

Aaah, I think I misunderstood you.

You are saying scotus didn’t compel speech explicitly? I agree

I am saying scotus definitely left it open for states to compel speech which was in appropriate

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

I am saying scotus definitely left it open for states to compel speech which was in appropriate

I think it depends on the definition of "compel speech." In your definition, we've been "compelling" free speech ever since the ERA. SO, I doubt you'd be happy with whatever comes around on the books. The days of "Whites Only" lunch counters are gone, and for good reason.

 

[WisNeuro]

Lets not play games. Compel speech means forcing someone to say something either verbally or in writing (this time it was in frosting letters) via a coercive means - like levying a fine for non compliance. That is compelling speech and it’s wrong even when done at a state level.

Their are also so many things about the gay cake case that are sleazy (eg the plaintiffs went out of their way to find someone who would say “no,” and they went to like 20 shops looking). But that’s not what we’re discussing.

No games, but it is not compelling speech. You are free to say nothing, or to use neutral language. Can you show me where the cake maker was "compelled" to letter a cake a certain way to support gay marriage? There is no compulsion here, just an expansion of discrimination law to include another class of protected individuals. No one has to say anything, anywhere.

 

[WisNeuro]

This gives a better argument

It’s different then taking something down that is discriminatitive.

This issue is not offering the same service to certain individuals because of a biological difference. It's be the same thing as not offering to make a cake for a black wedding.

 

[WisNeuro]

Dude, I think by expanding this discussion to race we are getting a little away from the reality of the situation.

The courts have affirmed that discrimination on race is unconstitutional and (wrong).

Refusing to make someone a burger because (insert protected group here) is different than levying a $100,000 fine on them for refusing to write “happy wedding David and joe”.

They’re different because one involves speech and one doesn’t.

They're the same because they both involve offering different services, or denying services based on a biological characteristic. It's the same as denying someone based on race.

 

[WisNeuro]

Is gayness a biological characteristic?

Why yes, sexual orientation is indeed a biologically based characteristic. There are at least several thousand research articles, including translational research, if you'd like to delve into the topic.

 

[deleted480308]

I think it depends on the definition of "compel speech." In your definition, we've been "compelling" free speech ever since the ERA. SO, I doubt you'd be happy with whatever comes around on the books. The days of "Whites Only" lunch counters are gone, and for good reason.

I want them gone too, I just want the market to do it

 

[WisNeuro]

I want them gone too, I just want the market to do it

If we simply let the market take care of things, we'd still own people as a country.

 

[WisNeuro]

It's not "purely" biological, and I say that as someone who generally takes a pretty naturist stance. What about dudes in prison? I'll let my boi do the talking:

You are conflating sexual behavior with sexual orientation. Very different things. And, few things are purely biological, but many are heavily influenced by biology and development. For example, testosterone exposure in utero. Orientation is and never has been a binary construct.

 

[deleted480308]

If we simply let the market take care of things, we'd still own people as a country.

It is a violation of human rights to make a person a slave.

It is not a violation of human rights to have a crappy reason for not doing business with someone

Those are very different things

 

[WisNeuro]

It is a violation of human rights to make a person a slave.

It is not a violation of human rights to have a crappy reason for not doing business with someone

Those are very different things

We have different definitions of human rights as they pertain to the marketplace.

 

[WisNeuro]

Let's pretend I am a member of a protected class (in this case, a religious minority). I'm muslim. I come into your shop and say I want you to put this on a custom cake, it's a quote from my holy book.

Here's the quote: "And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty."

You would probably say "no". And you should say "no." And it's your right to say "no."

I would say "There's no way that is all fitting on a cake."

 

[deleted480308]

We have different definitions of human rights as they pertain to the marketplace.

Clearly. I don’t think anyone has a right to force you into a transaction with them

 

[WisNeuro]

Clearly. I don’t think anyone has a right to force you into a transaction with them

And, I feel that you cannot offer varying services to customers purely based on their biological traits.

I do generally believe that the market has the best solutions, even if they are imperfect. But sometimes the state can trail blaze.

But, just to be clear - "we" didn't own slaves. That was mostly in the south. And I've never owned slaves, nor anyone from my family.

To be clear, the royal "we," the obvious implication in the statement as in the country, did indeed own slaves. And, the "market" solutions assumes a level playing field with rational actors, assumptions which have been shown to be incorrect in a myriad of settings.

