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

On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

socialsciences.mcmaster.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 110 posts

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#71

Post by sudosysgen »

jessriedel wrote: post #56

Can't recommend this essay highly enough. In particular, it gives a thorough defense of the claim that the importance of protecting freedom of speech ought to guide our personal action and community norms; freedom of speech is not just about restrictions on the government like the first amendment, as so often is unwisely argued.

I think that naturally leads to a distinction of positive and negative liberty - having the negative liberty against government censorship is useless is you do not have the positive liberty of expression. This applies just as well to a ton of subjects, and is also I think lacking very severely in pre-modern philosophy and does derived from them. It also personally led me to a total shift in policy when I realized how meek positive liberty is for the vast majority of people.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#72

Post by sudosysgen »

pdonis wrote: post #58
imustbeevil wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one interpretation. Another would be that there are any number of externalities of speech that affect society directly, such as coercion and fraud.

Coercion and fraud are not speech. More generally, verbal statements that are part of other actions, such as negotiations for a market transaction, are not speech. The whole point of "speech" is that it is just expressing the beliefs or opinions of the speaker.

One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive. Speech is almost always purposeful, and when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political process, ie, how things are done. Not that I disagree that speech should be free, but I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#73

Post by sudosysgen »

virmundi wrote: post #36
klyrs wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even Disney can get that copyright extended

[flagged]

I don't know anything in Marxist analysis of society as classes in conflict with each other that is in contradiction with free speech, much to the contrary. It might be interesting to read the ideology you are talking about instead of using fifth hand evidence and talking in idées reçues. In any case I don't know of literally any country in the world that implemented the Marxist idea of libertarian government free of any distinction between ruler and ruled, and I don't quite know how one can argue that Marxism, an ideology that is against the state, and that claims as its mos vital immediate goal to set up direct democracy and small government from politics to economics (indeed, this comes from the Marxist notion of the State that is still the best definition and that stands on my sociology textbook, unsurprisingly as Marx was one of the founders of social science, recognize that the State is defined by the use of violence in the context of a hierarchical class based society, meaning that abolishing the state entirely has as a necessary prerequisite, according to Marx, the abolition of economic classes and such the ownership and control of production by labour) is somehow a proponent of censorship.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#74

Post by toofy »

virmundi wrote: post #49
xpe wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, a man can wake up one day saying to himself, "Damn, I feel like a woman". If I don't accept that he is, if only for a fleeting moment, a woman, than I'm labeled a bigot. This comes across as a caricature of a serious issue. For what it is worth, whether I agree or disagree with you (or anyone), I strive not to mischaracterize your concerns. I would like to ask a favor. Please read [1] and come back her…

It’s not a mischaracterization. That is the platform of the trans positive groups. They say that sex and gender are divorced and anyone who does not agree with that are committing hate speech. Further there are those that advocate for fluidity of gender. They say that a single individual may float across the whole spectrum of gender in the same day. If I don’t use the proper pronoun at the right time for that person,…

Do you see how any of your ideas (ignoring the prevalence of strawmen) materially manifests in a trans person losing their Liberty?

Is this something you are able to see?

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#75

Post by scruple »

gentleman11 wrote: post #57
rjkennedy98 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionari…

It’s also worth noting that cancel culture itself arose because a different “prevailing opinion” was creating different problems. In every case, whichever group ends up in the lead makes things hard for the other groups

..and those who find themselves in the middle, plagued by both sides, grappling with the nuance and context of the thing.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#76

Post by jariel »

nine_k wrote: post #38
supernova87a wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all. Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex? You think personal liberties are at a low point? I mus…

> You think personal liberties are at a low point? They are again under attack, as is free speech, mostly out of outwardly good intentions such as preserving justice, public safety, or even, ironically, inclusion. This is a perpetual conflict, though. > Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, ... "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc ...as long as it's politically…

I think you both have a point.

By and large, supernova is correct I think in that the emphasis is on personal liberty, especially expressions which are not-normative ... more than ever before.

Communitarian ideals of 'duty' (ie 'Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country') feel almost archaic these days. Like an old country song. We do not compel our children towards the community, rather to whatever expression excites them.

The push towards expression I think is mostly rooted in undoing some suppression in things like sexuality, but it extends to everything and as hinted in the OP the underpinning really is consumerism. 'Christmas' is actually a less important holiday than 'Easter' - but you'd never know it ... industry loves Christmas, or at least the parts that are non-controversial, and it wants to suppress everything else. This is the power of commerce. I work in Marketing and it's essentially a golden rule these days that nobody promotes a product based on features, it's promoted based on the basis of aspiration. Car commercials don't generally boast features, they take you on an journey of what driving XYZ car is like. (Think the Saab car, driving across the desert, with the Saab jet flying by, the driver portrayed as 'fighter pilot' - every little boy's dream job).

But nike also has a point - in that where there are sensitivities around minority groups (race, religion), it seems that almost any opinion can be construed as a 'transgression'.

Absent social rules to provide a basis for behaviour (some might say this is 'conformist') then humans I think will just do whatever suits them. We like to think of this in intellectual terms like 'having ideas' or 'avant garde art' - but for the most part it's just 'playing video games and Tweeting'. The 'PC' forces I believe are ideologically bent on a very specific kind of 'equalisation' wherein there's a kind of instinct to see any 'difference' as 'inequality' and therefore 'immoral'.

So I think those are the primary forces: lack of social agreement supported by commercial interest pulling us towards aspiration, and ideological forces promoting their specific version of 'moral equality'.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#77

Post by jariel »

xpe wrote: post #61
virmundi wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a mischaracterization. That is the platform of the trans positive groups. They say that sex and gender are divorced and anyone who does not agree with that are committing hate speech. Further there are those that advocate for fluidity of gender. They say that a single individual may float across the whole spectrum of gender in the same day. If I don’t use the proper pronoun at the right time for that person,…

> That is the platform of the trans positive groups. Please include a link to some of these platforms. > If I don’t use the proper pronoun at the right time for that person, again, I am committing hate speech. This is a big claim -- please share a reference. > If I say no one floats across the spectrum like that... What is your basis for saying this?

I don't think his choice of words is perfectly accurate, but the notion is.

See: Ontario school's 'Gender Unicorn'.

It's essentially now state-sanctioned orthodoxy, and if you don't buy it, you're basically fascist, and very close to legal scrutiny.

I think a lot of the concern over it is really misplaced, and some loud voices are 'true bigots' kind of thing, and I think it has good intentions. But I also reject the orthodoxy of the information, and the lack of rights concerning the role of parents in moral foundation of their children. It should be worthy of debate, but there will be none.

[1] http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/professionals/L...

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#79

Post by Pinegulf »

smhmd wrote: post #51

One of my more used quotes. Page 35 on the document. > He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment,…

Foundation of the concept of 'Steel-manning'. I'd like to see this idea more wide-spread. Heck, i'd make it mandatory for positions of trust. Ability to see both sides.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#80

Post by Reedx »

Pinegulf wrote: post #79
smhmd wrote: post #51

One of my more used quotes. Page 35 on the document. > He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment,…

Foundation of the concept of 'Steel-manning'. I'd like to see this idea more wide-spread. Heck, i'd make it mandatory for positions of trust. Ability to see both sides.

Absolutely. It would be amazing to see political debates (and discourse generally) where they're able to steelman each other's position and interact in good faith. That would have a profound effect on our democracy.

Instead we get strawmen, soundbites and kayfabe. Somehow we've got to get away from this.

Post reply on HN