The Suppression Paradox - why banning hatred/racist speech doesn't work and may make things worse
Introduction
Recently we have had a lot of discussion about the effects of banning certain types of content on Reddit and other platforms.
I think many of us who are libertarian minded find this troubling.
I would like to look at the similar and related issue of banning racism and hate speech.
My own experiences of racism
Being born as a child of Indian/Pakistani descent and growing up in the 1980s and 1990s in England racism was much more common than it is today.
Some of my earliest memories are of being spat on (usually by adults) who shouted "Paki" at me as a child.
I remember incidents like one woman spitting bubble gum in my hair (which may sound like a silly prank but try getting it out) and getting in to trouble with my mother because I was too ashamed to admit what happened.
Further my school was in two separate locations that I had to walk between and I remember one particularly vicious bastard would hurl expletives at me if he saw me and try to hit me with his car.
That was not the only physical violence and I remember incidents of being pushed in to traffic by adults who seemed to think that trying to murder or seriously assault a child was a "jolly jape" - if they had brown skin.
These things have a deep impact on you as a child and it can make you fearful, even paranoid of your own country/home.
As I got bigger and more physically imposing this stopped but I suppose the fear of being considered an outsider or somehow less than others will always remain.
If you think that makes me in favour of banning hate speech...
That said I don't think you can just ban certain attitudes, beliefs or behaviours out of existence.
I believe that is potentially counterproductive and just because we don't see racism as overtly or openly as we did before does not mean it is not there.
I would rather know who my enemy is
It is not necessarily good to hide things. In some ways I consider hidden racism to be a greater problem than the overt kind.
If someone spits in my face at least I know where they stand but if someone is nice to my face but then goes away and demonises me behind my back I am not even aware of the potential damage that is occurring.
Additionally I do not have the opportunity to challenge them or work to help change their opinions and win them over.
The Truth about Racism
Racism is a form of prejudice. Prejudice arises from fear. It is due to the need to discriminate quickly whether something is a threat or not.
One of the most deep seated human fears is fear of the unknown. The best horror films prey upon this. In my experience most racists/homophobes have never actually gotten to know a person of the other colour or sexuality. When they actually do it can quickly lead to a change in their attitudes.
This is in some ways similar to how people with phobias can make them worse by avoiding the thing which provokes the fear. It allows them to create all kinds of beliefs around the fear that are completely unrealistic and out of control.
In the same way a person with a hatred/fear of a certain group develops unrealistic dehumanising beliefs which can become reinforced by way of not directly interacting.
We can all be racist and harbour prejudice
We need to accept the fact that prejudice is a part of human nature and that we can all be racist.
The idea that "only white people" are racist is as bad as saying that "all arabs are terrorists" and so forth.
They are gross overgeneralisations based on stereotypes and fears and they are simply not true.
However banning speech pushes people apart and allows this to get worse. It merely hides the problem as I said earlier and does not deal with it.
Words = Crime? Banning words doesn't change people's thoughts
It seems that these days there are a lot of "words" that are banned. You can get arrested in certain countries for saying certain things. This applies mainly to racist (or homophobic) speech.
We may find certain words distasteful - that is understandable.
Does banning them work though? Does it really help?
Does preventing someone from saying the "n" word or other xenophobic/prejudicial terms make them stop thinking it?
I doubt it.
It may actually make it worse:
The Suppression Paradox
Suppressing thoughts can actually increase their intensity and there is scientific evidence (e.g. Wegner et al see abstract below) to back this up.
The abstract from the Wegner research is quite short and sums this up well:
In a first experiment, subjects verbalizing the stream of consciousness for a 5-min period were asked to try not to think of a white bear, but to ring a bell in case they did. As indicated both by mentions and by bell rings, they were unable to suppress the thought as instructed. On being asked after this suppression task to think about the white bear for a 5-min period, these subjects showed significantly more tokens of thought about the bear than did subjects who were asked to think about a white bear from the outset. These observations suggest that attempted thought suppression has paradoxical effects as a self-control strategy, perhaps even producing the very obsession or preoccupation that it is directed against. A second experiment replicated these findings and showed that subjects given a specific thought to use as a distracter during suppression were less likely to exhibit later preoccupation with the thought to be suppressed.
This is just one experiment (and an old one at that) which shows that if you ask someone to actively suppress a word or visual image it can make it more intense.
I think most of us know this from personal experience too. It is something that people who suffer from Obssesive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) know all too well.
Marginalising people doesn't help
Out in the open prejudice can be challenged and questioned. We can also work to help change people's minds.
When you push it underground you encourage "hotbeds" of malcontent where people amplify their views with an echo-chamber type situation. It simply serves the opposite of it's aim.
