Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by Mangalor » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:10 AM UTC

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #130

raxxorrax wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be certain that companies who did that will be reprimanded for it by consumers.

Google did it to James Damore. People celebrated it, as it opposes their beliefs even though many psychologist publicly said that the gender difference identified in the memo are science backed.

Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics.

The effect of which would silence both their work rights and free speech rights.

Google, a private corporation, not a government, decided to stop contracting with him, as they have women and minorities on staff whose employment output likely outweighs his personal need to write long, politically charged, essays at work. To me that sounds like no one's essential rights were violated at all.

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

#152

Post by high_derivative » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:11 AM UTC

TuringTest wrote: post #104

AHappyCamper wrote: post #78

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…

I find codes of conduct meaningless. They will go on in very general terms about 'hate speech' which is just synonymous with 'anything that anyone feels offended by' now.

I would argue that code of conducts were a symptom of the start of the problem.

The strategy of the grievance class:

- Propose a code of conduct which surely nobody can disagree with, it's great to have rules and be nice to each other.

- Design the code of conduct so any perceived offence falls under it

- Wield it as a tool to push out any dissenters

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

#153

Post by syshum » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:12 AM UTC

nmfisher wrote: post #42

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…

it is not just conservatives that do not grasp that

The 2 statements are the difference between a liberty minded person and the authority minded person

Liberty mined (or libertarian) can easily separate their personal beliefs on what is "proper" but still allow that other people may view differently and as long as they are not harming them (or anyone else) should be allowed to live their life in the manner they deem "proper"

Authority minded people (or Authoritarian) can not do this, they believe their worldview is the "right" or "correct" world view and that must be imposed upon everyone, by force if necessary.

These 2 mindsets exist in both "Left" and "Right" political orthodoxy

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

#154

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:14 AM UTC

api wrote: post #13

fennecfoxen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world, in general, is abandoning the past two centuries in which freedom has risen, to become illiberal, and enforce intellectual orthodoxies. It is more obvious and markedly so in in places like Turkey, but even here in the US we see those who would blacklist all political enemies and dissenters. These efforts will ultimately fail here, but not before grave harm is inflicted; history will judge us as harshly as…

I think part of it is the decay of discourse. People don't know how to discuss ideas in good faith. They just know how to troll, yell, make unfounded wild accusations, and meme. Basically we have a junior high level of public discourse. People aren't open to hearing reasoned arguments either. A reasoned argument doesn't deliver the dopamine hit of a rant or a catchy meme. In that environment the only thing possible i…

.. at the highest level of government. People want a president who trolls the opposition.

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

#155

Post by syshum » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:16 AM UTC

augustt wrote: post #63

mellosouls wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 would not call it bravery. She started her career as an anti-conservative blogger and then realized there was money to be made in being conservatives' token minority friend.

That is somewhat revisionist I would say, She was cancelled by the left like many have been over the years, because while she was "anti-conservative" (though not really) she was far more moderate than the Extreme Authoritarian left accepts

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

#156

Post by nabla9 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:16 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #119

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…

The disconnect goes away if we see person opinions as something people are rather than something which people say. This happens also to be a common thread in the disagreement between left and right. When something becomes a voluntary chosen action it can be controlled, limited and stopped by the government. When something is a personal trait it should be protected and given status as a right. To take the example of a…

Yes. Person with Tourette should not be fired for saying things that others don't.

(discussing norms, not free speech as legal rights below)

The norms in private organizations (companies, universities, associations) are different for different people.

1) If you are representative of an organization, what you say in private reflects your organization and it's reputation. It's established norm that personal values and opinions publicly expressed can't deviate from that of the organization. This includes many low level customer service jobs.

2) Low level managers, teachers and coaches are in position of authority and their whole identity is involved. Leader can shout their mouth about their political opinions and people working under them are not in position to talk back. That's not proper position to be politically opinionated. There are some norms limiting to their self expression in private, but it's usually context dependent.

