Editing in an age of outrage • Hacker News Board

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#41

Post by stcredzero » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 9:27 PM UTC

elhudy wrote: post #12

stcredzero wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The outreach I received from those who actually mattered turned out to weigh more positively than the hatred from those who didn't. What if that didn't work? Would justice have been served, or would an injustice have occurred?

>What if that didn't work? Would justice have been served, or would an injustice have occurred? I'm not trying to invalidate the OP's point, just showing how the social shaming from those who don't matter (TWDM™) can lead to a somewhat positive outcome. It's largely a matter of your sensitivity to the social pressure which in the author's case was very high (he lost his job).

So if it doesn't work, a great injustice could be done.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#42

Post by deogeo » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

anoncake wrote: post #40

deogeo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paradox of tolerance? I think it's built on shaky foundations at best. It assumes that tolerance is the highest value, to which other values (e.g. free speech) can be sacrificed, if necessary. If you value freedom of speech higher, you would not make that sacrifice. Second, it's doubtful that allowing intolerant speech makes a society intolerant. After all, the society became tolerant when intolerant speech was allow…

Free speech is tolerance of other opinions. > why would this process now reverse itself? Are you trying to argue that the process never does reverse itself? Because that does happen. > And if it did reverse itself, perhaps there's a good reason for it - perhaps voters aren't happy with the fruits tolerance bore. It's a bit undemocratic to say that free speech philosophers know best how a society should be structured,…

> Are you trying to argue that the process never does reverse itself? Because that does happen.

It does, but it is not guaranteed to - not even close. So to claim a tolerant society can't exist without censorship is reaching.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#43

Post by anoncake » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 9:54 PM UTC

deogeo wrote: post #42

anoncake wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is tolerance of other opinions. > why would this process now reverse itself? Are you trying to argue that the process never does reverse itself? Because that does happen. > And if it did reverse itself, perhaps there's a good reason for it - perhaps voters aren't happy with the fruits tolerance bore. It's a bit undemocratic to say that free speech philosophers know best how a society should be structured,…

> Are you trying to argue that the process never does reverse itself? Because that does happen. It does, but it is not guaranteed to - not even close. So to claim a tolerant society can't exist without censorship is reaching.

Maybe a tolerant society can exist without censorship. But censorship is no the only way not to tolerate intolerance. If advocating against free speech makes you a pariah, then society does not tolerate intolerance even though it is legal.

Another possibility is that there are other mechanisms that can protect tolerance, such as a constitution that is very hard to change. The paradox of tolerance would not apply to societies that have such a mechanism, but still would be valid for others.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#44

Post by anoncake » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 10:42 PM UTC

rat87 wrote: post #33

renox wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm French and I prefer very much 'liberté, égalité, fraternité' as a moral standard than British's queen/king who are definitively not equal with their subjects.

As noted some countries have an appointed president (not for life) without much power that takes a similar symbolic (head of state) role to a monarch/Governor general in a constitutional monarchy (democracy). Like the German or Israeli presidents

Saying the role of the German president is symbolic is a bit like saying the role of flight attendants is to sell food and drinks. He has important powers, but only in case of a crisis that would otherwise result in a dysfunctional government.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#45

Post by Aloha » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 10:52 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #26

Aloha wrote: post #7

"Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the people we do." I think this is the entire message of this article, and its one I wholeheartedly agree with too - suppression of speech, be it governmental or by internet mobs is detrimental to a free society.

What do you think about Popper's paradox? The reason I ask is because even the philosophers behind free speech didn't see it as a blank check for every expression, and agreed that there are situations where a free society benefited from speech being curtailed.

Free Speech isn't a blank check - there are limits - even in the United States we have well defined limits on speech - most critically we limit speech that is a 'imminent call to lawlessness'. I'd like to broaden the limits on speech some, specifically to cover doxing and incitement of online harassment - its a balancing test between free speech and civility, and I fear we are on the wrong side of this currently.