Legal sanctions against such speech only serve to reinforce the opinion of these groups of people that they are being victimised. This simply plays into their existing belief systems and reinforces their opinions.
From another standpoint it also makes it more difficult to understand these groups or research their thinking so that we may develop ways of effectively changing them.
I think this has happened in the case of many types of extremist thinking - a good example is Islamic Extremism where it is now very much underground.
I am not convinced that helps to make us any safer.
Conclusions - the TLDR
So what are the main points here?
You can't legislate against prejudicial thoughts and words. Doing so by banning certain speech only serves to reinforce the very thing which you are hoping to fight.
It is also unrealistic to think that we can completely eliminate prejudice - it is part of the human condition and in some ways hard wired into us.
That is not to say that we shouldn't try to fight it but free, open and frank discussion is the best way to accomplish this.
What do you think?
Your Reward for Reading:)
If you like my work and aren't already, please follow me and check out my blog (I mainly discuss photography but I do other topics too) - @thecryptofiend
Photo Credits: All uncredited photos are taken from my personal Thinkstock Photography account. More information can be provided on request.
Some of my other recent posts
- Steemithelp.net Updates/Additions and Your Help Required Please
- Temporary Workaround for Porn/NSFW content and Suggested Community Guidelines
- The Tricks that "Sell Us" on the Idea that Christmas = Consumerism
- Death and Dying - personal musings on how we deal with it and how that affects our lives
- In the News: Judge Grants IRS Permission to Pursue Coinbase Customer Data - My Thoughts
Great article, thanks! In the unlikely event you don't know it yet, here is my favourite quote on the subject:
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however, well-intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism."
What Really Divides Us (23 December 2002).
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Awesome quote thank you. I believe there is a good point that some of the crusaders against racism may actually have latent racist tendencies.
You are welcome! I would rather emphasize collectivist approach, the group think. Wether you call it racism or sexism or whatever -ism is rather secondary. It is often a weird mix, for instance when a friend tells me that I have to check my privilges as a white male. Apparently this is rather common in todays America, but it happened to me recently in Germany and I was flabbergasted, because that friend had no idea of my INDIVIDUAL experiences. For instance, I grew up as a German kid in France and I experienced...well...nationalist "racism"? Nothing as bad as your experiences, I was only made fun of, but I was really shocked by the assumption that I am supposed to not even be able to know what "racism" feels like, just because of the colour of my skin.
Yes I think it is a fundamental misunderstanding that some people have which in itself comes form ignorance. People can also "find" the smallest difference on which to separate each other and become polarised. Looking at it rationally it seems really silly sometimes.
I can't seem to find it, but there is a maxim of law saying something to the effect of;
"Society cannot legislate for the least among men..."
I'm sure I have heard something to the same sentiment. I can't place it either. I will have a think.
Well done! There was a time in America when Italians were discriminated against (particularly Sicilians because we tend to be darker). I don't really remember my dad, I only saw him a couple of times, but he was really dark and remember walking with him and having people shout the "N" word from passing cars. He ignored it. I've learned that the free marketplace of ideas is the best remedy for racism and other social woes. Speech codes don't help. I had a girl who wanted to date me but wasn't allowed because I was "a dirty Italian" These things pass...now Italians are viewed like anyone else (I think lol)
Thanks for sharing your experience. Yes prejudice can be a bit weird. I remember they did an experiment on a TV show once where they actually managed to induce prejudice against people of a certain eye colour in a matter of minutes - not sure of the ethics of that experiment but it is scary. BTW my sister in law is Italian. I love Italian culture:)
My dad, who is Jewish, gets dark very easily in the sun. He told me that while taking a train trip across American in the 50s, he was stopped and questioned by the Border Patrol...as a possible Mexican, LOL
I (Half-redneck, half-Jew) used to do an access show about the dangers of illegal immigration, and one of the callers cussed me out in spanish for being a race traitor , LOL
Humans are stupid about race.
I'm a Sicilian redneck...My name is Quitliano (my mom was a Giacoppo) I live in Arkansas. My experience with my dad was in Boston (my original home) was in the 50's. I had a Mexican guy in Denver come up and start speaking Spanish (I don't know any) When I didn't respond in kind, he wanted to fight!
One of the beautiful things about the American experiment is that we have been so mixed in reality. Although racism via identity politics has been a propaganda vehicle for the Left, those of us that have more experience of America than the "approved" college texts have found a pace where a man can succeed regardless of color. It is disgusting that this becomes harder for a black man who is born in the democratic welfare-voting plantations.
