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

#431

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

hamilyon2 wrote: post #362

Retric wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 structure…

Your heroin argument is kinda strawman. You should address addiction, health aspect, and criminalization vs legalization. Modern war not only means crazy lot of civilian casualties, and environmental destruction. It is literal breeding ground of hate, human misery, all of worst qualities of people. Only a defence contractor would advocate for war.

[deleted]

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

#432

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

CraigJPerry wrote: post #417

julianmarq wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy? Is it? It doesn't seem like it is because... > There was no meeting required ... GGP's comment started a discussion on this very matter, still ongoing, instead of merely accepting that the term "black market" isn't offensive... Which it isn't. > Is it possible that learning to use different words in many contexts is the same as the act of picking up a thesaurus? How…

> still ongoing It's not. The parent and grandparent conversation stopped where they did. Our discussion isn't theirs. We're not pursuing the slippery slope on their behalf, we're not debating the merits of particular word choices. > whole discussion exhausting? I do, it's entirely asinine And yet, you of your own free will continue to engage it. Something doesn't stack up between what you say and what you choose to…

[deleted]

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

#433

Post by bluntfang » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

cglace wrote: post #416

marcus_holmes wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All communication is an attempt to create meaning in the mind of the listener. If you use words that the listener perceives to have a certain meaning, but that is not the meaning you intended to create, then your message will not communicate your meaning correctly. In other words, all words are given meaning by the listener, not the speaker. Your intentions when saying something are irrelevant (but are usually taken…

If my intent does not matter and my words can be construed to mean anything then where do we go from here?

The point is that the only thing you can control, as the communicator, is the words you use. You can't control your audiences vocabulary and their interpretation, thus the onus is on the communicator to communicate their message, not the listener. It's up to the communicator to understand their audience and make the best faith attempt to communicate that they can, and to listen and learn how to communicate effectively to the intended audience after a failure occurs.

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

#434

Post by fennecfoxen » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

klmadfejno wrote: post #425

luckylion wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not go down the "those aren't real communists" route. The communists in the West were by and large always very cozy with the SU. Hell, they loved Stalin so much and wanted to hear so little that Orwell sat down to write a fable to explain the issues to them.

One of the most famous moments was the waving of an imaginary list with known communists embedded in the government. Regardless of your view on the 'realness' of those who actually were communists, the point is that it was largely speculative who was part of them. The concerns of the BLM protestors are not that there are hidden racists, but overt bad actors with tangible track records of oppressive behaviors.

Another of the famous moments was when McCarthy called out Frederick G. Fisher, a young lawyer, as a proxy attack on his political opponent, Joseph Welch. "Before this moment, I never appreciated your cruelty," remarked Mr. Welch, noting, "you have sat within six feet of me and could have asked me about Fred Fisher." He asked the Senator: "Have you no decency, sir?"

He was offended, and thought it indecent, that this young man, a nobody and a nonentity, should have his name paraded front of the entire nation, accused of betrayal, his reputation jeopardized not by any proceeding undertaken for the sake of justice, but rather, in the mainfestly unfair court of public opinion, for the sake of his outrage machine.

Eighteen months ago this nation witnessed Nicholas Sandmann, a random eleventh grader from Covington, Kentucky, excoriated on national television. There are those who still believe it was justice, that the boy had it coming, and declare that he has a "punchable" face. If someone has stood up and called this indecent, it was little noted. CNN settled a lawsuit over the matter, but has not issued an apology; our outrage machine has rolled on to other matters, and will continue to do so with little heed to justice.

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

#435

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

AHappyCamper wrote: post #418

marcus_holmes wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radio protocol is extremely specific. As is medical terminology. If they're required to use a term for a person, but haven't been briefed on what term to use, then I think there are bigger problems there and "political correctness" is not the problem. Basic communication is. They will also not be penalised for using the wrong term when there's no briefing on what the correct term is. If they can't remember what term…

I don't understand. Why does it matter if it's a specific communication protocol? If you have to filter your language when you're in a life and death situation with a potentially dangerous person who has used needles lying around, you've used up precious processing power that could otherwise be used to keep yourself safe and the sick person alive. For the record - I checked with them - and they told me they were aske…

I don't understand: you just did that. What was difficult about it?

(and I'll note that you spent a bunch of time mentioning ultimately irrelevant details. Being homeless, or in an area with feces and urine and cardboard probably aren't relevant to anyone responding. The important facts are that there's a person in need of immediate medical assistance, the area is potentially hazardous, and the person is being uncooperative).

Those are the three things that need to be conveyed.

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

#436

Post by julianmarq » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

bluntfang wrote: post #433

cglace wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my intent does not matter and my words can be construed to mean anything then where do we go from here?

