A few days ago, I allowed a friend of mine to post a guest post titled Why women don’t understand friendship. So far, the reactions to the piece have been universally negative with “bitter”, “misogynistic” and “offensive” being a fairly representative sample of words used to describe it. I can’t say that I’m particularly surprised by the reaction. So given that, why post it?

Lets start with what were not the reasons I posted it.

It was not because I agreed with him. I differ with Aug Bohr on several substantial points and his conclusion has not managed to convince me.

I did not post it an a deliberate attempt to offend readers or drum up controversy. Yes, there was plenty to be offended by in the post but this was a side effect of the argument being made.

I posted it because it was heresy and, for the ideals of the free exchange of ideas to flourish, heresy must be allowed to stand on it’s own merits.

The free exchange of ideas is not a natural condition. We have fought to establish it and it’s existence is fragile at best. Heresy is where the battles of intellectual freedom are fought. Where heresy is allowed to stand, intellectual stagnation follows. Taboos become entrenched & advancement becomes more about adopting the “correct” position than the true position. The only way to prevent this intellectual stagnation is to become virulently allergic to judgment based on ideology and a dedication to focusing on content alone.

But humans, in their natural state, are supremely uncomfortable with heresy. The reaction, when confronted with an argument that you violently disagree with is to try and make it false as quickly and efficiently as possible. Oh, the author must be a bitter, misogynistic hack. Oh, the standards for evidence were not met. Oh, it relies on a poor grasp of evolutionary psychology. Anything to make the argument go away. This is not acceptable. Look past the ideology, evaluate it like you would evaluate any other argument, hold it to the same standards. Don’t flinch.

“Why women don’t understand friendship” isn’t a great argument. But it’s also not a bad one. It’s intriguing and also presents a perspective that I had never heard before. I posted it because if it had been on any other topic, I would have considered it worthy of posting. To have not posted it would have been a betrayal of an ideal that I hold dear.

Related Posts

  1. Women Don’t Understand Friendship
  2. Mechanical Turk changes how we understand labor
  3. Noone is born atheist
  • Boudewijn
    Heresy is defined (in non-religious terms) as a belief or idea which is in opposition to established views, and I agree that it is an important prerequisite to the free exchange of ideas. However, "Why women don't understand friendship" wasn't heresy, it was bordering hate speech, and to lump it under the term heresy to be able to claim freedom of speech is wrong and lazy.

    Whenever the most vile, disturbing, and offensive "arguments" are being made, it is put under the banner of free speech. It's how religious nuts get away with gay bashing and worse. No one seems to understand that that freedom comes with huge responsibilities. It's why you can't publicly deny the holocaust, or incite hate or violence.

    Get your head out of your ass.
  • Hang
    Freedom of speech is only freedom if it applies to that which is "vile, disturbing, and offensive". Unlike in Germany, it is perfectly legal to deny the holocaust in the US and I will defend that right. Holocaust denial should not go away because it's outside of the bounds of acceptable discourse, holocaust denial should go away because it's a stupid argument.

    I still stand by what I say but I respect that you differ in your opinion.
  • AugBohr
    I think Hang's goal in allowing this stems from his philosophy that it is always better _in the long run_ to consider all ideas than to avoid considering them. For example, if someone were to write an essay saying blacks had lower IQs, some would argue that the essay is is too dangerous to exist, and really shouldn't be published until the evidence is overwhelming, if ever. Until then, it's hate speech. I would probably agree with that. As far as dehumanizing half the population by claiming it’s unable to feel the most basic forms of human connection, yeah, the essay sort of is hate speech, even by my standards.

    Had you stopped there, I would’ve agreed with you. But you brought up an argument that defeats our point of view and affirms Hang’s. You mentioned Holocaust denial. I don’t think any reasonable person would argue the Holocaust didn’t historically happen, not even Ahmadinejad. What he argued was that it became a myth. A myth isn’t necessarily true or false, it’s just a story used by a people to explain their place in the world. By labeling any criticism of the state of Israel hate speech, political discourse is very effectively silenced, and we all watch in horror as Israel commits atrocities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nat...)

    Hate speech against women or gays or Jews is clearly undesirable in my worldview, and I’d like to see it silenced whenever destructive, perhaps even the women-friendship essay should be deleted for that reason, but apparently Hang takes a different view. He would say it’s too dangerous to the free exchange of ideas to classify them as too dangerous to consider. Certainly some are, but here’s the thing. You misinterpreted and misclassified criticism of Zionism as hate speech, and it is this sort of self-imposed and socially mediated blinding that lets Israel get away with so much. If you missed the mark in making a simple list of what should be hate speech, perhaps there is something to Hang’s philosophy that all ideas need to be fully investigated and considered, no matter how temporarily unpleasant, so that we may be given the opportunity to truly consider whether they are reflective of reality or hateful nonsense.
  • trond
    Well, I definitely applaud the re-examination of heresies. But, really, that one's not new, nor was there anything much in there that's not already been hashed out in depth by men's rights activists on the one hand, and alpha male dating advisors on the other.

    Sorry, that _was_ a bad argument. It'd be interesting to hear a more nuanced and detailed discussion on the topic, but that wasn't it. Sure, 'heresies must be aired out', but if that's the best showing there is for this particular one, then self-editing is in order. Next time, pare away the easy criticisms first before showing it to people, and you might get more discussion of the sort you're looking for.
blog comments powered by Disqus