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

#441

Post by ryandrake » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

CraigJPerry wrote: post #378

AHappyCamper wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you start with this type of thinking, it never stops, and instead of focussing on how to save slaves from a life of misery, you're instead having meetings on which words are less offensive in your posts, messages, and internal communiques. The amount of energy that this takes up is ENORMOUS, especially when you're dealing with something as difficult and dangerous as the slave trade. And what do you do when the n…

>> Once you start with this type of thinking, it never stops ... you're instead having meetings Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy? There was no meeting required, the idea and action were raised and taken in the same parent post. Parent poster started with that type of thinking and avoided the halting problem. >> The amount of energy that this takes up is ENORMOUS Is it possible that learning to use dif…

It's not a slippery slope fallacy because it actually happens. We get offended by some phrase, so we invent a euphemism for it. Then a few years later, we get offended by that euphemism, so we invent a more vague euphemism. And on and on. Go to YouTube and look up George Carlin's bit on "Shell Shock".

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc

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

#442

Post by notahacker » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #412

notahacker wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What government restrictions do you believe liberty minded people are calling for? People claiming that people shouldn't be sacked for expressing certain views also claim their actions are motivated by the imperative of protecting freedom of conscience and individuals' essential liberty. People firing people for expressing those views are often openly stating the belief those views are 'incorrect' and that enforcem…

>>People firing people for expressing those views are often openly stating the belief those views are 'incorrect' and that enforcement action must be taken against those with incorrect views. No that is absolutely not the case, companies today are responding to the Mob not their own self determination on the issue. Which is what I and others have a problem with, not the a company on their own, of their own free will…

I have to admit I'm even further from understanding your position now: companies should have the right to enforce absolute conformity on their employees and fire them for whatever arbitrary reason they want to, but consumers absolutely shouldn't have the right to boycott in the event they find extremely objectionable?

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

#443

Post by sesuximo » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:26 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…

Jon Ronson’s book “So You’ve been Publicly Shamed” touches on this. Less from the angle of PC culture and more about anger on Twitter. I think it’s a good book and interesting even if you disagree with the conclusions.

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

#444

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:31 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #429

blueflow wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> They also don't self-identify as trans. A lot of them do. > They take everything so personal even if its not about them. Is this an actual experience? I've worked with/interacted with quite a few queer people. And I've misgendered people on more than one occasion. Nothing a "shit sorry" hasn't been able to fix. This forces me to wonder why our experiences are so different. Do the queer people I work with have diffe…

[deleted]

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

#445

Post by zzo38computer » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:34 PM UTC

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #164

rini17 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we must have the one-click convenience (I'm not convinced it's necessary) I'd prefer to have few labels like "I disagree" "Not true" "Off topic" "Pls read the article" "Disgusting" etc. instead of downvote button, perhaps also similar for upvote.

Or may be both up- and downvoted messages should make it to the top, while ignored messages should slowly sink?

I would rather view in chronological order. I think that it should be an option. Sorting by "controversial" as suggested in another comment should be another option.

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

#446

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #373

TuringTest wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the purpose of the group. There are lots of 18+ groups that discourage politics, and lots more where no profanity is expected. As long as there are other different groups where those are allowed, everything is OK.

This. In any group you will need to agree on a set of rules about these things. A Code of Conduct doesn't change that, just makes it explicit. The reason that Codes of Conduct are good is that it makes the life of an organiser so much easier. If Bob is being weird around the ladies (again), then an organiser can take him to one side and point to the "no being weird around the ladies" clause in the CoC. This is a mass…

> Charles might behave in a similar manner to Bob, but not be "weird" about it, and people find him funny not creepy.

So it's all down to the interpretation (of both the CoC, and whether behaviour falls within it) of the organiser? Especially under such vague standards as "being weird" or "being creepy?

This sound like the exact problem with CoCs. And the "rule-breaking" aspect goes both ways. It's eventually a way to streamline the process by shutting down group dissent. Work fine if the rules, and their enforcement are just; not so much otherwise.

> But that rule already existed, and was already "grey"

No it didn't. The reasoning behind the rule did, but not the rule. Once the rule exists people can appeal to the rule directly without considering the reasoning behind it; Much like arguing that abortion is bad because it is murder, without reconsidering why murder is bad in the first place and re-engaging with that logic in the context of abortion.

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

#447

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #33

drtillberg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Saying someone "didn't live a virtuous life" is not factual. In this case, it's an irrelevant and tasteless opinion about a victim. It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed.

a full(er) quote:

"George Floyd was killed by a police officer, and shouldn’t have been. He had not lived a virtuous life. He was convicted of several crimes, including armed robbery, which he seems to have committed to feed his drug habit. And he was high on drugs at the time of his arrest. But we do not kill such people. He committed sins, but we root for sinners to change their lives and convert to the Gospel."

-- link at https://newbostonpost.com/2020/06/17/m-i-t-catholic-chaplain...

But most media outlets just quote "didn't live a virtuous life" in their own paraphrasing, as well as "I don't think we know that" - that strengthen those implications by removing any context that would otherwise soften them. It's very easy to assume was justifying the killing, given that no contrary quotes are given.

That's not to say that what he did say is ok/wise/sensitive, but much of the press are clearly sensationalising this.

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

#448

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:36 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…

I recently read a story (AITAH) where a persona who worked as a university professor (a neighbour) was throwing branches into someones back yard and trespassing (to smoke). After the police didn't do anything, they contacted their work (the university) and later considered social messages of the form "University professor did ". I was fairly uncomfortable with this; I feel these kind of things need to be handles by e.g. courts or similar, not in via social pinion where a persons profession is leveraged against them.

I also dislike arguments of the form "If they believe how can they treat fairly", or even "People of will feel uncomfortable working with them"; but I accept they have some validity.

I feel a true answer is more complicated; i.e. before we answer these problems, we consider:

- is someone not know to express racist opinions therefore not racist?

- what political-compatibility criteria is needed to work with someone?

- if person A doesn't want to work with person B; is that persons As problem, or person Bs?

- how objective are hiring/firing/promotion criteria? to the extent that they are subjective, what goes into that, and what is fair? Are promotions fair if they are random, so long as they are not biased wrt race/sex/etc? Or is a random process unfair because it is arbitrary? If it is biased towards arbitrary criteria that is not the usual demographics (e.g. ppl who wear glasses) is this fair?

- what moral obligation do employees have in their private lives? Does this obligation differ by job type? Do all jobs have obligations e.g. do corp contracts imply them too; and are employees compensated wrt these obligations?

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

#449

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:37 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…

Isn't there an inherently coercive/disruptive nature to street protesting, especially wrt large partisan groups?

e.g. extinction rebellion holding up bus/rail services, BLM protesters wearing masks, chanting and large groups showing up at sensitive places, such as the white-house, or police-officers homes.

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

#450

Post by zzo38computer » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

I support freedom of speech, whether I agree or disagree what you have to say, or if I am offended by it (which I probably am not, but just in case). Freedom of speech shall also include the freedom to not say if you don't want to, but if you do want to say (or write), then you should say (or write), please.

It was a (mis)quotation of Voltaire: I may not agree what you have to say but defend your right to say it.