 

[WisNeuro]

This is like saying all germans were Nazi's... it's wrong. Or all muslims are terrorists.

The fact is, only the plantation class in the south owned slaves at the time of the civil war. I don't the collectivist "we" applies. Their is nuance there.

Umm, not at all. It's like saying that slavery was legal. Simply. Also, you need to read some more history, there were plenty of slaves in the North, and not on plantations. Additionally, many businessmen in the North profited from partnerships with slaveowners. This little history lesson to you aside, doesn't change the fact that the "Market" is a terrible adjudicator when it comes to issues of justice and discrimination.

 

[WisNeuro]

Did I get a "W" against Dr. WisNeuro? I'm gonna print this out and frame it.

No, you made an asinine argument that barely warranted a thought. In response, the answer is that you can reject a request to make something that is itself discriminatory.

 

[WisNeuro]

By 1804 all northern states had passed legislation abolishing slavery, tho.

Going back to the market, it's imperfect. But, I can think of some times when it does a good job - better than that of the legislator. For example, Milk organizing the Castro district. The businesses that worked with the gays killed it financially.

It was gradual, still slaves on US census in the North as of 1840. Doesn't change the fact that it was legal and was changed due to political pressure rather than market forces. Every now and then the market works, but many circumstances, it does not. It can not be relied on to be the sole arbiter, as history has clearly shown.

 

[WisNeuro]

Okay, now let's pretend you are a christian cake shop owner... But, doesn't his right to religious freedom allow him to make decisions about his own behavior?

But what trumps what in this case? A gay class or a religious class.

The authors of the constitution came up with a great solution - they think that it's wrong for the state to compel speech - even if it is discriminative and despicable.

If your "religious liberty" demands that you discriminate against people, that's your problem, basic civil rights trump discrimination. I also reject the notion that putting two names on a cake "violates" your religious liberty.

 

[WisNeuro]

It's not compelling speech, it's upholding rights. If you don't want to write names on cakes, you probably chose the wrong business being a cake maker. We all have our opinions on the matter. But I'll support any policies and law to that effect.

 

[cara susanna]

The same people that say that forcing bakers to make a cake for a gay couple is violating free speech seem oddly okay with forcing medical providers to give incorrect information about abortion to patients.

Also, the market doesn't always fix everything. What if you live in a place that only has one bakery?

 

[WisNeuro]

The same people that say that forcing bakers to make a cake for a gay couple is violating free speech seem oddly okay with forcing medical providers to give incorrect information about abortion to patients.

Hey now, that mandatory transvaginal ultrasound is totally necessary, and in no way invasive!

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm a little curious tho - taking this back to psychology. I'm thinking of a situation where this sort of stuff applies.

Let's say we have a customer, a member of a protected class, come in for some service.

Let's say we are doubting our ability to provide services to them because of some bias or something.

It's probably good practice to not provide the service to them and to, of course, get some consultation to address if we should take some time off to figure this out.

But, isn't that also discrimination to refuse those services... I think the following guidelines apply:

2.06 Personal Problems and Conflicts
(a) Psychologists refrain from initiating an activity when they know or should know that there is a substantial likelihood that their personal problems will prevent them from performing their work-related activities in a competent manner.

(b) When psychologists become aware of personal problems that may interfere with their performing work-related duties adequately, they take appropriate measures, such as obtaining professional consultation or assistance, and determine whether they should limit, suspend, or terminate their work-related duties.

3.01 Unfair Discrimination
In their work-related activities, psychologists do not engage in unfair discrimination based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed by law.

3.04 Avoiding Harm
(a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.

I guess this could be considered a case of ethical discrimination?

This is in no way similar to the cake case. In your hypothetical case here, you could conceivably cause harm due to practicing out of your scope. You are not refusing services due to their membership in a protected class, you are simply not practicing out of your scope. It's not as if you are refusing to see a LBGTQ individual for depression. But, if they wanted services specifically for something related to say, a transition, you may refer to someone with that experience. Yesterday, you wanted an example of a strawman, this is it.

 

[MAClinician]

I'm a little curious tho - taking this back to psychology. I'm thinking of a situation where this sort of stuff applies.

Let's say we have a customer, a member of a protected class, come in for some service.

Let's say we are doubting our ability to provide services to them because of some bias or something.

It's probably good practice to not provide the service to them and to, of course, get some consultation to address if we should take some time off to figure this out.

