Self-censorship, name-calling and political polarisation

10/4/2018

By Jackson Willows

Issue 6

In a class a couple of weeks back, we were discussing the area of legislation regarding who could become an Australian citizen and under what circumstances.

There was a quote on the board from Peter Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs. In it was the suggestion that, under a new policy, Australia would not allow criminals to become citizens. One of the criminal acts targeted was female genital mutilation (FGM).

The teacher opened the floor to discussion. One student suggested that precluding people who practice FGM from becoming Australian citizens was discriminatory to a particular ‘group of people’.

I put my hand up and said:

“The suggestion isn’t that a ‘certain group of people’ are stopped from becoming citizens… (pause to choose my words carefully) ... the suggestion isn’t that Muslims be stopped from becoming Australian citizens - it’s that people who practice FGM be precluded from becoming citizens.”

I was being politically incorrect by using the word ‘Muslim’ in the context of a discussion about immigration, and eyebrows were raised.

Not only did people seem surprised or concerned, but I can imagine they jumped to conclusions about my views on Muslim immigration and FGM (neither of which are contained in, nor relevant to, this article). Some probably even thought to themselves “he’s racist” or “he’s Islamophobic”. All of this got me thinking about self-censorship, name-calling and political polarisation.

Does merely saying the word ‘Muslim’ in that context mean you’re against Muslims gaining Australian citizenship? Of course not. Using direct language doesn’t mean you are a bigot. Direct language in combination with an open mind and some basic decency are the makings of a productive conversation.

The trouble is that some people mistake self-censorship for decency, while others replace reasoned argument with name-calling.Our political climate is stifling and our unwillingness to have a conversation shows how polarised we are politically. This was very clear during the lead-up to the marriage equality postal survey. To even have a conversation that canvassed arguments for a ‘No’ vote made you a homophobe in the eyes of a lot of people. I’m sure it still does. Shouldn’t people have voted ‘Yes’ based on reasoned arguments, rather than because they were scared of being called a homophobe? Doesn’t a reasoned argument require engaging with counter-arguments?

It’s the same story with feminism. If you even question it or its current cultural ascendancy, you are a sexist. Conversation over. No wonder many people don’t feel comfortable talking openly about it, or when they do talk about it they just spout platitudes. How does that help the progression of ideas in our society?

Defaulting to name-calling instead of engaging someone’s views doesn’t help anyone, and neither does withholding your views because you fear being called names.

If you disagree with someone, even vehemently, resist the urge to throw labels at them. Instead, reason with them. Talk them through why you think they are wrong. That’s hard because it requires the admission that you might be the one who is wrong. It’s far easier to justify disregarding someone’s opinion by saying they are a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, a sexist etc. than to risk being proven wrong while engaging their argument.

When all people receive for expressing their views is vitriol, they don’t change their views; they withdraw and find places where their views are shared. In turn, their views are amplified and you have online echo chambers that facilitate movements like the alt-right. That’s dangerous.

If you are withholding your opinion or modifying your language because you are worried that your views are politically incorrect or controversial, then say it, whatever it is. And to the people who resort to name-calling, do you want people to agree with you because your arguments are strong, or because they’re scared of you?

Maybe you are wrong and your views need to be moderated, but maybe you are right and someone else’s views need moderating. The only way to find out is by having a discussion. We can only do that by saying what we mean and listening to each other without jumping to conclusions.

So for the sake of political discourse in this country, stay open minded and don’t be afraid to engage in frank conversation.

Irony

10/4/2018 08:46:15 pm

The fundamental premise of your article is good and I agree with much of the back half of it. Nonetheless the early part and your initial example of the classroom discussion doesn't really seem the best means to make it with. In fact, it seems like in that example, you ironically jumped to conclusions about the fact that other students were jumping to conclusions.

