Sure it is. It is a question of degree, but "people are being hurt" is 100% why we have all sorts of laws ranging from preventing dumping waste in rivers to false advertising. In this case, a lot of people believe that people are being hurt extremely badly for centuries by racist systems and that some kinds of speech contribute directly to supporting those racist systems.

"We can't protect people without turning fascist" is a really rough take.

I was talking about when it comes to speech and ideas. Not crimes. Don't be disingenous. Ideas that crossover to discrimination or fraud are actions that are criminal and we have laws against this. People who discriminate against others can be charged or sued, which is perfectly okay. But if someone quotes someone who asks the question "why do people not talk about black-on-black crime?" and then their entire livelihood is at risk just for asking a question, that is fascism and censorship of ideas. This is what Matt Tabbiti talks about in his article https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i....

The problem is that "banning every thought or idea that hurts people" it has crossed over to just simple thoughts and discussions, which is wrong.

People need to be tougher. If you're "hurt" by an idea, then you are fragile. That's the whole point about talking, discussing, arguing and ultimately agreeing or disagreeing.

I think the history of Blood Libel is instructive here. The story of Simon of Trent was spread both maliciously and foolishly and led directly to the murders of a large number of jewish people and played a role in centuries long persecution of european jews.

The example you mention is interesting because I think it is a good example of a statement that is both spread maliciously and foolishly. There has been both deep study and serious activism surrounding "black on black crime" yet this phrase persists because it is powerful ammunition from people who seek to persist white supremacy to convince people that people that activism is just whining and should be ignored. If you stood up in a Q&A session at a sociology conference on criminology and asked this you'd be outing yourself as truly ignorant of the field - the same as if you stood up in a Q&A session at an atmospheric science conference and asked "what about milankovitch cycles".

The heterodox academy tips their hand when they bring up examples of thoroughly discredited ideas as things that they should be able to force people to take seriously.

Sorry, are you saying black-on-black crime is thoroughly discredited? I'm not saying that blacks haven't suffered immeasurably due to white racism, but if a journalist retweets a link to an interview of a black activist that asks the question about black-on-black crime, and then the journalist gets attacked as racist, that's too many levels of indirection.

It sounds like people aren't even allowed to ask the question unless they wish to be fearful about their careers and livelihood. That is the definition of censorship of ideas.

And if someone were to ask a question that is ridiculous, is the answer to cancel them or to engage in a discussion and educate them? That is the essence of free speech.

> Sorry, are you saying black-on-black crime is thoroughly discredited?

No. The specific discussion of black-on-black crime is about the idea that nobody is discussing it, which is just false on its face. This is distinct from questioning whether black people are often the victims of crimes committed by other black people.

People are allowed to ask questions. I just ask two things.

1. That when somebody provides you with an answer, you stop asking the question.

2. That you recognize when a question has been weaponized as a means to dismiss activism and analysis rather than as a means to expand activism and expand analysis.

This is the same as my point about Milankovich cycles. They are real things. But "what about Milankovich cycles" is a weaponized idea among climate deniers designed to convince people that the experts haven't considered this, when they really have. Similarly, "what about black on black crime" is a weaponized idea designed to convince people that experts haven't considered this, when they really have.

Experts have concluded clearly that the existence and even high frequency of black-on-black crime absolutely does not dismantle claims about white supremacy and systemic racism. Similarly, experts have concluded clearly that the existence of Milankovich cycles does not dismantle claims about climate change and the role of carbon emissions.

> No. The specific discussion of black-on-black crime is about the idea that nobody is discussing it, which is just false on its face. This is distinct from questioning whether black people are often the victims of crimes committed by other black people.

So now we're taking the literal definition of "nobody", and using it to say that this is false. Personally, I'd feel comfortable saying "nobody is talking about cause X", if related cause Y was being talked about 100x more. Otherwise "nobody is talking about X" is always trivially false - by saying that, you are talking about it. But by the 100x standard... Yeah, nobody (right now) is talking about black-on-black crime, in comparison to white-on-black crime.

> Similarly, "what about black on black crime" is a weaponized idea designed to convince people that experts haven't considered this, when they really have.

> Experts have concluded clearly that the existence and even high frequency of black-on-black crime absolutely does not dismantle claims about white supremacy and systemic racism.

The problem with this argument - that this is a bad-faith question and it's been sufficiently addressed so shutup and stop asking - is twofold. First, many people will ask this due to not being familiar with those answers. Second, some people might think those answers are insufficient. Why not just link to the experts addressing it?

> Personally, I'd feel comfortable saying "nobody is talking about cause X", if related cause Y was being talked about 100x more.

I'd truly encourage you to go engage with the literature and experts on this subject. You might find that your "100x" expectation is wildly inaccurate.

> Why not just link to the experts addressing it?

Because they are easy to find for people who are interested and spending time navigating the literature for people engaged in an intellectual denial of service attack is a waste of time. Same reason I stopped engaging with quacks causing trouble in my field of expertise.

> I'd truly encourage you to go engage with the literature and experts on this subject. You might find that your "100x" expectation is wildly inaccurate.

Funny thing is, for the people asking that question (and IIRC literally the case that led to this discussion, which was an on-the-street-interview) they aren't looking at the academic literature - they're reading Vox, or watching CNN, or Fox, or reading the NYTimes. And I think that 100x is pretty accurate there.

> Because they are easy to find for people who are interested and spending time navigating the literature for people engaged in an intellectual denial of service attack is a waste of time. Same reason I stopped engaging with quacks causing trouble in my field of expertise.

"This is easy, and people ask me to do it often, but instead of doing it once and saving the results I just say 'educate thyself' and walk away"

Things that are easy for you - a person evidently up-to-date with the literature here - might be extremely difficult/impossible for someone who's not familiar, or who doesn't have free journal access.

> Funny thing is, for the people asking that question (and IIRC literally the case that led to this discussion, which was an on-the-street-interview) they aren't looking at the academic literature - they're reading Vox, or watching CNN, or Fox, or reading the NYTimes. And I think that 100x is pretty accurate there.

You say this, but my wife is a historian and she and her colleagues get this crap thrown at them all the time. The "what about talking about black on black crime" meme is clearly being directed everywhere rather than specifically at the media. People use this phrase to specifically attack activists and academics.

If you want to criticize the media, great! Leftists aren't exactly big fans of the organizations you list. Just don't retreat to "its about the media" after criticizing other people.

> Things that are easy for you - a person evidently up-to-date with the literature here - might be extremely difficult/impossible for someone who's not familiar, or who doesn't have free journal access.

A core problem is that "wall of links" tends to not be productive. This isn't unique to fields like sociology. If somebody asked me about abstract interpretation and I just threw a bunch of Cousot papers at them it wouldn't be productive. The trick is to engage with people who can help you synthesize the literature and actually trust them. Look up the sociology faculty at a nearby university, find somebody who works in a thematically related field, and write them a letter.