But, isn't that also discrimination to refuse those services... I think the following guidelines apply:

2.06 Personal Problems and Conflicts
(a) Psychologists refrain from initiating an activity when they know or should know that there is a substantial likelihood that their personal problems will prevent them from performing their work-related activities in a competent manner.

(b) When psychologists become aware of personal problems that may interfere with their performing work-related duties adequately, they take appropriate measures, such as obtaining professional consultation or assistance, and determine whether they should limit, suspend, or terminate their work-related duties.

3.01 Unfair Discrimination
In their work-related activities, psychologists do not engage in unfair discrimination based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed by law.

3.04 Avoiding Harm
(a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.

I guess this could be considered a case of ethical discrimination?

What multicultural competency training did your “oh so awesome“ program offer/provide?

 

[WisNeuro]

Dude, chill. I was going away from the cake shop. I just sort of thought it was odd/amusing that a case could be made for ethical discrimination. That term seems absurd to me.

But, it is nowhere near a case of ethical discrimination, whatever that term means. It is not discrimination to not perform a healthcare duty for which you not trained in, especially when doing so can cause harm to the patient.

 

[deleted480308]

The same people that say that forcing bakers to make a cake for a gay couple is violating free speech seem oddly okay with forcing medical providers to give incorrect information about abortion to patients.

Also, the market doesn't always fix everything. What if you live in a place that only has one bakery?

I don’t want to force doctors to lie

The number of bakers (or anyone for that matter) around doesn’t change that I have no human right to make them do something for me

 

[cara susanna]

I don’t want to force doctors to lie

The number of bakers (or anyone for that matter) around doesn’t change that I have no human right to make them do something for me

You have a human right to not be discriminated against by a business. Otherwise we'd still be in the days of Jim Crow laws.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: Reminder to please keep replies civil and professional. Thanks, y'all.

 

[deleted480308]

You have a human right to not be discriminated against by a business. Otherwise we'd still be in the days of Jim Crow laws.

No, Jim Crow laws was the govt forcing people to discriminate which was certainly not ok

 

[foreverbull]

I think we’re getting into two different arguments about the same cake case: free speech vs. discrimination.

The religious right has consistently pushed laws for “religious freedom” as a barely-veiled excuse to discriminate against the LGBT community because that’s the only way they can argue it without making it sound offensive. “We’re not discriminating, it’s actually WE who are being discriminated against for practicing our religion in public!” Crafty, but many of us can see through it.

At what point do basic human rights trump everything else? If the couple had been a Latino man and woman, there wouldn’t even be a question here; it would be considered racism and unacceptable. But for some reason, with the LGBT community, some people in our country see this as perfectly acceptable because the Bible says so, etc. Folks used the same argument during slavery. Why is this acceptable today?

Regardless of whether the couple shopped around so to speak (I’m not aware of the particulars on that, so you should provide a citation), the fact that we live in a country in which they’d be refused a cake with their names on it in a bakery that serves the general public (not a church bakery, mind you), is a red flag in and of itself.

 

[Pragma]

Interesting recent example:

Fox News Contributor Lisa Daftari Has Rutgers Speech Canceled – Islamophobia Cited

 

[PSYCHO-therapist]

I guess I haven't read the book so I can't speak fully, but I'm wondering what this author's understanding of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" actually is...

Having read the book and listened to much of his talks Haidt goes into detail about what he means. One example he mentions is how there was a debate at a university regarding whether the US has a rape culture with the pro side suggesting there was a rape culture and the con side suggesting that compared to other countries and "honor cultures" where raping a woman is a suggested method of punishment the US does not have a rape culture. Haidt admonished the administration for allowing a "safe space" not to discuss potential reactions from remembering their own trauma but a "safe space" to avoid ideas or opinions different from their own. His main complaint about (and he makes this clear) what is happening in SOME academic spaces (mainly elite Ivys) is that SOME students are unwilling to hear about the ideas of others because it brings up negative emotions AND that people are using the word "trauma" to describe just general unpleasant feelings. That is the crux (I believe) in what he does not like about safe spaces and trigger warnings-- that it just creates a divide between "us" and "them" that makes us more likely to outright dismiss anything that does not conform to our previously held beliefs and/or doesn't "feel right" to us.

