131–140 of 606 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But how often were those characters the butt of the joke or gay for comedic relief?
As of 2015, same-sex marriage is legal across all 50 states (no idea about territories). Progress can sometimes can incredibly ugly, and I wish it wasn't, but a win is a win.
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?
I understand that there are a lot of people who are hurting right now, and I empathize with their pain, but how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other or convey important information to the public if we believe there might be serious reprisals against us if we "say the wrong thing". For example, I personally helped work against slavery on the Black Market in the Middle East, and I wanted…
> how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other The trick is to create channels with limited audiences, where you can set an expectation of which ideas are acceptable and which are not.* It always has been, but the the arrival of new communication methods has disrupted the traditional channels, and now every idea is propagated to a much larger and looser audience, which aren't aware or don't…
Do you mean that a community could allow argument X, but disallow counter-argument Y? That sounds like a recipe for an echo chamber.
I definitely see the benefit in saying that certain topics are out of scope for a given community. But saying which ideas are acceptable and which are not sounds like codifying the dominance of an official viewpoint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying someone "didn't live a virtuous life" is not factual. In this case, it's an irrelevant and tasteless opinion about a victim. It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed.
> It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed. No it doesn't. This is wild hyperbole. No one deserves to be shot in the back. However, people are painting him out to be an angel - quite literally there are multiple artworks of George Floyd with a halo and wings [1]. The reality is he was human, and one with a complicated criminal past who was jailed 8 times [2] including for drug offenses. Is…
Let's be clear: no one, regardless of how much they've fucked up in their lives, deserves to be murdered in cold blood by the police while they pose no threat to anyone.
To restate: a non-violent suspect's past offenses are not germane when the discussion is about the police summarily executing that non-violent suspect in the street.
Any attempt to confuse this point with ideas about how the victim wasn't perfect, about how they could have done better in the confrontation or not committed a crime in the first place, is an attempt to deflect blame onto the victim.
These kinds of arguments are prima facie disgusting and deserve no quarter in civilized discourse.
There are a lot of downvoted posts in this thread that make reasonable arguments and that are promoting discussion. I disagree with a lot of them, but it’s awkward for this to be a story where people are heavily downvoting people they disagree with
It's a question I've been struggling with lately. Downvotes reinforce groupthink, that much is subjectively clear. I've considered solutions, and I believe forcing people to reply before they are allowed to downvote would help. However, in opposition to my own idea, I consider that simply requiring a more effort wouldn't necessarily change the groupthink problem, but would just stifle low effort downvotes. Let's cons…
What I would be interested in is a more sophisticated ordering than by net number of votes. For example, I'm sure some people's upvotes correlate well with my own (and probably some people's downvotes correlate with my upvotes!) If comments could somehow be ordered by how likely I am to upvote them, based on historical correlations between my and others' votes, that seems like an interesting approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're exactly right and I think it's important to consider that the LA Times' position as a sort of authority figure when it comes to speech (being a major news source/ media entity) may be an underlying interest in how the arguments made in this article are put forward. I imagine a whole lot of editors of the last few newspapers that are independently owned had some very interesting thoughts when the workers at New…
> idea of free speech would protect leadership in the newsroom from subordinates If protecting the management from the workers is your goal, typically you invoke the right of the owners to dictate how work is organised, I'm not sure how you make that into a "free speech" issue. As the work of the editor is explicitly to direct and reshape the speech of the employees under them, why would "free speech" protect the one…
Put more succinctly, imagine someone blaming the failure of their news organization on their readers opinions of free speech as opposed to their own shoddy workmanship, or an inability to compete with more modern forms of media.
And I was specifically referring to the ideas of free speech that the news outlet is striving to defend or at least define.
I understand that there are a lot of people who are hurting right now, and I empathize with their pain, but how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other or convey important information to the public if we believe there might be serious reprisals against us if we "say the wrong thing". For example, I personally helped work against slavery on the Black Market in the Middle East, and I wanted…
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.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/snapjudgment/episodes/r...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other The trick is to create channels with limited audiences, where you can set an expectation of which ideas are acceptable and which are not.* It always has been, but the the arrival of new communication methods has disrupted the traditional channels, and now every idea is propagated to a much larger and looser audience, which aren't aware or don't…
> The trick is to create channels with limited audiences, where you can set an expectation of which ideas are acceptable and which are not. Do you mean that a community could allow argument X, but disallow counter-argument Y? That sounds like a recipe for an echo chamber. I definitely see the benefit in saying that certain topics are out of scope for a given community. But saying which ideas are acceptable and which…