Sorry commenting here due to the nesting issue. I know Trump is not a good guy but I don't think he is the pure evil that people would have us believe either. Ultimately we should judge him on his actions. I don't buy into these people who are panicking over his win or over Brexit for that matter. I totally agree if he does improve economic circumstances for everyone I suspect the racism issue will disappear (I'm not convinced he is racist anyway ).
I don't think Trump is racist; I do know that he was misquoted, and that remarks directed at subgroup of immigrants were framed as targeted towards brown people as a whole.
There are two good posts here; what Trumps' policy is vs. what it has been narrated to be; and the validity of those policies in themselves.
Hope I'm not lazy tomorrow, as I might take a shot at those.
Sad but true...they're demonized for trying. Thomas Sowell (one of my heroes) has written eloquently about it. There's a quote by LBJ: "I'll have those Niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years." I think that many people of color are beginning to see through the facade, but so many just don't seem to care.
I knew Trump was going to win when some of the internal of th polls had Trump pulling 20% of the black vote. If the democong cant pull 85% of the black vote in addition to high turnout, theyre hosed.
IF Trump stays true to his campaign promises, the black community will start to prosper, and many more will start questioning the democong subversion of their communities.
[Edit: this also relates to remarks made by @cryptofiend; some of the most vicious attacks against blacks that criticize the welfare-voting plantations are from white liberals and are fully racist in nature]
I think many non- white people must have voted for Trump. I think people in general are waking up and standing up to the establishment control.
I think sometimes being politically correct is actually a shield for latent racism.
The second most racist group I have encountered has been upper middle class white American liberals. in terms of specific racism, the worst behavior spikes come from the women of that group talking to minority women in the working class.
MAYBE that's an upper-class to lower-class female dynamic. IDK.
When I was doing my immigration show, the station's resident hippie used to try to get me to admit my "hate" of Mexicans; I don't know if he really meant what he was saying or whether he was just trying to "catch" me as a racist, but the things he said were so off base from a rational perspective (of course, everything the guy said was moonbattish)...I had to keep laughing at him; I have probably spent more social time with working class Tejanos than I have with upper-class liberals, and my dating pool is primarily Latina
I think those kind of people are in every group. They put on an act of being very tolerant and getting on with everyone but they have a very skewed view of a lot of different groups. I suspect no matter what nation or culture we are in there are people like that.
that kind of goes back to @fabio 's point; some people want to control the group as a whole, and divide and conquer is indeed a tried and true tactic. so we can add in "manufactured" or "stage" racism to the actual innate racism that is tribal in nature
Cool DM me the links if/when you do. I think a lot of what we see is something you could call "catastrophe theatre" - fear and alarm sell better than just being sensible.
I didn't think we could DM here. If I'm missing a button in my Ui, let me know LOL
Lol I meant the RocketChat:)
Still haven't signed up on any of the chats.
I'll post the link as a reply to the main blog here ;>
Please notice, when coming in the USA, immigrants were asked to spell their names in English, and most of them were unable to. So most of transcriptions are incorrect.
Giacoppo maybe was Giacobbo: http://www.mappadeicognomi.it/index.php?sur=giacobbo&s=Genera
And Quitliano was probably Quintiliano: http://www.mappadeicognomi.it/index.php?sur=Quintiliano&s=Genera
You can use this website if you like to investigate more, it is quite accurate.
Thank you so very much!!! This is probably why I've never been able to find any other Quitliano's! I'm an orphan, pretty much (my mom died when I was 5) I've looked for other people that share my name and have found none. Now I have a place to start...I can't tell you how grateful I am! You have a new follower!
Happy to be useful :)
Yes indeed.
Like you mentioned .., banning this type of speech, just pushes it underground, where it festers and is harder to see who these individuals are...Giving them anonymity, which can be more dangerous.
Exactly. Thanks:)
Let people speak and be judged by their words and deeds.
Exactly. Thank you:)
I agree with what you are saying, but (going into devil's advocate mode 8-) there are grey areas, like insults and threats, both punishable in many countries. It's not nice to hear "you're a Paki bastard", but is "I'm going to kill you and your family, sassenach bawbag" also something that should be accepted because of free speech? What if a man in a group of ruffians yells out "Look, a kike, let's rough him up", and the group does so, but the instigator doesn't participate, should he not be prosecuted for what he said?
People should be judged on what they have done and have free speech, but sometimes, as in the examples above, speech is eerily close to action.
The Dutch constitution forbids all forms of a-priori censorship, meaning you don't have to ask anyone's permission before you say something, but you can still be prosecuted a posteriori for insults, threats, and inciting to violence.
Where do you draw the line between free speech and illegal action? Is it that clear-cut?
(Out of devil's advocate mode again 8-)
Great points. I think it is a difficult issue. If someone's speech instigates a violent act then that is indeed a grey area. Ultimately that can only be determined by a court - as to what the intent of the speech was.