I found him to be a very convincing speaker, not just because of his use of empathy and logic (he doesn't blame one specific group like Jordan Peterson tends to do and talks more about the sociocultural influences, both good and bad, that led us here), but also because he references a lot of peer-reviewed research. You can very easily read the articles or books he cites. Nothing I like more than a well-known psychologist that refers to research and emphasizes the importance of having evidenced-based reasoning!

 

[wtfook]

Having read the book and listened to much of his talks Haidt goes into detail about what he means. One example he mentions is how there was a debate at a university regarding whether the US has a rape culture with the pro side suggesting there was a rape culture and the con side suggesting that compared to other countries and "honor cultures" where raping a woman is a suggested method of punishment the US does not have a rape culture. Haidt admonished the administration for allowing a "safe space" not to discuss potential reactions from remembering their own trauma but a "safe space" to avoid ideas or opinions different from their own. His main complaint about (and he makes this clear) what is happening in SOME academic spaces (mainly elite Ivys) is that SOME students are unwilling to hear about the ideas of others because it brings up negative emotions AND that people are using the word "trauma" to describe just general unpleasant feelings. That is the crux (I believe) in what he does not like about safe spaces and trigger warnings-- that it just creates a divide between "us" and "them" that makes us more likely to outright dismiss anything that does not conform to our previously held beliefs and/or doesn't "feel right" to us.

I found him to be a very convincing speaker, not just because of his use of empathy and logic (he doesn't blame one specific group like Jordan Peterson tends to do and talks more about the sociocultural influences, both good and bad, that led us here), but also because he references a lot of peer-reviewed research. You can very easily read the articles or books he cites. Nothing I like more than a well-known psychologist that refers to research and emphasizes the importance of having evidenced-based reasoning!

Ok thanks for this! I can definitely see the logic behind that...I think this is where he's coming from too but I'd say that's not the students' problem but the institution's problem. Students are developing and so it's the job of the institution to help them develop appropriately. I always imagined a "safe space" is one where you CAN discuss what's happening with you with people you feel safe talking about it with. And with people who will respect your boundaries and not make you talk about stuff that you're not ready to talk about. Because talking about the racism you experience on campus is good but also you shouldn't have to if it's not something you have actually processed appropriately. It'd be like a therapist forcing their client to talk about something that makes them uncomfortable. It should be up to the client whether or not they want to disclose.

 

[deleted480308]

Ok thanks for this! I can definitely see the logic behind that...I think this is where he's coming from too but I'd say that's not the students' problem but the institution's problem. Students are developing and so it's the job of the institution to help them develop appropriately. I always imagined a "safe space" is one where you CAN discuss what's happening with you with people you feel safe talking about it with. And with people who will respect your boundaries and not make you talk about stuff that you're not ready to talk about. Because talking about the racism you experience on campus is good but also you shouldn't have to if it's not something you have actually processed appropriately. It'd be like a therapist forcing their client to talk about something that makes them uncomfortable. It should be up to the client whether or not they want to disclose.

“Safe space” as it’s often used now though is an accusation that speech you don’t like makes the space unsafe.....and should be banned.

 

[PSYCHO-therapist]

Ok thanks for this! I can definitely see the logic behind that...I think this is where he's coming from too but I'd say that's not the students' problem but the institution's problem. Students are developing and so it's the job of the institution to help them develop appropriately. I always imagined a "safe space" is one where you CAN discuss what's happening with you with people you feel safe talking about it with. And with people who will respect your boundaries and not make you talk about stuff that you're not ready to talk about. Because talking about the racism you experience on campus is good but also you shouldn't have to if it's not something you have actually processed appropriately. It'd be like a therapist forcing their client to talk about something that makes them uncomfortable. It should be up to the client whether or not they want to disclose.

I agree with your idea of a "safe space" as a place to talk about potentially stressful stuff and IMO it's something that should be sponsored as part of the University's counseling center rather than by student groups (to have a therapeutic professional address the problems you cite). I think Haidt generally ignores (as in does not talk about) this conceptualization of a safe space, which is where I think he misses some points.

 

[PSYCHO-therapist]

“Safe space” as it’s often used now though is an accusation that speech you don’t like makes the space unsafe.....and should be banned.

Yes, I think this tendency is the exactly the kind of thing Haidt would say is overall harmful. And even if you are trying to make someone aware of the potential impact of their words, accusing them of being unsafe or threatening is probably one of the worst ways to go about it from a psychology of persuasion perspective.