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

#331

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

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #311

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…

This ignores that the web has birthed a global culture of people where participation in online discussion is the majority of their lives. And they sit around looking to be offended to raise their own social value amonst their online peers. Being offended is about obtaining value and for mobs to obtain power. The two way street of both trying to not offend AND the listener trying to honestly interpret what is being sa…

Hit the nail on the head. This culture has no concept of "thick skin" and interprets any nuanced position in the most unfavorable light. Then they put on a dramatic show of being offended, hurt, or outraged in hopes of accolades from their peers.

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

#332

Post by TuringTest » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

andreareina wrote: post #280

marcus_holmes wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was always implicit in group discussions. As others have said, Codes of Conduct aren't creating new rules, they're just making them explicit instead of implicit. Let me give you an example: you have a group of friends. Two of your friends have recently experienced a miscarriage. The implicit rules in your group have now expanded to include "no dead baby jokes" (depending on how dark your group's humour was, this…

Can you point to examples where you feel they're done well? Whenever the subject comes up it's always the egregious ones that are pointed out so I'd like to see the other side.

Anything you see in the news are the egregious instances that get pushed to ridiculous levels. If you've seen a sign saying "wash your hands after using the toilet", that's an explicit code of conduct done well.

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

#333

Post by bluntfang » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

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…

>There is no "right" way to convey the issue above without offending someone.

I really disagree with your defeatist attitude.

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

#334

Post by lucaspm98 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:22 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #236

high_derivative wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That was always implicit in group discussions. As others have said, Codes of Conduct aren't creating new rules, they're just making them explicit instead of implicit. Let me give you an example: you have a group of friends. Two of your friends have recently experienced a miscarriage. The implicit rules in your group have now expanded to include "no dead baby jokes" (depending on how dark your group's humour was, this…

I agree that if there are rules, it's much better to make them explicit instead of implicit. I also think your example makes sense, but I'm not sure it applies to larger groups or public forums. There are simply too many people to avoid discussing every topic that could offend someone. I'm not saying overt racism or homophobia is okay, but especially when it comes to humor it's almost unavoidable that it can hit too close to home for someone who sees it.

In public discussions there has to be some baseline ability by the reader to accept that they can be offended while the value of what was said to the rest of the audience may outweigh their own feelings. The implicit rules of what is acceptable to talk about, especially online, have been getting stricter to the point of being ridiculous in my experience.

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

#335

Post by rimliu » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:22 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #79

gentleman11 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories You missed out the bit where some of them were doing Nazi salutes or carrying EDL / Britain First etc flags.

So if there is a peaceful protest and some looters pop up, what does it make of the protestors?

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

#336

Post by ones_and_zeros » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:22 PM UTC

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…

First, good on you for helping the world be a better place.

I have to ask, why use "Black Market"? It doesn't make sense whether you are involved in these issues or not.

Modern day slavery is universally known as human trafficking within law enforcement, social justice and international peace groups. This isn't a word police thing, it's just not accurate or common. Seems like using "Black Market" just makes things confusing.

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

#337

Post by newacct583 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:24 PM UTC

marliechiller wrote: post #210

newacct583 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to go look that up again. It wasn't about this one incident. He wasn't even fired, he resigned after becoming the center of a huge protest movement on campus directed specifically at him (a self-described member of the conservative "Intellectual Dark Web"), then after suing the college for failing to protect him, and the resignation was part of the resulting settlement. Then he did the FOX tour and wrote an op-…

He, and most of the rest of the IDW would not consider themselves conservative at all. In fact, only JPeterson considers himself conservative out of the commonly touted members. Dont misrepresent people because they dont fit your narrative

[flagged]

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

#338

Post by tomp » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:24 PM UTC

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 is, that there are some opinions that are protected (religion, and recently also gender identity) but there are other opinions that aren't (political views or anything roughly correlated with any political party). (I use "opinion" in a broad sense here, as "something you choose" as opposed to "something you're born with" such as sex and race) There are obvious downsides of firing people for any such opinion that (1) people feel extremely passionately about, but is (2) ultimately irrelevant to the job at hand.

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

#339

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

AHappyCamper wrote: post #86

imgabe wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the issue is that some people consider any speech they disagree with as a threat of violence or "endangering my safety".

Again, I empathize with the feelings of people who may feel emotionally threatened by a derogatory comment, but some speech deals with people whose lives are in imminent mortal danger (e.g. those about to be sold on Black Market) and if we can't quickly discuss their cases and potential responses to rescue them, then they will be doomed to a life of untold misery. In such situations, there is no time to filter every…

Is there a term for when someone says something, followed by 'but', then something that completely invalidates the first sentence?

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

#340

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

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #311

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…

This ignores that the web has birthed a global culture of people where participation in online discussion is the majority of their lives. And they sit around looking to be offended to raise their own social value amonst their online peers. Being offended is about obtaining value and for mobs to obtain power. The two way street of both trying to not offend AND the listener trying to honestly interpret what is being sa…

> This ignores that the web has birthed a global culture of people where participation in online discussion is the majority of their lives.

I'm not ignoring that, I'm describing what I see is an underlying cause. If online discussion tools respected the principle of setting proper expectations for each communication channel, the problem would be much milder, as the problems you describe would be limited to smaller groups of interaction, instead of being escalated to viral dimensions.