I am a racist person. I hate trash. White trash, trailer trash, black trash, brown trash... I just can't get along with a group of people that only want to use small words. People who never exercise their brains, and who's existence is slovenly and sloppy. This is not always the case, but it is often the case. Maybe I am actually not racist.
When you ban words, people will just come up with new ones.
Such as "nigger" used to mean a person from the Niger(ia) area of Africa.
Then it became offensive, so the PC'ized the word, and now there are more slurs for African Americans.
And what is this Teal Dear everyone keeps talking about? All the ones papa-pepper showed us have all been brown.
Yes and words aren't inherently good or bad.
Never heard of that myself.
Its everywhere now! Tl;Dr
OK lol. Yes it is Too Long Didn't Read but I think you were joking right:)
War and Peace is too long, haven't read... but mostly because I am not interested in that genre.
But, how would anyone know to upvote the post, or what to comment about if they didn't read it? I simply am aghast! :-p
: )
Great post. I think that most people are racist...to some level. Maybe they don't harbor negative judgements about the "outside" group, or maybe they don't make decsions based on their feelings, but they will notice the "difference" easily.
I think it's baked into us as humans a part of the us-versus-them heuristic, and I would actually refer to it as tribalism instead of racism for the most part. Race, language, and religion are going to be key markers for tribal inclusion.
Here are three things that I hope contribute to your discussion:
While staioned in Japan, I found that the Japanese were the most racist people I had encountered, but they were also very polite about it. Your point about open racism being honest plays very well re this point. I got to the point to where I would hear " Japanese only please", I would just bow and smile back, and walk away w/o a single feeling of insult.
The FBI ran a COINTELPRO against the KKK in the mid-60s which every official in the FBI felt was a success. A similar COINTELPRO against the New Left failed for the most part. Why was this so? Although one factor was that Hoover terminated COINTELPRO across the board after the KKK (WHITE HATE) op, but during the NEW LEFT op, I would argue it was the tactics the FBI used aginst the Klan that was the difference. While the most extremist Klansmen were targeted for marginalization, they were not marginilized on "racism" grounds, but rather "personal sins" In contrast, the bulk of Klansmen were "seduced"way from the Klan by appealing to patriotism and noting the contributions black soldiers made to the army, and by noting the the possible danger of "forcing" the blacks into the arms of the communists.
I found this to be hilarious. I was at a football game in the mid-90s. One one side of me sat a large group of black folks, mostly middle aged. One the other side of me was a large group of white folk about the same age. In front of the black folks was a group of rowdy young white teens. In front of the whites was a rowdy group of young black teens. I heard the exact same comments from both groups of the older folks throughout the game: those damn white/black kids are showing their ass. Neither group complained about the antics of the same-race teens. Both sets of teens were indeed being shitbirds. This should highlight the point I made about group inclusion via race markers. FWIW, I didn't really hear a lot of full "racist" languag, like the word "nigger" or "honky", mostly just white/black.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. You make some great points and I really don't have much I can add. The Cointelpro thing is fascinating also I think the behaviour you experienced at the sports game makes a great point. I think the Japanese thing perfectly illustrates how racism is not confined to one group.
I'm just glad I can add to your original post.
As humans, we are suspect to us vs them tribalism, but as humans, we can attempt rational and self-disciplined behavior as well
Exactly. Well said:)
Yup, words and information shouldn't be censored really. That doesn't give someone the right to simply yell at you though. You have the right to the safety of your personal space if you did no wrong to another. Threats are also not to be taken lightly. But behavior is different from words, and more so than information. People who live together can agree on certain behavior, and disallow other behavior. Nudity, for example, is not accepted by most. A banned, censored behavior. Some nude beaches have their own rules as well. Some nude places require that everyone be nude, or else you can't go.
Different communities create different rules. Preventing certain behavior, like nudity, or criminal acts like theft, murder, etc., is not a wrong thing to do. Amish communities operate differently than ours, they have different behavior and norms. Steemit can set its own standards as well, as a community.
Great points. I agree.
That's where the argument against porn comes from. It's behavior in the community we allow or don't. It's not information, it's not words. It's porn crap. I argue we shouldn't have it. But it's not like I decide. I'm allowed to say I don't want that shit here though :)
Of course:)
fully agreed. very concerned about posts being flagged/censored for "hate speech".
"hate speech" as introduced by the EU is Orwellian censorship. it censors opinions. Steemit should stick to the USA 1st Amendment.
unless someone insults, threatens or incites violence (exceptions to the 1st amendment) then noone should have the authority to silence a person's voice and opinion .
Well said! As civilised people we should be able to discuss things.