True, Kind, and Necessary

There's an old saying, attributed to various sources, that goes like this: Before you speak, ask yourself; Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?

A good goal is to aim for two out of three.

If you follow anyone I follow on Twitter, you've read about the Harper's letter on free speech signed by more than 100 prominent influencers. If you follow anyone else on Twitter, you've read about how upset it has made people.

Traditional liberal, Enlightenment thinkers, like Jon Haidt, believe in the value of Truth, that in order to seek truth, we have to follow conclusions even if they lead us to places that make us uncomfortable.

People who criticize the letter don't respond to the value of truth; they argue against harm, or, better yet, in favor or kindness. Their typical response goes something like this: "You're just using free speech as a cover for your bigotry. You want to be able to say harmful things to marginalized groups and not be held accountable."

Both sides argue one of the tenets of the maxim that led this post. If something is true, people should be able to say it. If it's not kind, people should not say it. I think both sides would be better served if they moved to the third tenet and argued over the necessity of whatever the speech entails.

Bret Weinstein gives a good example of using two of the tenets in his argument.

Seems @ydeigin and I were correct. Evidence strongly suggests:

1. COVID leaked from a lab
2. Infectiousness was greatly lab-enhanced
3. Range of symptoms and asymptomatic spread are lab artifacts
4. Taboo forbidding discussion of probable lab-leak is inhibiting vaccine progress. https://t.co/GqZW8FJ5wK

— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) July 3, 2020

There has been an increase in hate crimes against Asian Americans since the pandemic began. So making an assertion that blames China for the novel coronavirus would not be kind. Weinstein has not necessarily said it is true, but believes, as a biologist, that the virus behaves in a way that makes it more likely than not that it was produced in a lab. At the very least, he believes the possibility cannot be ruled out.

However, Weinsten goes the extra step and shows why it is necessary: if the virus was, in fact, produced in a lab, it will shape how scientists go about creating a vaccine. In other words, lives are at stake.

I'm not arguing that he is correct (I am not a scientist), only that he has justified his right to speak in this situation.

A common critique I see, especially when it comes to Black Lives Matter, is to call attention to "black on black crime" and how the likelihood of a black person being killed by another black citizen is an order of magnitude greater than being killed by a cop. Jamelle Bouie answers:

regular reminder that the idea of “black on black crime” as a unique form of violence is an attempt to pathologize the general fact that violent crime happens between people in close proximity to each other, which in a segregated society means most violent crime is intra-racial.

— b-boy bouiebaisse (@jbouie) June 22, 2020

While the concept of "black on black crime" might be true, it certainly isn't kind, as it sounds like victim blaming. What's more, it isn't even necessary.

Police violence and gang violence are different problems which require different solutions. There already are efforts to combat intraracial violence, so any effort to bring up this statistic isn't a refutation of Black Lives Matter, it's a deflection, and thus, not necessary.

So maybe a better way to think about free speech and the the free exchange of ideas is to think of the necessity of speech. When harm and truth are on the line, the analytical rigor to determine necessity might be enough to temper our tribal instincts.