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

Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 606 posts

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#41

Post by monocasa »

zeveb wrote: post #32
monocasa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And particularly, that election was in the middle of the southern strategy switch, and the Democratic party didn't define itself as the left wing of acceptable politics in the nation as it does today. Particularly the Southern Democrats hadn't overwhelmingly converted over to Republicans yet. It was only after the Civil Rights Act was passed (which was six days into the race riots mentioned, so real actionable change…

> It was only after the Civil Rights Act was passed (which was six days into the race riots mentioned, so real actionable change that came from them) The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law on the second of July 1964, had been in the works since before Mr. Kennedy's (unrelated) assassination in 1963; it passed the House 290–130 and the Senate 73–27: I really doubt that six days' rioting can be credited with pas…

A lot of bills of all had been in the works for years and were only passed after some swell of public opinion.

For instance the Patriot act didn't come out of nowhere, but it's provisions had been shopped around for years prior. With 9/11, they had the votes necessary to move forward with it.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#42

Post by nmfisher »

bosswipe wrote: post #29

There's a disconnect that keeps running through a lot of the arguments from the conservative side which I don't understand. The examples given in this piece are a) the right of street protesters to be heard without being attacked by government officers vs b) the right of people to not get fired for what they say by private organizations like the New York Times. This disconnect keeps coming up, and it's extra weird be…

True, but by the same token, there is a clear distinction between these two opinions:

1) I believe the government should outlaw firing people based on what they say in the office

2) I believe that companies should not fire people based on what they say in the office.

Believing in small government doesn't mean you have no opinion on cultural norms. It just means you don't think the government should enforce them.

But you're also right that many modern "conservatives" don't grasp the distinction.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#43

Post by guscost »

mellosouls wrote: post #25
guscost wrote: post #8

“I trust you guys. I love you guys. We'll keep this space open. This is the last stronghold for civil discourse. After this shit it's just rat-a-tat tattity tat-tat ta tat tat TAT.” - Dave Chappelle

“I seen Candace Owens try to convince white America, ‘don’t worry about it he’s a criminal anyway', I don’t give a fuck what this nigga did… I don’t care if he personally kicked Candace Owens in her stink pussy. I don’t know if it stinks, but I imagine it does." - Dave Chappelle, civil discourse champion, also

“There’s something so true about this genre when done correctly that I will fight anybody that gets in a true practitioner of this art form’s way, because I know you’re wrong. This is the truth and you are obstructing it. I’m not talking about the content, I’m talking about the art form.”

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#44

Post by mellosouls »

guscost wrote: post #43
mellosouls wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I seen Candace Owens try to convince white America, ‘don’t worry about it he’s a criminal anyway', I don’t give a fuck what this nigga did… I don’t care if he personally kicked Candace Owens in her stink pussy. I don’t know if it stinks, but I imagine it does." - Dave Chappelle, civil discourse champion, also

“There’s something so true about this genre when done correctly that I will fight anybody that gets in a true practitioner of this art form’s way, because I know you’re wrong. This is the truth and you are obstructing it. I’m not talking about the content, I’m talking about the art form.”

I love Chappelle - but he's not an angel, and didn't serve the free speech cause well with his personal attack (she took it sportingly) on somebody genuinely brave in speaking off-message.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#45

Post by uniqueid »

missosoup wrote: post #37
cwhiz wrote: post #34

Shouting people down in public and on the internet doesn’t change opinions. People just talk more quietly or take more care with whom they share their thoughts and opinions. Cancel culture, outrage culture, and the general “social justice” movement is not much more than a wide scale attempt to silence dissenting thought. Build your own bubble, and shout down anyone who thinks or speaks differently. Yell and call it “…

This is an excellent summary of what's going on. Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. Instead it makes them more hostile and causes them to double down. I'm pretty confused how America keeps going down this path even after an actual 50% of the entire population revolted against the 'good' ideologies and voted in Trump with religious fervour. Pretending th…

    > Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a 
    > 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one.
However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. Look at the anti-vaxers, "chem trails", or 5G conspiracy theorists: the majority of these paranoiacs didn't independently arrive at these theories.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#46

Post by newacct583 »

dx87 wrote: post #38
newacct583 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first example isn't about speech. The school had a policy of a white absence day (which is batshit, but whatever) and he expressly violated that as an act of protest and got fired for breaking the rules. He'd been clearly opposed to it from the start and not censored. Be very careful with that second link, that story was spun like crazy in conservative circles, and even weeks later it's impossible to find an acc…

The first example says the school didn't make it mandatory for white people to stay home, it was just highly recommended. It doesn't look like he broke any rules, the school had just hoped everyone would fall in line and he was fired for not agreeing with them.

