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

#451

Post by jmchuster » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

Diggsey wrote: post #230

jmchuster wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can definitely choose to go down a route of "these people get offended and it's completely irrational and unjustified, and they are wrong to do so, so to teach them a lesson i'm going to shut my mouth and complain to everyone about how they are bad people that are forcing me to self-restrict my freedom of speech and as a result they are actively helping the slave trade". Or you might also consider the route of "t…

> I'm going to work to listen to them and talk with them one by one until i do understand on a core level how they feel and where those feelings are derived from, Many of the people who are actually condemned for being offensive are condemned by the media or by some third party who's being offended on behalf of someone else, who we never get to actually hear from, and who might not even exist.

It would definitely be interesting to hear more from AHappyCamper on what offending that they're doing that they're trying to solve.

Are they trying to get support from the government, but government officials are offended that they use the term "Black Market" in their communications and refuse to engage with them?

Are they trying to raise public awareness, but their posts are being flood with replies demonizing them for using the term "Black", and so they feel they're not able to effectively spread the message?

Are their efforts proceeding exactly as hoped, but the media is demonizing them for using the term "Black"? Or maybe a grandma facebook group? And they feel slighted when they are trying to bring about this great benefit for the world?

Are they not actually seeing any offense at all and just want people to beat down a strawman for them?

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

#452

Post by notahacker » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

etherael wrote: post #439

notahacker wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

> 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.

It's not a 'defence' but a simple refutation of your claim that companies coming under pressure from some quarters to fire employees for sentiments they have expressed is a uniquely Western thing (Bit of a stretch to suggest India has been amongst the 'worst authoritarian and theocratic dictatorships' since its independence too...). Just because local populations in much of the world are seldom bothered by comments perceived as insulting to black or gay people doesn't mean they all extend the same tolerance towards people they perceive as insulting their national pride, family values, religion, behavioural norms, officials they need to curry favour with etc.

> 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?

For someone who claims to be averse to 'professional offence taking', you're trying remarkably hard to find an angle sufficiently obtuse for you to drag my bland statement that companies think all sorts of different behaviour outside working hours gives them cause to fire people into your culture war...

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

#453

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #258

danielheath wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 structure…

[deleted]

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

#454

Post by bluntfang » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 6:02 PM UTC

julianmarq wrote: post #436

bluntfang wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 to…

>The mobs trying to police everyone else's speech are never the intended audience

If the "mobs" are receiving a message not intended for them, the onus lies on the communicator to resolve this.

I also think it's really funny that you're assuming you know what people involved in fighting the slave trade want. Are you currently doing that?

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

#455

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

dependenttypes wrote: post #285

nonsince wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question - I hang around in some pretty seriously left-wing, often social-justice-obsessed circles and I've never heard anyone complain about the term black market, or want to pretend that slavery doesn't go on in the middle east. Have you got examples of this kind of thing being commonplace? I have heard people complain that people complain about these things, but never first-hand experienced people's compla…

> I've never heard anyone complain about the term black market It is not the most used term in the world. Why not try gimp, git, white/blacklist, etc? > or want to pretend that slavery doesn't go on in the middle east To be frank I was unaware that slavery was a thing in the middle east until I stumbled upon the GP's post so I presume that such a thought is not that rare. Are you sure that you just did not talk about…

> Are you sure that you just did not talk about the topic with your friends?

Note that GP mentions that they're involved in left wing/social justice circles. Many of those circles involve activism that extends beyond the US, so being aware of things like international sex trafficking, forms of slavery, etc. is probably more likely in those circles than in an average person.

> Just in another post in this thread you talked about how firing that professor would be an ok thing to do

I don't think GP said what you claim they said.

> As for examples of free speech being attacked. Check out the whole Stallman case from last year, or the Assange case, or the Damore case

Stallman wasn't about speech. He was a missing stair at best, and at worst someone who repeatedly abused his position to harass women. Are you going to argue that sexual harassment should be protected by the principle of speech?

I admit I'm not particularly informed about Assange, but as far as I can tell the charges against him are for soliciting espionage/hacking. In other words, requesting other people commit crimes for him (and in other cases for aiding in crimes). I don't think those things should be protected acts, even if you believe that Assange has been a force for good (which I don't). It's like trying to defend Snowden on free speech grounds. No, he committed crimes. Arguably the crimes he committed were done with a good moral purpose, but he violated multiple laws. Assange doesn't have the defenses Snowden did (whistleblowing).

As for Damore, as someone who spoke with Damore on his "document", I can say that from my personal interactions, HN gives him way too much credit. I formed my opinions on his document from my interactions with it and with him, prior to any media attention, and the martyrdom he is given is undeserved.

The UCLA professor is under investigation not for "reading the letter from a birmingham jail" but for refusing to self censor after multiple students requested that he do so (and he can't be fired anyway). It's more complicated than "he read a speech".

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

#456

Post by luckylion » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 6:16 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.

> 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.

No, the argument was that "the threat" was "mostly made up". I assure you, it was not.

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

#457

Post by AHappyCamper » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #435

AHappyCamper wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 uncoop…

They're relevant details because they directly affect the health and safety of the ambulance staff, and protocol dictates that they call in on anything that could be hazardous to them. Not to mention that those details could affect the treatment of the patient.

See? This is the problem. The filtering is more important to some people than actually doing the job correctly.

This is why speech must be free, because I don't want a paramedic who's treating me to be debating exactly how to define me to dispatch. I just want them to save my life.

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

#458

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #303

pornel wrote: post #256

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 oppo…

> But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the powerful—is helping them silence dissent. But that just moves the problem to the question of "who is powerful?", doesn't it? Everybody feels that their side isn't in power because their goals and ideals haven't been completely achieved, so obviously they are the powerless who are speaking truth to power, and therefore the other side are the powerful who are spreadi…

Who is more powerful: The President of the United States, or me?

While it's indeed possible that there are ambiguous cases, that doesn't invalidate the idea in general. Unless you legitimately believe that it is always impossible to determine when there is a power imbalance in a relationship. But we make that decision just fine in many other situations, so I don't know why speech would be different.

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

#459

Post by pbourke » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 6:21 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…

"conditions are unsanitary and dangerous to the crew and patient is confused and ucooperative yet is requesting assistance"

That seems better than "there's a homeless guy with a bunch of needles and feces" in terms of descriptiveness.

Edit: aren't communications protocols a very standard thing among first responders / military / hospitals / etc?

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

#460

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 6:24 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #442

syshum wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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?

No no, they should have the right to, we as a society should just discourage people from exercising their agency in that regard.

That way no one needs to make laws to enforce conformity. It's just enforced by social norms. It's the speech version of Jordan Peterson's "enforced monogomy" concept.

Granted even in this sardonic explanation, I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole is supposed to go. Using your agency to protest is discouraged so we should use our agency to discourage the discouragement. But then we're just deciding that discouraging is itself a bad act. And so the whole thing is self-contradictory.