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

#491

Post by cgrealy » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 8:16 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #348

cgrealy wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

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.

I never said they weren't "real" communists, I said there's nothing wrong with that.

There is a difference between communism and nazism.

Communism is simply the belief that the workers should own the means of production. It's like being a "witch". You might think it's complete nonsense and doesn't work in the real world (I'd agree with you), but if people want to be witches (or wiccans or whatever), they should be allowed to be.

Nazism, on the other hand, is an inherently evil ideology. Hopefully, I don't have to explain why.

And once again, you've mistakenly conflated communism with totalitarianism (which is what 1984 is actually about).

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

#492

Post by CraigJPerry » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 8:16 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #441

CraigJPerry wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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

> It's not a slippery slope fallacy because it actually happens. We

We? I’ve never. When did you fall for it and why would you?

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

#493

Post by neilparikh » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 8:18 PM UTC

zarkov99 wrote: post #181

AHappyCamper wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are right and I do not think you should waste a single thought on the easily offended. They suck. There is no hope for that kind of faked fragility. Somewhere will always claim to be offended by something you say or do, to the point that the only safe thing for you to do is nothing at all (maybe). Much better stay true to your heart and plow ahead with the good work your are doing. Good people will see it and as…

> I do not think you should waste a single thought on the easily offended.

Unfortunately, this strategy doesn't work, because these people have the power to have a significant negative impact on your life (get you fired, ruin your reputation etc).

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

#494

Post by pnw_hazor » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 8:27 PM UTC

nikanj wrote: post #81

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #75

For the past five years or so, I prefer discussing current events with conservatives - not because I think they are closer to truth, but because they are willing to be a good sport in a conversation. This has nothing to do with political parties, which are both dumpster fires. Maybe Republicans started earlier with Tea Party and got worse, but Democrats are heading in the same direction after Occupy Wall Street. And…

You might get cancelled for discussing things with the wrong people, despite what you say. Especially if you get on a podcast to discuss things with a conservative figure.

One might get cancelled for liking or sharing the wrong Tweet or FB post. Even if the content of the liked or shared comment is non-controversial, if the wrong person said it, you can get cancelled.

I remember when my left leaning daughter made one of her very first tweets, it was a policy question related to immigration. (It was related to questioning why the US has birthright citizenship -- a topic being covered in one of her HS courses.)

In seconds the hate tweets and retweets started from progressives...I jumped out of bed (it was kind of late at night) and ran into her room to suggest/implore that she delete the tweet and her entire account and never share anything like that again.

Saved her life that night. Though, I am thankful that she did learn her lesson without much cost.

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

#495

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 8:28 PM UTC

gwd wrote: post #255

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 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 that we've deemed him a heretic unworthy of work? As someone who's a devout Christian, it's quite interesting to me to see how the same anti-patterns which plague zealou…

I'll go a step further. All this yelling at people may shut them up, but it doesn't change their hearts. It may even harden them.

Someone's a racist? Getting them to stop lynching people is necessary, absolutely. Getting them to stop using the n-word is needed for a civilized society. But more deeply, they need their heart changed, not just their external behavior. They need to see "those people" as being of equal value to themselves.

Well, the only thing I know that can change hearts that way is the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Note well: I did not say "going to church". That's not the same thing.)

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

#496

Post by klyrs » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 8:31 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…

> By destroying less efficient social structures it promotes long term progress and reduces inefficient practices like slavery.

Sorry, what? Slavery was never "inefficient." The problem is that humans have rights and holding slaves deprives them of those rights. To the contrary, slavery was, is, terribly efficient for the slaveholder.

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

#497

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 8:39 PM UTC

bluntfang wrote: post #485

cglace wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you have removed so much nuance from the discussion that what you are saying is essentially meaningless. Choose your words wisely, listen, react, respond. It says nothing about the intent of the listener. A listener can intentionally take a statement in good faith or bad faith. If your statement is taken in bad faith and weaponized against you it's hard to respond over the chorus of the angry mob waiting…

The point is you can't control the listener. You can only control yourself and your statements. If you find yourself in situations where people are weaponizing your statements against you, then you should consider listening and learning from them so that you can communicate effectively in the future. That's all you can do. You can't control other people.

[deleted]

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

#498

Post by Nasrudith » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 8:41 PM UTC

vore wrote: post #473

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…

> Pederasty [...] would reduce the stigma’s associated with homosexuals thus increasing social cohesion. Increasing acceptance of gay people by checks notes encouraging adults to have sex with minors. And before you accuse me of cutting out a part of your argument, you haven't actually given a definition of pederasty that's not the one everyone understands, which is "adult men having sex with minors".

Technically I believe the argument for it is even more fucked up ironically social mobility. Without pederasty the relationship to the mentor would be more encouraged along social clan lines and could lead to a rise of effective caste doms. The recognized costs of the shame and protectiveness towards one offspring means the lowest would be more likely to take such "opportunities" as fucked up as it sounds pimping out your sons is the best way to give them a better life.

It has obvious terrible effects involved with it and the very fact it is being considered is a sign that things are deeply wrong but bizzarely winds up a lesser evil in some ways. Which arguably just makes it more insidious which is a whole other moral topic.

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

#499

Post by cglace » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 8:42 PM UTC

bluntfang wrote: post #485

cglace wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you have removed so much nuance from the discussion that what you are saying is essentially meaningless. Choose your words wisely, listen, react, respond. It says nothing about the intent of the listener. A listener can intentionally take a statement in good faith or bad faith. If your statement is taken in bad faith and weaponized against you it's hard to respond over the chorus of the angry mob waiting…

The point is you can't control the listener. You can only control yourself and your statements. If you find yourself in situations where people are weaponizing your statements against you, then you should consider listening and learning from them so that you can communicate effectively in the future. That's all you can do. You can't control other people.

I really don’t see how what you are saying helps in any way. There can be a conversation outside of our agency in the situation. Sure we can adjust our language to the ever more sensitive sensibilities of society but we can also question those sensibilities at the same time. Question their harm and their value.

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

#500

Post by cmroanirgo » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 8:43 PM UTC

TuringTest wrote: post #104

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…

> 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…

> The trick is to create channels with limited audiences

I truly feel that HN is a safe haven for such notations. It's a provable, working example where first and foremost is to regard the other's words in a positive light, rather than assuming the worst. Anything deliberately otherwise gets moderated. I figure @dang sends a lot of personal emails struggling to adhere to this.

It's a system that can and should be replicated elsewhere imho.

Ironically, parent's comment here on HN has alerted me (& presumably others) about this diabolical practice (thanks @AHappyCamper), again proving HN as good, receptive platform.