I had to go look that up again. It wasn't about this one incident. He wasn't even fired, he resigned after becoming the center of a huge protest movement on campus directed specifically at him (a self-described member of the conservative "Intellectual Dark Web"), then after suing the college for failing to protect him, and the resignation was part of the resulting settlement. Then he did the FOX tour and wrote an op-ed for the Journal and settled into his life as a conservative martyr.

Yeah, he wasn't fired to keep him from complaining about white absence day.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#47

Post by missosoup »

uniqueid wrote: post #45
missosoup wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an excellent summary of what's going on. Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. Instead it makes them more hostile and causes them to double down. I'm pretty confused how America keeps going down this path even after an actual 50% of the entire population revolted against the 'good' ideologies and voted in Trump with religious fervour. Pretending th…

> Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a > 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. Look at the anti-vaxers, "chem trails", or 5G conspiracy theorists: the majority of these paranoiacs didn't independently arrive at these theories.

> However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively

How'd that work out with the Trump election and the massive resurgence of outright racism and sexism? How far does one's subjective view of the world around them have to diverge from reality before they stop and think, huh, maybe this doesn't work at all. Silencing dissenting views has never worked in history. Not once. It just increases internal societal pressure until it reaches a critical point and boils over, usually in a physically violent upturn.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#48

Post by guscost »

mellosouls wrote: post #44
guscost wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“There’s something so true about this genre when done correctly that I will fight anybody that gets in a true practitioner of this art form’s way, because I know you’re wrong. This is the truth and you are obstructing it. I’m not talking about the content, I’m talking about the art form.”

I love Chappelle - but he's not an angel, and didn't serve the free speech cause well with his personal attack (she took it sportingly) on somebody genuinely brave in speaking off-message.

I’m with you that the personal attack was rude, and he likely lost support for his side on that issue by including it.

But I don’t agree that the effect extends to lost support for free speech in general. It is commonly understood that rude speech is the most important kind of speech to defend, since it is the “front line” where the forces opposing free speech are most active.

Dave is surely aware of this too. He says rude things all the time, probably intentionally, because when documented they become fortifications which are actually harder to break through. I’m pretty sure he has outright declared an intention to get things wrong sometimes, but I can’t find the quote.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#49

Post by rbecker »

bachmeier wrote: post #36
bryan_w wrote: post #10

The same free speech that is protecting racists today is the same one that prevented Gay people from being censored in the 90s for their "deviant" behavior.

> The same free speech that is protecting racists today is the same one that prevented Gay people from being censored in the 90s for their "deviant" behavior. You mean the guys I went to college with that went into a bar together and got beat up for it?

You would prefer that, after being beaten up, they were also arrested and convicted of spreading "gay propaganda"?

You are intentionally conflating homophobic violence with 1st amendment protections, to make it seem like they didn't have the latter. Please debate more honestly in the future.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#50

Post by uniqueid »

missosoup wrote: post #47
uniqueid wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a > 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively. Look at the anti-vaxers, "chem trails", or 5G conspiracy theorists: the majority of these paranoiacs didn't independently arrive at these theories.

> However it can prevent people with "different views" from evangelizing effectively How'd that work out with the Trump election and the massive resurgence of outright racism and sexism? How far does one's subjective view of the world around them have to diverge from reality before they stop and think, huh, maybe this doesn't work at all. Silencing dissenting views has never worked in history. Not once. It just incre…

    > Silencing dissenting views has never worked in history
There may be a grain of truth to that, but I don't think a historian, even one who agreed with its thrust, would feel comfortable with it as a blanket statement.

I don't really want to have this sort of heated debate this evening. Sorry.

Post reply on HN