Saying something unpopular, but non-threat provoking shouldn't give your opponents carte blanche to do whatever they like.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#46

Post by Aloha » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 10:56 PM UTC

anoncake wrote: post #43

deogeo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you trying to argue that the process never does reverse itself? Because that does happen. It does, but it is not guaranteed to - not even close. So to claim a tolerant society can't exist without censorship is reaching.

Maybe a tolerant society can exist without censorship. But censorship is no the only way not to tolerate intolerance. If advocating against free speech makes you a pariah, then society does not tolerate intolerance even though it is legal. Another possibility is that there are other mechanisms that can protect tolerance, such as a constitution that is very hard to change. The paradox of tolerance would not apply to s…

I'd argue there is a fundamental difference between tolerating intolerant thought and tolerating violent (or even pseudo-violent) acts. People will always have intolerant thoughts, they may not however, ever take that to violent actions.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#47

Post by bduerst » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 11:11 PM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #45

bduerst wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think about Popper's paradox? The reason I ask is because even the philosophers behind free speech didn't see it as a blank check for every expression, and agreed that there are situations where a free society benefited from speech being curtailed.

Free Speech isn't a blank check - there are limits - even in the United States we have well defined limits on speech - most critically we limit speech that is a 'imminent call to lawlessness'. I'd like to broaden the limits on speech some, specifically to cover doxing and incitement of online harassment - its a balancing test between free speech and civility, and I fear we are on the wrong side of this currently. Say…

Right, makes sense. You made it sound like any suppression of free speech (i.e. by gov't or mob or whatever) was detrimental to a free society, when there are some forms of speech that should be curtailed (and not based on opinion either).

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#48

Post by anoncake » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 11:25 PM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #46

anoncake wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a tolerant society can exist without censorship. But censorship is no the only way not to tolerate intolerance. If advocating against free speech makes you a pariah, then society does not tolerate intolerance even though it is legal. Another possibility is that there are other mechanisms that can protect tolerance, such as a constitution that is very hard to change. The paradox of tolerance would not apply to s…

I'd argue there is a fundamental difference between tolerating intolerant thought and tolerating violent (or even pseudo-violent) acts. People will always have intolerant thoughts, they may not however, ever take that to violent actions.

We cant ban intolerant thoughts whether we want to or not since we cannot read peoples minds. Besides people cant just change their believes at will.

The question is what we do about intolerant speech.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#49

Post by Aloha » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:30 AM UTC

anoncake wrote: post #48

Aloha wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue there is a fundamental difference between tolerating intolerant thought and tolerating violent (or even pseudo-violent) acts. People will always have intolerant thoughts, they may not however, ever take that to violent actions.

We cant ban intolerant thoughts whether we want to or not since we cannot read peoples minds. Besides people cant just change their believes at will. The question is what we do about intolerant speech.

Basically all intolerant speech should be allowed, so long as you're not trying to call people to arms to act on that speech - the speech itself probably doesn't matter much.

I'd rather be able to spot the hateful people, than not know who they are and let them act on their hate in silence.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#50

Post by RankingMember » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #24

RankingMember wrote: post #6

> Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the people we do. Well-stated, though in his particular case I think Ian might've done himself a favor by publishing a piece by one of the accusers and their experience alongside the piece by Ghomeshi. I'm conflicted because I understand his point but I also understand the problem with giving someone in Ghomeshi's position a platform, which is…

> some will interpret it as a show of support for that person or even endorsement. I think people should take full responsibility for their own personal interpretations. We worry way too much about how some people may interpret something. There are interpretations that are legitimate and others that are not, and we need to find the courage to state it clearly. The problem is that we have granted a superior moral stat…

I somewhat agree, though I would note that determining what constitutes a "legitimate" interpretation is a whole other can of worms.

I think the current tendency to give self-identified victims more weight is simply a result of a pendulum swing after a long period where victims were given little to no consideration. That is to say, I think this is normal and will again swing the other way before too long. Obviously, the preferred state would be equilibrium, but I think we've got a ways to go before we reach that.