If you’re on the interwebs I’m sure you hear about politics. The left side of the political spectrum screaming at the right and the right side plugging up their ears while screaming back. But, a new side has arrived, a side many call “centrist” or “moderates” but I have dubbed “the anti-woke crowd”.
The anti-woke crowd is a rag tag group of moderates, politically “homeless”, conservatives, conspiracy theorist, or anyone who isn’t on the far left of the political spectrum in the United States. This crowd often mocks the political left particularly “the woke” in a variety of ways.
The woke are seen as these individuals who rely on identity as way of group affiliation and use this identity to demand political action. Well, it’s a bit more complicated than that and if you ask 10 different people what “woke” means you’ll get 10 different answers.
Even so, the issues on the anti-woke crowds agenda include complaining about cancel culture, complaining about identity politics, complaining about the media, and complaining about other topics as well. It is a group that loves to fight the culture war, you often see commentary on their interpretation of what the “woke” are doing, but nothing in the way of tangible solutions… besides one.
Some of these individuals will advocate for “viewpoint diversity”. What is viewpoint diversity? From my best guess this is a rendition of “inclusivity” and “diversity”. Instead of being inclusive of diversity based on outward appearance and background, an institution should be inclusive based on the individuals views or ideas.
The problem comes when this validates all views as if they’re somehow equal. All views, viewpoints, ideas, arguments, and or claims are not on equal footing. The flat earther is not on the same level of correctness as a astrophysicist. A persons view on drowning kittens in a bathtub isn’t somehow equal to animal rights. Thinking slavery should be permissible doesn’t valid that it should.
According to philosopher John Stuart Mill, the purpose of free speech is to get us towards what is most likely true and to stop believing things merely because it is customary. However, the boundaries of free speech need to be discussed.
Free speech does NOT translate to a validation of all points of view nor does it necessitate a right on my part to listen to that view. Viewpoint diversity sounds like epistemic relativism as it posits all views must be listen to and are important for inclusion… But inclusion of what?
If we are to get towards what is true the purpose of listening to other arguments is to include those that are most likely true and exclude those that are most likely false. We cannot gets towards truth with viewpoint diversity.