I think the First Amendment does, and should, protect Amy Wax from criminal or civil litigation from her speech. I think that though a professor expressing racial contempt for groups of her students presents grave issues, that action against her tenure should only be taken in extreme circumstances and with great caution and process.
But…/1
https://www.vox.com/23592864/amy-wax-university-of-pennsylvania-racism-tenure-academic-freedom
/2 I find myself increasing alienated from a “free speech community” that seems primarily concerned not with those legal and procedural safeguards, but with the notion that when Amy Wax says our country should have fewer people who look like my children, that our predominant concern should be that nobody say anything that might make people feel uncomfortable or self-conscious saying things like that.
/3 It is a “free speech culture” that irrationally lionizes the Amy Waxes of the world while incoherently policing and seeking to deter, limit, and tone-police people responding to her.
I dissent from it.
@Popehat this is something I've been wrestling with for years now. It appears like the line between people defending free speech and people lionizing terrible people who say terrible things has been getting thinner and thinner, and while I know there are people who just do the work without adopting the ethos of the people they defend it seems they require a special mindset that is rarer than it used to be.
@ubersoft @Popehat it’s gotten to the point that mediocrities and has-beens are broadcasting inflammatory things on purpose to gain attention through backlash so they can present as brave martyrs of cancel culture and gain sympathy from everyone who can imagine themselves criticized by the same people. They particularly attract those preoccupied with their own reputations and constant fear of losing social value.
Like the Scott Adams rant; that was calculated.