That said, thanks for sharing the piece. I think you might enjoy Ben Wilson's article from a while back, which has some similar echoes: https://www.deminimis.com.au/home/why-were-wrong-about-everything-that-matters-most-js-mills-argument-from-accident-in-on-liberty

Anon

10/4/2018 11:11:53 pm

Possibly the issue is your assumption that it’s muslims who practice FGM?

FGM is often a cultural practice moreso than a religious one. Many non Islamic communities practice FGM, and it is a bit stereotypical/uninformed to assume ‘oh we are talking about fgm therefore it must be Muslims’

I also think that you’re perhaps being a bit sensitive. People are allowed to criticise your opinion, and yes, people aren’t going to assume that you might be ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ if comments you make suggest that. That doesn’t mean your free speech and democracy is somehow stifled because you don’t like how people react to the comments you make

Scott

11/4/2018 12:09:16 am

It’s not uninformed to infer that the person was likely commenting about muslims given the current sociopolitical concerns about Muslim immigration, and that significant numbers of FGM practisers are Muslim. And many who do it believe it to be a religious requirement, even if that is theologically disputable.

Also, it didn’t seem like the author was suggesting that his free speech or other rights were being taken away; this was an article about having productive conversations. People can dismiss argument or name-call as they please, but it doesn’t really achieve anything nor does it utilise free speech in the open discussion of ideas.

11/4/2018 08:26:20 am

Scott, fgm predates both Islam and Christianity and has been practiced by people of many faiths. Again, it is predominantly a cultural practice not a religious one. Prevalence of fgm is linked to ethnic group and geography more than religion.

Really?

11/4/2018 09:51:39 am

"it didn’t seem like the author was suggesting that his free speech or other rights were being taken away"

Have you seen the image accompanying the article? Or the title: 'self-censorship'?

Really really

11/4/2018 02:40:47 pm

There is a (what I would have thought obvious) difference between suggesting that people are being censored, and that people are engaging in self-censorship. The fact that a person does not want to say something because they are concerned about the reaction it will elicit does not mean that they have no right to free speech. Thus the author’s point seems to go more to failed utility of conversation, where we dismiss each other instead of engaging, rather than suggesting that individual’s freedoms are being taken away.

But Really Though?

11/4/2018 03:30:46 pm

Suppose that you are right and that the author’s point does go more to the failed utility of conversation, as you put it. One would think that as law students we should value things like evidence and proof. Is there really sufficient evidence in the article that Jackson’s peers were not willing to engage in a mature conversation with him? Be honest.

Ultimately, I think, the very first comment by IRONY is most apposite: Jackson ironically jumped to conclusions about the fact that other students were jumping to conclusions.

It goes without saying that to have a different opinion from one’s peers is not wrong. But having an opinion without a sound basis is rather worrying.

Agreement is nice sometimes

11/4/2018 07:08:37 pm

Yes I agree, I think the example provided is probably a bad one. Although I think you could make an argument that the author’s assumption was not entirely unfounded given the current political climate, it wasn’t perfectly accurate either. And it wasn’t shown that others were not willing to have a conversation.
I would still say that the core argument of the article remains valid, better demonstrated regarding the plebiscite and feminism.

Nice Certainly

12/4/2018 09:20:10 am

It is tough to acknowledge one’s own weakness. I, therefore, feel compelled to appreciate that you must be a much better person than I am because, although you agree with me on a point, I can’t possibly reciprocate and endorse the last sentence of your comment.

Ayu

11/4/2018 12:17:43 am

I can appreciate your views on the need for rational discussion instead of knee-jerk labelling, but you need to select better examples to support your point. An argument in support of the “No” campaign is inherently homophobic because it discriminates against the right of same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

And if you’re not for feminism (the equality of the sexes as it was originally conceived)... what are you for if we don’t call it sexism?

I think what you’re trying to say is that big “buzzwords” like sexism come with so much stigma that it’s not fair to allow one’s freely spoken words to be associated with those words within one logical step. Now let me tell you something. The stigma exists for a reason. Those words have negative cultural cachet for a reason. How about we evaluate that part of modern reality?