3) Low level workers without public position or responsibilities over other should get most leeway to be whatever they are outside the job. When I was working in the floor level warehouse, the coffee break was the most politically diverse environment. Anarchist and far-right guy sitting next to each other debating angrily about women's rights, unions, Jews, holocaust. Nobody considered taking it upstairs because it was offensive. Only cases of bullying were considered out of line.

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

#157

Post by precisioncoder » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:16 AM UTC

drtillberg wrote: post #27

fennecfoxen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world, in general, is abandoning the past two centuries in which freedom has risen, to become illiberal, and enforce intellectual orthodoxies. It is more obvious and markedly so in in places like Turkey, but even here in the US we see those who would blacklist all political enemies and dissenters. These efforts will ultimately fail here, but not before grave harm is inflicted; history will judge us as harshly as…

A chaplin recently had to resign in apology at a distinguished academic institution for ... making factual and insightful comments about the George Floyd incident.[1] McCarthy eventually was shamed and disgraced by his casual destructiveness. "Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" [1] https://nypost.com/2020/06/17/mit-chaplain-resigns-over-em…

The news article you link to is interesting because it contains one inflamatory remark while omitting any context or full text of the email. While I probably strongly disagree with him as well as well as what he wrote in his email the tactics used: Taking the most distasteful sentence (or part of a sentence) they can find and concealing anything else, has been used time and time again in many contexts in order to generate outrage without thought or understanding. This is what I find disgusting about modern news, it's more an outrage generator using incomplete out of context quotes than increasing information about the world.

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

#158

Post by LandR » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:16 AM UTC

romwell wrote: post #59

legostormtroopr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Is saying that someone with a criminal record like that "didn't live a virtuous life" really a fireable offense? Talk about wild hyperboles! “In the wake of George Floyd’s death, most people in the country have framed this as an act of racism,” Moloney’s email continued. “I don’t think we know that. Many people have claimed that racism is a major problem in police forces. I don’t think we know that.” The Chaplain ha…

It might imply racism, it might imply that there are major issues with the police use of force in America. It might imply major problems with a lack of training of US police officers, both in techniques used to control someone but also when it's appropriate to use those techniques and for how long.

It might even imply, and I reckon it probably does, that there are some sociopaths in the police form that are wholy unfit to be police officers. These people need rooted out and fired. I would probably put the officer that killed George Floyd in this category.

I'm also sure there are racists in the police force who treat black people unfairly, these people also need rooted out and fired. I'm sure there is a LOT of these types.

But from the video, it doesn't imply that the police officer was racist or that his death is the result of racism. We simply don't know if the outcome would be different had George Floyd been white.

We can't even really tell from teh video if he was intentionally trying to kill George Floyd, I suspect he wasn't. I suspect that his death was a gross mistake, a result of insufficient training and a sociopath police officer. I very much doubt it was racist cop intentionally killing a black man because he was black, on camera, in front of witnesses recording it all on their phones.

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

#159

Post by Mangalor » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:20 AM UTC

prox wrote: post #77

cheschire wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One of the problems with upvote/downvote is that it is binary, while topics of discussion in the social rarely aren’t. In the social space of forming opinions, many things happen in a grey spectrum, and need not be polarized all the time (upvote / downvote)

Simple up/down voting is probably a relic of the simple concepts and simplified programming needed for early development of social media (web 1.0).

An overhaul of these networks to adapt more to human-like discourse is much-needed and welcome imo.

Kialo for example has a more complex voting system that works better.

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

#160

Post by AHappyCamper » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:21 AM UTC

TuringTest wrote: post #104

AHappyCamper wrote: post #78

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…

You bring up some really interesting ideas, but there are certain times where communication is mission critical - and deeply considering complex communicational structures before posting/conveying information can eventuate in serious injury or loss of life. During those times, you simply need to be able to "get the message out" without worrying about the potential offense that you words may cause to a certain individuals.

Again, I sympathize deeply that some people are hurting badly right now, but what should we do when we're dealing with life-and-death situations and there isn't time to craft the perfect message on the perfect platform?