Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

geoff.greer.fm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#111

Post by shkkmo »

eesmith wrote: post #96
shkkmo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Strong anti-monopoly laws which break up Google and Facebook would solve the problem, yes? While we do strongly need a revamp of our anti-monopoly laws, I don't think that really solves the problem. The core problem as I see it is that people's goto approach for combating objectionable ideas is veering towards shaming, ostracizing, and censoring rather than reason, discussion and facts.

To be fair, "reason, discussion and facts" have always been malleable in the hands of the powerful. "The Divine Right of Kings" was based on them. So was "scientific racism". You need to be careful because it's hard to define what shaming and ostracism mean. I think James Watson is a both misogynist and racist and I don't want to be part of a meeting where he is involved. Am I shaming or ostracizing him, or am I prac…

> You need to be careful because it's hard to define what shaming and ostracism mean.

I don't think it is. In any case, I am not trying to write a law so a solid definition is not necessary.

> I think James Watson is a both misogynist and racist and I don't want to be part of a meeting where he is involved.

James Watson was fired the way he was, not because of his words, but because of the internet's reaction to his words and Google's desire to get ahead of the news cycle. I suspect he will win or settle his court case against Google.

I don't know James Watson, you may be right. Do you know him? Have you talked to him? How do you know meetings with him involved would be bad?

I definitely think we would be better served if people have focused on picking apart his mis-used scientific terms, mistaken understanding of some experiments and rather incoherent argument. Instead people decided to loudly label him as sexist, push google into firing him, and push him straight into the waiting arms of the alt-right.

> Am I shaming or ostracizing him, or am I practicing my rights of free speech and association?

Both.

> To be fair, "reason, discussion and facts" have always been malleable in the hands of the powerful. "The Divine Right of Kings" was based on them. So was "scientific racism".

I fail to get your point... other than you think reason is useless?

> In general, by what reason and what facts do you determine that my actions are no longer acceptable? If that happens, what can you do about it which won't, in turn, be labeled "shaming, ostracizing, and censoring"?

When you violate the law, we will prosecute you and send you to prison. If you violate our organization's policy, we will discipline or fire you. If you say mean things to our other guests and show no remorse, we won't invite you to our house. If you tell me you think the holocaust didn't happen I will attempt to use reason and facts to discuss it with you.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#112

Post by shkkmo »

s73ver_ wrote: post #106
shkkmo wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Violent threats are already illegal and I haven't seen anyone here arguing to make them legal. What is your point?

I see plenty of people saying that all speech should be legal, and that sites like Twitter shouldn't police any speech. That would include violent threats.

> I see plenty of people saying that all speech should be legal

So why don't you go argue with them on a platform where they exist? I haven't see anyone making that claim here or in the article. Again, what is you point?

> sites like Twitter shouldn't police any speech. That would include violent threats

Generally we leave enforcement of the laws to law enforcement officials. Twitter should give out the information needed to prosecute that illegal speech and send those people to jail, not be in the business of determining what speech is illegal in a way where all of the protections of our legal system are lost.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#113

Post by opjfwoie »

dragonwriter wrote: post #101
throwaway283423 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol leftist mobs judging by character... capable of understanding. you're full of laughs today. which political group is associated with their obsession and exploitation of racial, gender and religious divisions? read my other reply to you for why I believe Ben is enemy #1 of the left. identity politics are in play, that's for sure.

> which political group is associated with their obsession and exploitation of racial, gender and religious divisions? The Republican Party since the Southern Strategy and embrace of the Christian Right, why?

Oh you mean in the 50's when the Democrat-enacted Jim Crow laws were repealed, and 99 democrats (starring Bill Clinton) and 2 republicans signed the "Southern Manifesto"?

Can you think of something more recent please? That time range doesn't suit your narrative.

This comment has been flagged 4 times. It must be effective.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#114

Post by shkkmo »

s73ver_ wrote: post #109
shkkmo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vehemently disagree. If you abandon reason, then you can only be right by pure coincidence. If you vanquish ideas using means other than reason, then you have only vanquished bad ideas by pure coincidence.

And I disagree with that. Having to decry ever racist that pops up on Twitter with "reason" when they had no intention of debating in good faith in the first place is exhausting. And quite frankly, letting them run wild just means that other people are going to stop going there and contributing to the discourse. So now all you've done is succeeded in silencing marginalized people, which was their goal in the first pl…

> Having to decry ever racist that pops up on Twitter with "reason" when they had no intention of debating in good faith in the first place is exhausting

That sounds exhausting. Maybe you should pick a couple of the ones that do appear to be interested in debating in good faith?

> letting them run wild just means that other people are going to stop going there and contributing to the discourse. So now all you've done is succeeded in silencing marginalized people, which was their goal in the first place.

And the alternative is to ban everything from twitter that people find offensive? I think that is a losing proposition. I'd much rather focus on promoting and spreading content from silenced and marginalized people to make sure their voices are heard and amplified.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#115

Post by opjfwoie »

s73ver_ wrote: post #63
rothbardrand wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment deserves more upvotes, because even if you don't agree with it, it accurately distills the perspective of those who are aghast that liberals increasingly seem to be unable to tolerate the idea of a jewish dude who is married to a black dude being allowed to speak (and worse, calling him a Nazi. If a gay, "race traitor" jew is a Nazi then who isn't?) I'm a liberal, who years ago really worked to champion…

Milo is referred to as a Nazi because of his actions and his statements. It has absolutely nothing to do with his race, or his husbands race, and to try and say otherwise is completely missing the point.