The point is that the only thing you can control, as the communicator, is the words you use. You can't control your audiences vocabulary and their interpretation, thus the onus is on the communicator to communicate their message, not the listener. It's up to the communicator to understand their audience and make the best faith attempt to communicate that they can, and to listen and learn how to communicate effectivel…

> to listen and learn how to communicate effectively to the intended audience after a failure occurs.

You, accidentally, hit the nail on the head. I'm pretty sure that the intended audience often gets the message just fine.

The mobs trying to police everyone else's speech are never the intended audience; they just butt in to try to control how everyone else talks regardless of how much they actually care about the topic, group or subject matter.

In this particular example, I highly doubt that anyone in the middle of working against slave trade cares about whether anyone used the words "black market". It's only later, if that ever were discussed on twitter or reddit, etc, that one would start finding people taking issue with that choice of words.

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

#437

Post by toast0 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

randcraw wrote: post #419

Free speech != hate speech. There's a big difference between stating a reasoned point of view that some might find offensive and stating something that's intended only to offend. The first is essential to a free society and deserves our enthusiastic protection. The second is only destructive and should be shunned. Behaving offensively is not strictly in the eye of the beholder. If you hate something/someone, do not s…

These sound like guidelines for a discussion site, but I don't think there's a basis in the law for the US freedom of speech to be freedom of constructive speech or freedom of civil exchange.

There are plenty of hateful people and group that say reprehensible things in public and face no government sanctions. And, as much as I dislile the reprehensible things they say, I feel that's appropriate. The governments of the US should not be in the business of deciding what can be said or by whom, and historically has done a poor job when they have.

Any venue claiming to be a free speech venue but policing hate speech isn't really a free speech venue after all. More so if the policing is ad-hoc and capricious.

Of course, HN never claims to be a free speech venue (and certainly isn't). And I don't think I would participate in many group discussions in a legitimately free speech venue either --- there are a lot of opinions I don't want to hear, and I am content for them to be voiced somewhere else, but then, I avoid the public square in real life as well.

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

#438

Post by shorts_theory » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 4:55 PM 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…

This is something which I have become more aware of after reading "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson. I am now wary of posting any thoughts online which go against the tide of popular opinion. One of my takeaways from that book was that the cost of saying anything controversial online can be limitless. It's scary how mob "justice" and the rampant virtue signalling these days can ruin lives and careers. It's not just governments policing speech: the public is just as guilty.

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

#439

Post by etherael » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #406

etherael wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insisting that someone stick to doing their actual job, while they're at their actual job, isn't tone policing. And the fact that they could do damage to their company by their speech outside the context of their employment is nothing wrong with the employee, it's symptomatic of the cancerous state of modern western society (and as an expat, I can tell you it's mercifully absent outside the west) and the idiotic canc…

> And the fact that they could do damage to their company by their speech outside the context of their employment is nothing wrong with the employee, it's symptomatic of the cancerous state of modern western society (and as an expat, I can tell you it's mercifully absent outside the west) I can assure you that there are no shortage of people on the receiving end of non-Western boycott threats for making comments deem…

> I can assure you that there are no shortage of people on the receiving end of non-Western boycott threats for making comments deemed to offend, say, religious sensitivities in India or support calls for democracy in Hong Kong.

The best defense that can be mustered is that the worst authoritarian and theocratic dictatorships of the world do the same thing so it's no big deal? To be fair to you I guess the truth of the matter is that really is the best defense. It just happens to be terrible.

> And needless to say there's no shortage of things that can be said or done outside work which call into question one's suitability for the role or commitment to actually helping the company succeed which have nothing to do with 'cancel culture'.

It's just a coincidence that what we actually hear month in and month out year after year is professional offense taking victims out to collect scalps on behalf of their cancerous idiotic ideology, right?

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

#440

Post by jamie_ca » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

pharke wrote: post #409

snikeris wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> War is a stress test for societies. By destroying less efficient social structures it promotes long term progress and reduces inefficient practices like slavery. War destroys progress and is incredibly inefficient. The mere threat of war creates an endless arms race resulting in half of discretionary spending going to defense. The reason for submitting to government authority is for protection of life and liberty.…

> War destroys progress and is incredibly inefficient. Please explain the monumental advancements of technology witnessed during both world wars. Even if they were not a direct result of the war effort, they still succeeded in spite of all technically and scientifically advanced nations being on a war footing during those time periods. > The mere threat of war creates an endless arms race resulting in half of discret…

> Please explain why we have not seen a significant drop in defense spending during the periods when the threat of war has lessened. Especially after the fall of the Soviet Union when the world was decidedly unipolar for more than a decade.

But we have. See the second chart, covering Defence spending of the United Kingdom from 1900-2020. https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending

Spiked over 45% of GDP during WWI, and over 50% during WWII. Took a small bump over 10% that I believe was the Korean War, and has been fairly consistently drifting downward since, and is roughly comparable to 1900s pre-war spending.

The United States has a similar graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... and while it's still nowhere near pre-war spending, there's been a similar downward trend over the last 50 years.