Bryan Cranston Confronts His "White Privilege"
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-02-16/bryan-cranston-interview-power-of-sail-geffen-playhouse
He probably should have just kept cooking meth.
The play asks if there should be limits to free speech, and if so, why? It tests the boundaries of the free speech ideal by examining the traditional arbiters of that speech — those who get to decide whose voice is lifted and whose voice is quashed. It suggests the existence of a moral compass in an age when truth is often called relative by special-interest groups opposed to it.
Brandon Scott, who plays the Black academic Baxter Forrest in “Power of Sail,” tries to stop Nichols from hosting Carver at the symposium while citing 20th century philosopher Karl Popper’s “paradox of tolerance.” Popper’s idea is that if a society — in pursuit of tolerance without limits — tolerates the intolerant, the latter will eventually destroy that society.
Cranston is taken with the theory and leans forward in his chair while discussing it.
“There need to be barriers, there need to be guard rails,” he says. “If someone wants to say the Holocaust was a hoax, which is against history … to give a person space to amplify that speech is not tolerance. It’s abusive.”
“What is safe? Well, emotionally safe. Without judgment, safe. All-inclusive, safe. Empathetic, safe. And that’s what gives me hope with new generations,” he says. “Because it’s a beautiful thing to say, ‘We’re all entitled to be who we are without judgment.’”
Then it ain't free speech if its limited speech. The only way to counter bad ideas is more speech about good ideas. If you can't counter them then you've already lost or your idea wasn't good to begin with. This is censorship and silencing in the name of safe space, hurt feelings, offensiveness, or whatever it is that triggers you. Whose to decide what speech is allowed? I bet the left would want all that power.
Dont you have hate speech laws in the US , like the rest of the civilised world?
if not , do you think thats for better or worse?
"Then it ain't free speech if its limited speech. The only way to counter bad ideas is more speech about good ideas. If you can't counter them then you've already lost or your idea wasn't good to begin with."
Precisely.
I think there's a difference between allowing all people to express their personal opinions and beliefs, without censorship, and hosting individuals as 'experts', when they're nothing of the sort.
The problem with platforming a high-profile Holocaust denier, is that there's a danger of giving them 'legitimacy', which makes it harder for the masses, who may be no less of an 'expert' on 20th Century history/the Third Reich, but don't have the literal and figurative platform, and standing, in order to confidently challenge the hypothetical high-profile Holocaust denier.
In other words, it's all very well saying everyone has the right to free speech, and we shouldn't take sides in deciding who is and isn't entitled to voice their opinions (a position I personally hold), but the dynamic changes when you *elevate* an individual who is talking complete BS (i.e. a climate change/Holocaust denier, or a Flat Earth advocate), so that it becomes harder for us mere plebs to challenge them.
Snake-oil salesmen like that idiot Jordan Petersen thrive on the unearned legitimacy we give their mindless ramblings and believe their own hype to such a degree, that it becomes impossible to have a good faith debate with them.