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

#321

Post by TuringTest » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:05 PM UTC

ramblerman wrote: post #254

TuringTest wrote: post #104

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…

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.

> 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'd ask you to think how this is any different from anything we had before the internet.

I actually think there is a difference in current communication patterns, but it's not being a structured echo chamber (we already had plenty of those before), and it's not something to be proud of.

The novel effect of social networks is amplifying and concentrating in a single point the worst instances of biased and unsubtle discussion, causing the recipient to burn up from the concentrated heat.

It's a process that replicates the dynamics of lynch mob; at least those were local effects, while now we get to have world-reaching lynch mobs. We need to put up firewalls so that inflammatory speech won't set everything on fire; and structured small communities is as good a solution as any.

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

#322

Post by blueflow » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:07 PM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #250

blueflow wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"changing your pronouns" has a link to "tying your identity to how you are being referenced" (i claim this from observation). Using the wrong pronoun is such much more likely to be seen as a personal attack than using your pre-marriage name.

Have you seen anyone personally take offense, or just high-profile cases? I've definitely seen a few of the latter (e.g. Jordan Peterson) but the common denominator there seems to be antagonistically refusing to use pronouns or doing so to make the point that you reject them, which is different from an honest mistake.

Yes, i left Open Source projects because referring to co-contributors is such a minefield. I don't wish to work with self-identified transgender people due to this anymore. They take everything so personal even if its not about them.

And just for saying this, same people will accuse me of hating trans people and rejecting their right to exist. But you know what - people with successful HRT who also pass don't exhibit this behavior. They also don't self-identify as trans.

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

#323

Post by JoshTko » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:12 PM UTC

For free speech to work you must have an educated populace. I think America today is a great example of what happens if you have the former without investment in the latter.

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

#324

Post by TuringTest » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:13 PM UTC

vogre wrote: post #262

TuringTest wrote: post #104

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…

You basically describe Soviet "obkoms". The commitee of people who decided what is ok to say/sing/write, and what is not. Needless to say, they became corrupt very soon, because no one was allowed to say a word against them.

> You basically describe Soviet "obkoms".

Not really. That would assume that the only existing channels are official channels. My description works as well for self-organised, distributed, unofficial channels.

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

#325

Post by dahfizz » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:13 PM UTC

Kye wrote: post #305

dahfizz wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also not a big deal to accidentally get someone's last name wrong. There is way more social pressure around knowing and always using the correct pronoun for everyone you know.

Most of the people I know are LGBTQ with a large contingent of nonbinary people and trans people. The common theme when people bring this up from the other side is it's nice when people get it right on their own, but it hurts more when people assume wrong and then double down. Using the wrong one can activate a low-level fear response for people trying to "pass" on the binary, but it's easily quelled by generally bei…

I agree that some good will can go a long way. It's also surprisingly easy to just not use pronouns at all.

I was friends with a couple of trans people on college, and I would always either directly address them as "you", or use their name where I would normally say "he/she". It's not a big deal, I just hate that there is a subroutine in the back of my brain shouting "Don't say the wrong word! Don't say the wrong word!". I think that's the cognitive load OP was talking about.

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

#326

Post by nl » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:15 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #155

augustt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You don't find it slightly ironic that you are defending her when she was "cancelled" for setting up a website with the express purpose of doxxing people who didn't want to be identified?[1]

I think it was you who claimed this on the Scott Alexander story:

> One of the biggest problems in modern society is the lack of respect for privacy and anonymous speech. anonymous speech has been a cornerstone of the advancement of civilization many times through out history including playing a critical role in the formation of the United States as well as the US Constitution

It seems to me that she was criticised by the left (and many on the right!) for attempting to start a pretty distasteful service.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens#Privacy_violatio...

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

#327

Post by textgel » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:16 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #304

textgel wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing illogical about describing as racist a group of people who make Nazi salutes, who attack black people, who spray racist graffiti. However that's not what you were doing; you were stating the point that being with a group doing x means you will labelled as x. > If you're in a large group, and many members of that group are by any definition racist, you're going to be called part of a racist group. No…

> However that's not what you were doing; you were stating the point that being with a group doing x means you will labelled as x. I still say that. If you attend a demonstration organised by a far right group (FLA), heavily promoted by other far right groups (Britain First, EDL), and prominent members of the far right (Stephen Yaxley Lennon, Paul Golding) then you're going to be called racist. You're desperately try…

I haven't said anything about defending these crowds at all, you're welcome to point out where I defended them; I've pointed out the likely frustrations of op about two facedness and lack of nuance in the press.

I can perfectly see there are people in the protests making the nazi salutes just fine and I follow the logic behind getting the label if you hang with them, and as you'll surely agree in just the same way that those involved with the recent floyyd protests will be labelled as opportunistic thugs looking to destroy property and assault people.

> At some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that in the UK the far right pose a far greater risk of harm than the left.

No, no I don't; both sides seem significantly detrimental in different ways and I don't have to permit free reign to one group of sociopathic bullies just because they are the enemies of a different one.

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

#328

Post by cgrealy » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:16 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #310

klmadfejno wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think equating racist power structures in police and government to red scare communists is a good analogy. The fear of communists was mostly made up in rhetoric. The protestors on race relations are pretty clear on why they're upset.

> The fear of communists was mostly made up in rhetoric. Maybe ask the West-Berliners that the SU tried to starve to make them surrender and become part of the SU.

“Communism” != “Soviet style totalitarianism”.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with being a communist. You don’t have to agree with it as a political philosophy (I don’t), but it’s no worse than being a capitalist.

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

#329

Post by TuringTest » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:18 PM UTC

high_derivative wrote: post #152

TuringTest wrote: post #104

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…

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…

Any social group has a code of conduct. Classic codes of conduct have been in place for generations and are implicitly taught to members accepted in the social class.

The difference now is that these codes are being challenged by outsiders to the former dominant class; and making the new groups work requires the code of conduct to be enumerated explicitly, in order to define and coordinate the new, non-classical values.

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

#330

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:19 PM UTC

Kye wrote: post #291

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…

I can't think of many instances of someone sharing a "controversial" opinion where they weren't just regurgitating tired old arguments that are trivially discredited. The easy response is: well if they're trivially rebutted, why not just rebut them? That works once. Twice. Twenty times. It doesn't take long before these "just raising the controversy" comments overwhelm sincere and thought-provoking discussion. A rhet…

> regurgitating tired old arguments that are trivially discredited

who judges this? fundamentals of human right are often old, who decides they are tired or outdated?

If they are constantly repeated, then either they aren't considered rebutted, or the rebuttal rarely spreads, and that is the thing that needs to be investigated.

We need to identify "thought-terminating cliches and propaganda" via a bipartisan standard. The current standards seem to be "your propaganda is propaganda, my propaganda is defence".