Would love to hear about these actions and statements that allow for use of the term "nazi".

Spoiler: I've watched every single one of his speeches. I would bet money you're understanding of him is limited to Buzzfeed gossip.

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#116

Post by eesmith »

shkkmo wrote: post #111
eesmith wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, "reason, discussion and facts" have always been malleable in the hands of the powerful. "The Divine Right of Kings" was based on them. So was "scientific racism". You need to be careful because it's hard to define what shaming and ostracism mean. I think James Watson is a both misogynist and racist and I don't want to be part of a meeting where he is involved. Am I shaming or ostracizing him, or am I prac…

> You need to be careful because it's hard to define what shaming and ostracism mean. I don't think it is. In any case, I am not trying to write a law so a solid definition is not necessary. > I think James Watson is a both misogynist and racist and I don't want to be part of a meeting where he is involved. James Watson was fired the way he was, not because of his words, but because of the internet's reaction to his…

"James Watson was fired the way he was"

Umm, pardon? I'm talking about the Nobel prize winner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson . I think you're thinking of James Damore? What sort of meetings do you think I would go to where Damore might speak?

"How do you know meetings with him involved would be bad?"

Watson's record is quite well documented. Some of them are: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119772&page=1 , https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12835-james-watson-re... and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pione...

Or for a personal report, at https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/05/29/jim-watso... :

> I had dinner with Watson at a small restaurant in New York several years ago. It was the most uncomfortable two hours of my life. All he wanted to talk about was race, and the conversation was all about our geneaology. He asked what my ancestry was, and when I told him half Scandinavian, half Scot/English/Irish he immediately judged me acceptable company, and started explaining my personality to me. Scandinavians are intelligent but cold and aloof, and share the same problems that the Japanese have: they are among the smartest people in the world, but they lack the passion and drive to accomplish great things. You know who may not be as intrinsically intelligent, but make up for it with their aggressive need to get things done? The Scots/Irish! Best people on the planet! The perfect combination of ambition and smarts! ... “So, Jim, what’s your ancestry?” “Scots/Irish!” he cackled.

His unfounded statements caused many others to avoid him ("ostricize" in your terms) so he missed out on speaking fees. In order to maintain his life style (which included buying some fancy artwork), he sold his Nobel Prize. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/james-watson-the-f... . Someone bought it $4.1 million and gave it back to him.

You wrote "I fail to get your point... other than you think reason is useless?"

I said they were malleable. I didn't say useless.

Facts are interpreted in a framework. Who gets to decide the framework? It's usually those in power who pay for the scientists, and for "the facts", and that influences how those facts are discussed.

Quoting https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/a-brief-... on the controversy concerning Kennewick Man, "We sometimes forget that though the data should be pure and straightforward, science is done by people, who are never either."

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#117

Post by eesmith »

shkkmo wrote: post #114
s73ver_ wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I disagree with that. Having to decry ever racist that pops up on Twitter with "reason" when they had no intention of debating in good faith in the first place is exhausting. And quite frankly, letting them run wild just means that other people are going to stop going there and contributing to the discourse. So now all you've done is succeeded in silencing marginalized people, which was their goal in the first pl…

> Having to decry ever racist that pops up on Twitter with "reason" when they had no intention of debating in good faith in the first place is exhausting That sounds exhausting. Maybe you should pick a couple of the ones that do appear to be interested in debating in good faith? > letting them run wild just means that other people are going to stop going there and contributing to the discourse. So now all you've done…

Some trolls specialize in sealioning. It's hard to tell which ones are debating in good faith. Plus, assuming most are not debating in good faith then that still leaves us with the problem that the "other people are going to stop going there and contributing to the discourse".

Perhaps you can share from your experience in decrying racists on Twitter how you can distinguish one from the other?

"And the alternative is to ban everything from twitter that people find offensive"

Is banning from above the only solution you can think of?

One alternative is much more effective control tools.

Some people voluntarily use collaboratively developed blacklists of accounts to ignore. This is not censorship any more than kicking someone unruly out of your meeting in a library meeting room is censorship. (Old-style shared Usenet killfiles are also not censorship.)

Combine that with some collaboratively developed training corpus of spam/ham to filter your twitter stream.

Then have Twitter set up a few default filters, rather like "Safe Search" on Google.

Very few people say that GMail censors their email by automatically placing some messages into "Junk".

However, this will cost money, and likely not increase Twitter revenue. It might even decrease it. So why would they do it?

Re: Freedom of Speech Isn't About Speech

#118

Post by woodruffw »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #45
woodruffw wrote: post #7

I think a common failure (intentional or not) in discussing free speech is isolating free speech absolutism from the sort of free speech that we'd be happy to accept in a liberal, open society. Speaking practically and from the absolutist perspective, there should be no legal penalty for inciting others to violence. However, I think that (nearly) all of us recognize the importance of motive in cases -- we rightfully…

> Karl Popper called this the "Paradox of Tolerance." Popper was talking about a last resort, not something which should be applied as a blanket policy of suppression of "unacceptable" viewpoints. This gross misreading of Popper's thoughts on free speech was popularized by a cartoon which went flying around social media after Charlottesville. But here's what he actually said on the subject: > I do not imply, for inst…

I was familiar with Popper well before Charlottesville, and that footnote only refers to the same paradox, not the same argument.

In any case, Sarte seems more applicable to our current rash of "ironic" intolerance:

> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Post reply on HN