Famous progressive philosopher urges use of pseudonym to escape left-wing censorship

“The magazine Journal of Contradictory Ideas-of which I am co-editor- was born in response to the ever increasing limits, even in liberal democracies, which are placed in the discussions be considered acceptable, ”says Peter Singer in his appeal to colleagues to bypass the“ cancellations ”so fashionable these days by signing up with a pseudonym.

Your newly created message is called Controversial Ideas Journal (something like Diario de Ideas Polémicas), and in its 2nd edition, Singer explains his motivations for founding this magazine. Its objective, he explains, is “provide a forum where authors can, if they wish, use a pseudonym to avoid abuse “ O “Irrevocably damage their careers.”

These attacks even manifested themselves in the form of death threats, explains this intellectual.

What is striking is that the censorship that Peter Singer denounces in his writings does not come from the sectors traditionally associated with such attacks on freedom of expression, but from the left.

The philosopher himself shows his strangeness: “There was a time when threats to academic freedom in democratic countries came mainly from the right”. And he cites an example from the turn of the last century of a professor who was kicked out of a university board for his social activism.

So remember the years of McCarthyism, in the middle of the 20th century, when “many people were blacklisted or fired for supporting leftist ideas.”

It is included personal censorship from which he suffered when, in 1999, Arriving at Princeton, Steve Forbes, Republican presidential candidate for the United States, called for his contract to be terminated because he disliked his criticism of “the traditional doctrine of the sanctity of human life.”

“Currently, however, the greatest opposition to freedom of thought and discussion comes from the left.”Peter Singer warns that, it bears repeating, he is part of progressivism.

Take as an example an article by Rebecca Tuvel, published in Hypatia, a feminist philosophy magazine, which asked “why those who strongly support the right to choose one’s sex deny the similar right to choose one’s own race.” “More than 800 people – mainly academics – they signed a letter asking Hypatia to withdraw the article. There were also those who asked Tuvel, a young academic without a permanent position, got firedSaid the singer.

One of the signatories of the petition against Tuvel, Shannon Winnubst, a feminist philosopher, based her call for censorship on “the damage this type of study causes to marginalized groups, especially black and trans academics.” “Winnubst does not attempt to refute Tuvel’s argumentIt only seeks to demonstrate that it may be detrimental to some (without however specifying the nature or severity of the damage), ”explains Singer. Stands out like this one of the characteristics of this type of censorship, well called cancellations, since they aim to silence the word and even to exclude the person, without debating their arguments.

“It’s hard to imagine a clearer contrast to the classic defense of freedom of thought and the discussion that John Stuart Mill raised in On Liberty. Mill realizes that allowing free speech can be offensive. “But there is no parity”, he replies, “between the feeling of a person towards his own opinion and that of another who feels offended that such an opinion is professed; nor is there any difference between a thief’s desire to own a bag and its rightful owner’s desire to keep it.

And Peter Singer continues: “Whether or not we accept the parallel that Mill brings up, At the very least, it is not clear that, because an opinion may offend some, that is reason enough to suppress it. Taking such a stance seriously would severely limit the scope of freedom of expression on a wide range of ethical, political and religious issues. “

Singer then explains that his journal assesses whether the ideas presented in the articles have “the force of evidence or the rigor of argument.” “Only presentations that adequately support the rationale for their conclusions will be accepted,” he said. Another criterion used is that articles “should only criticize ideas and arguments, not the people who put them forward”.

He then introduces the new element, imposed by this growing tendency to censor ideas and opinions in the name of the sensitivity of groups or individuals, a highly subjective criterion. “What sets the Journal of Controversial Ideas apart – he explains – is the ability for perpetrators to use a pseudonym to protect themselves from different types of bullying They might be concerned if they come up with controversial ideas. If, subsequently, they wish to be recognized as authors of their articles, it is possible to confirm their identity. Three of the ten articles in the first issue were published under pseudonyms ”.

Currently, the greatest opposition to freedom of thought and discussion comes from the left (P. Singer)

“Editors pledged not to bow to public pressure to remove an article, unless it is proven that it contains false data or plagiarism, “warns Singer, who knows the modus operandi of these groups.

The protection of freedom of thought is generally more necessary in authoritarian regimes – says Singer, citing post-coup China, Russia, Turkey, Iran and Burma – countries where “the obstacles to freedom of thought ”can come“ at an even higher cost ”, including jail, disappearances and murders.

Therefore, Singer closes his editorial with an appeal to those who suffer from this type of persecution but also to those “whose careers may be harmed if they publish ideas on their behalf”, something that has become common in countries that are not dictatorships but suffer from the tyranny of noisy minorities that instead of debating, they call for a boycott of anything they don’t like on the grounds that they feel offended. A boycott that they extend to the person who expresses these ideas.

“We invite those who run the risk of being imprisoned, threatened, harassed or intimidated, or whose careers could be jeopardized if they post ideas on their behalf, to be sent to us under a pseudonym, ”writes Peter Singer. Well-argued ideas stand up and can be judged by themselves, without needing the author’s real name ”.

Peter Singer is an Australian, professor of law and philosophy. His field of study is bioethics and among others, he is a promoter of veganism and an exponent of antispeciesism, that is to say the idea that no living being should impose itself on others. He maintains that the interests of all individuals, human or not, capable of enjoying or suffering, can be considered at the same time and made compatible; it therefore promotes that animals stop being exploited and especially their use as food.

This profile makes Singer’s warning about leftist bigotry more eye-catching and he constitutes an authorized awakening, at the same time as he speaks of his generosity by opening the pages of his Magazine as a refuge for those who might otherwise fall into self-censorship, in order to avoid having their peace of mind and even their compromised careers, Faced with the advance of a progressivism which, with the excuse of acting on behalf of offended minorities, seeks to silence all divergent opinions, advancing freedom of expression, one the most basic individual guarantees.

KEEP READING: