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

#251

Post by michaelt » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 11:26 AM UTC

TheNorthman wrote: post #204

haberman wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there are almost always some guardrails in place, and certain viewpoints that are considered beyond the pale. And so there is a balancing act between an Overton Window that is too wide and wastes people's time with nonsense, and one that is too narrow and prevents bad orthodoxies from being challenged.

How are implicit guardrails better than specified guardrails? Surely explicit guardrails act as therapeutic discourse, in that it seeks to clarify systematic self-deception. By self-deception, I refer first-and-foremost to the myth of objectivity that often surrounds contemporary debate.

Because moderators are trying to stop flamewars - not jump into the middle and fight both sides.

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

#252

Post by kiplkipl » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 11:27 AM UTC

gentleman11 wrote: post #62

rbecker wrote: post #2

Just in case someone finds the examples in the article all acceptable censorship, here's a few more off the top of my head: Evergreen professor forced to resign for opposing day of white absence: https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstei... UCLA professor placed under investigation for reading MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lect... Dat…

In mainstream news (ap, CBC, bbc, others), increasingly people and groups are being labelled as racist without any discretion. Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories[1]. Surely, there is at least one racist in the group, but increasingly every single person who doesn’t tow the line is being called out - entire police departments, mayors, city councils, schools…

You've not linked any of the stories. Do they actually use the term 'racist'?

People loathe being called racist, to the point that if you point out someone is accidentally doing something unhelpful or discriminatory - not calling them racist - then you have to worry about them becoming emotional about it.

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

#253

Post by whiddershins » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 11:29 AM UTC

svara wrote: post #245

whiddershins wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That’s logically flawed. We’ve seen this already, where this argument is being used to arbitrarily curtail all sorts of speech. By this argument almost any idea you disagree with could be considered a threat, and honestly, it seems like it is human nature to sort of behave as if ideas that are ‘bad’ are a threat to my safety. It takes effort to fight that impulse. We need very narrow exceptions to free speech: sp…

Your argument is already assuming its conclusion, i.e. that all speech should be free. But then you also recognize that, no, actually, some kinds shouldn't be (i.e direct threats). The point is: that line you're drawing is arbitrary. You can define it narrowly and precisely, and I think that's what you tried to do here, but at the end of the day you chose where to draw it.

I’m not sure. I hear what you’re saying, and I need to think about it.

It doesn’t feel arbitrary, but I might be fooling myself.

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

#254

Post by ramblerman » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 11:33 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 are describing a structured echo chamber. Or worse an internet of endless safe spaces to get just the view of the world that pleases you.

I mean facebook is already doing this, on purpose or not (right now the blame is on the algorithms). Either way this is not the right way forward.

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

#255

Post by gwd » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 11:34 AM UTC

ngngngng wrote: post #177

I argued with a family member about this just the other day. She was trying to get a faculty member at a local university fired for saying something offensive on Twitter. I asked her what happens after we get him fired? Can he earn back the worthiness to again feed his family? Will he need to denounce his views or just stop spewing them publicly? Will he just need to collect unemployment for the rest of his life now…

> I asked her what happens after we get him fired? Can he earn back the worthiness to again feed his family? Will he need to denounce his views or just stop spewing them publicly? Will he just need to collect unemployment for the rest of his life now that we've deemed him a heretic unworthy of work?

As someone who's a devout Christian, it's quite interesting to me to see how the same anti-patterns which plague zealous religious movements -- intolerance, judgementalism, lack of an avenue for repentance / rehabilitation, unquestionable dogmas, inquisitions to root out heresies, factionalism, etc -- plague the progressive movement as well.

"So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me." - The Apostle Paul

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

#256

Post by pornel » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 11:34 AM UTC

Like with the Paradox of Tolerance, the absolutist free speech position paradoxically leads to loss of free speech. Speech that is "truth to power" has to be defended. But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the powerful—is helping them silence dissent.

There are people/orgs/governments that are experts in twisting the idea of free speech to their advantage. They know very well what to say to change clear opposing voices into a "controversy", represent indisputable facts as "opinions", and play free speech card when called out on it. They can keep doing it until people who genuinely want to evaluate all sides can't keep up with all the distractions.

And there are lots of cases when people are just being assholes. They enjoy that they can troll as much as they want and "freeze peach! slippery slope!" magically elevates any stupid shit they say into an important political message to be defended at all costs.

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

#257

Post by detaro » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 11:35 AM UTC

nonsince wrote: post #196

gentleman11 wrote: post #65

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

What do you think the down- and upvote buttons are for if not signalling that you think that a comment is good or not.

This doesn't really address the parent comment, which pretty much discusses the differing definitions of "good".

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

#258

Post by Retric » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 11:35 AM UTC

danielheath wrote: post #140

haberman wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Every stable community already has things you can and cannot say (try arguing the merits of pederasty, war, or heroin and see how far you get!)

Challenge accepted.

Pederasty is so far from our cultural norms it’s current form is meaningless compared to a socially accepted version. In a society with active mentoring of youth by people across the gender and sexual orientation spectrum pederasty would reduce the stigma’s associated with homosexuals thus increasing social cohesion.

War is a stress test for societies. By destroying less efficient social structures it promotes long term progress and reduces inefficient practices like slavery.

Heroin is an opioid and can be used as such. It’s current stigma is associated with recreational uses, but it can easily be used for chronic pain in a hospice instead of similar opioids.

PS: IMO the real reason to segregate ideas across forms is to avoid having the same conversations everywhere. Bringing up politics means people talk about politics rather than whatever the original subject was.

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

#259

Post by dependenttypes » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 11:36 AM UTC

Mangalor wrote: post #215

zarkov99 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. That is completely false and you should be ashamed if yourself for spreading such blatant lies. I urge anyone reading your comment to check for themselves and read Damore's essay, which was well researched, rational and compassionate, the exact opposite of the kind of libel th…

I often find that the usual so-called defenders of free speech do not hesitate for one moment with that libel charge whenever they encounter an opinion they happen to disagree with.

We know that "Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics." is factually false, considering that what should it be called if not libel?

> Google, a private corporation

Which by the way told its employees that they were free to publish their opinions and Damore acted on that premise.

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

#260

Post by dependenttypes » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 11:38 AM UTC

worik wrote: post #186

zarkov99 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. That is completely false and you should be ashamed if yourself for spreading such blatant lies. I urge anyone reading your comment to check for themselves and read Damore's essay, which was well researched, rational and compassionate, the exact opposite of the kind of libel th…

Not completely false. "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership." Which could be interpreted, honestly, as saying... "women and minorities could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics"

Mangalor said "should" rather than "could". Even then, I do not think that it could be interpreted like that. He talks about distributions of traits, the sentence that you quoted did not put minorities in a single box.