Radical Kyriarchist

11/4/2018 01:08:02 am

Gays and straights have always had the same legal rights in this country and in most other western countries. Straight people were also prohibited from marrying people of the same sex and gay people always had the right to marry people of the opposite sex. 'Being gay' was never prohibited in any form, certain acts were prohibited and they were prohibited for everyone.

The legal right to marry was never a 'right to marry the person you love/are sexually attracted to', it was a right to marry a person of the opposite sex (who is of age, not incestuous, etc) and was extended to everyone. Now people also have the right to marry people of the opposite sex (who are of age, not incestuous), etc and that is extended to everyone.

You must be having a laugh if you think feminism today means nothing more than 'the equality of the sexes'. Whether or not it meant that once upon a time, it probably doesn't now, and a lot of people who call themselves feminists agree with that. Also nobody is entirely sure just what 'equality of the sexes' means are they?

Yeh okay

11/4/2018 09:33:39 am

We all know that there are obviously many strands under feminism, and equality of the sexes is one of them, and one that many people strive towards when they call themselves a feminist. Also, a few examples of equality of the sexes include same wage, similar stats in terms of domestic violence victims and sexual assault victims.

$0.02

11/4/2018 11:38:31 am

I don't think Jackson is suggesting that being anti-SSM or anti-feminism isn't homophobic/sexist. Rather, I think he's suggesting that were people more willing to hear opinions that differ to theirs, rather than call them out as racist/sexist/etc (even though they typically are), then people who hold those opinions would be more willing to engage in discussion about them, which in turn creates the opportunity for those opinions to be changed.
The stigma which surrounds those word is fair and justified, but rarely does being labeled with such a word dissuade someone from holding the opinion to which the word attaches.

Taking Absurdity To New Heights

11/4/2018 09:40:49 am

'Straight people were also prohibited from marrying people of the same sex and gay people always had the right to marry people of the opposite sex.'

Whether you're a man or a woman, the tampon tax applies to all equally. It just so happens that men use tampons less often than women.

wholehearted agree

11/4/2018 09:45:05 am

Name says it all.

Djskwtkkednwjsjdbxb

11/4/2018 03:27:02 pm

Yes the law obviously disproportionally effects some people more than others wherever it operates but people shouldn’t go about calling this unequal “legal rights”. That is either uninformed or disingenuous.

Eugh

12/4/2018 02:44:56 pm

@DJSKWTKKEDNWJSJDBXB, so I suppose you would have been happy to let the Jim Crow laws continue unabated in the US ad infinitum? After all, they were just the law in action disproportionately *affecting some people more than others, hey? No inequality in 'legal rights' to see here.

Strawman

12/4/2018 03:30:28 pm

Obviously not because the Jim Crow laws actually meant people did not have he same legal rights. Different people were subject to different laws based on who they were (their race) not based on acts they performed.

double standard

11/4/2018 09:43:06 am

While I agree with the sentiment of your argument, I can't help but notice the double standard you have shown, through the example that you have given. As others have said, FGM is a practice that is related closer to culture rather than religion, and given the large number of arts student in the cohort, it can be assumed that most of us would understand and appreciate the difference. You're imagining that people jumped to the conclusion that you are racist or Islamophobic, when you did not offer a space for discussion, or if you did, that was not shown in this article.

Feminism is a hard one, because there is no unifying voice even amongst those who call themselves feminists. However, it is unclear whether you're questioning the need for feminism or have questions about feminism, if the feminists that you are speaking to calls you a sexist when you are doing the former, then I'm sorry, they are right. If it's the latter, however, then yes, I think they have the responsibility to explain their view on feminism to you.

Miss Andry

11/4/2018 03:40:54 pm

So every woman who does not call herself a feminist and questions the need for feminism is a sexist?

Come on, pull the other one.

Or is it only men to which this rule applies? Because to me that sounds a little, dare I say it, sexist.

Comments are closed.