Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 606 posts

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

#561

Post by TuringTest »

Chris2048 wrote: post #446
marcus_holmes wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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.

What you're missing is that this is something that will happen anyway, explicit CoC or not. Someone with power will always be in a position to judge the rules and enforce them in his own way on someone without power, by definition.

But if there is an explicit code, you are warned in advance of the actions that will more likely trigger enforcement, instead of finding them after the fact.

Therefore, you can decide to avoid those actions, or avoid the event entirely. In some ways, an explicit CoC is giving more power to participants over the organizer, not the opposite.

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

#562

Post by blueflow »

fzeroracer wrote: post #551
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…

> 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. I mean, what you posted is a textbook example of transphobia, no matter how light it may be. I've worked with many trans people and have many trans friends, none…

Did you read my second paragraph?

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

#563

Post by fzeroracer »

textgel wrote: post #556
fzeroracer wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the same way that those involved with the recent floyyd protests will be labelled as opportunistic thugs looking to destroy property and assault people This is so disengenuous as to veer into the realm of absurdity. You seem to be completely ignoring the actual intent of the two groups in attempt to conflate them to defend your argument. Not to mention both side-ing them is an absolute joke. The intent of the floyd…

No the intent as described many times in the comment chain was protection of the statues; that was what spurred the counter protest. Both sides began under good intent; both sides had bad actors who caused trouble; both sides get labelled.

And as DanBC said multiple times, that was not the real reason why they were out there. You seem to be ignoring all context for why they were out there and who organized it in attempt to equate the two in a disingenuous manner. At this point it's obvious you're not here to argue in good faith.

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

#564

Post by fzeroracer »

blueflow wrote: post #562
fzeroracer wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I mean, what you posted is a textbook example of transphobia, no matter how light it may be. I've worked with many trans people and have many trans friends, none…

Did you read my second paragraph?

Yes, I did. It doesn't change anything. It's still transphobic to lump them together and then attempt to justify your attempt to avoid them on your perceived notions.

As a thought exercise, if you were to change your argument to be one about race, it would be a racist thing to say 'I don't wish to work with black people because they take things so personal'.

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

#565

Post by textgel »

fzeroracer wrote: post #563
textgel wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the intent as described many times in the comment chain was protection of the statues; that was what spurred the counter protest. Both sides began under good intent; both sides had bad actors who caused trouble; both sides get labelled.

And as DanBC said multiple times, that was not the real reason why they were out there. You seem to be ignoring all context for why they were out there and who organized it in attempt to equate the two in a disingenuous manner. At this point it's obvious you're not here to argue in good faith.

Unfortunate as it is but neither you nor DanBC are the global authority on other peoples "real reason" for doing things no matter how you feel on the subject. Context is also a poorly thought out point to bring up considering plenty was provided; numerous examples of destruction of statues given before, no sign of slowing and future targetting given often and loudly.

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

#566

Post by blueflow »

fzeroracer wrote: post #564
blueflow wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read my second paragraph?

Yes, I did. It doesn't change anything. It's still transphobic to lump them together and then attempt to justify your attempt to avoid them on your perceived notions. As a thought exercise, if you were to change your argument to be one about race, it would be a racist thing to say 'I don't wish to work with black people because they take things so personal'.

You probably missed what i meant with "self-identified", in context of an online community.

A better analogy than the one you provided:

If someone comes to an online community and announces that they are cisgendered and must be referred in way X, i don't want to work with them, either.

This isn't a question of gender, race or sexuality. Its a question about not being self-absorbed prick that forces everyone around them to walk on eggshells.

Experiencing gender dysphoria is a driving force for engaging in this kind of behavior, this is why my complaint is focused on these few trans people.

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

#567

Post by luckylion »

joshuamorton wrote: post #458
luckylion wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> While it's indeed possible that there are ambiguous cases, that doesn't invalidate the idea in general.

Compared to you vs the US president, I'd say all cases are ambiguous. Are we just measuring the president and then say "that's what the people in power believe", or are we determining everyone's power level and opinions and then weigh both to find out what part of those in power believe X?

It's impossible to do accurately, and you won't get a binary picture even if you managed to do it.

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

#568

Post by coffeeling »

dijit wrote: post #517
lkrubner wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but did you believe these things because an algorithm on social media was giving you a limited view of the world? My own view is that I could limit my intake of knowledge to just a handful of people, but if they were the right people, I’d end up with a more original worldview than if I tried to read “both sides” since “both-sides-ism” tends to reactively assume the people shouting old views loudly represent an…

I did not believe those things due to an algorithm, I believed those things because I was never exposed to anything outside of my "bubble". People in my City tend not to leave especially if they are poor. Exposure to the real world had a painful destructive effect, and if I had clung back into my safe little cubby hole I would have done so swiftly. -- I believe "both sides" is important; but you're right that people…

There's a concept known as steelmanning - most people aren't good at arguing their case, but their case usually has some kind of merit. You steelman an argument by trying to build the strongest, most defensible form of an opponent's argument, read it charitably and presume good faith and tgen try to take it down. That usually involves understanding why a stance forms and its emotional truth, and engaging with that has a funny effect of making people feel heard.

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

#569

Post by fzeroracer »

blueflow wrote: post #566
fzeroracer wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I did. It doesn't change anything. It's still transphobic to lump them together and then attempt to justify your attempt to avoid them on your perceived notions. As a thought exercise, if you were to change your argument to be one about race, it would be a racist thing to say 'I don't wish to work with black people because they take things so personal'.

You probably missed what i meant with "self-identified", in context of an online community. A better analogy than the one you provided: If someone comes to an online community and announces that they are cisgendered and must be referred in way X, i don't want to work with them, either. This isn't a question of gender, race or sexuality. Its a question about not being self-absorbed prick that forces everyone around th…

> If someone comes to an online community and announces that they are cisgendered and must be referred in way X, i don't want to work with them, either.

This literally happens all of the time, though? It's the 'default'. If you called a cisgendered man 'she' or a cisgendered woman 'he', they would likely politely correct you in the same way anyone else would. The only way you'd avoid that is by collectively referring to everyone in gender neutral pronouns which is certainly possible.

> Experiencing gender dysphoria is a driving force for engaging in this kind of behavior, this is why my complaint is focused on these few trans people.

And this is objectively wrong. People experiencing gender dysphoria is not a driving force in engaging in this kind of behavior (ie what you call 'taking everything so personal') considering, again, I have friends who have dealt with such issues and do not behave in the way you claim.

It really sounds like you're stretching your argument in attempt to justify your own transphobia. At best you're unfairly stereotyping them based on your own experiences and at worst you're behaving in an irrational manner by attempting to avoid them because you seem to think of them being 'self-absorbed pricks'. You're essentially arguing that people should shut up and not mention who they are at all.

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

#570

Post by coffeeling »

blueflow wrote: post #566
fzeroracer wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I did. It doesn't change anything. It's still transphobic to lump them together and then attempt to justify your attempt to avoid them on your perceived notions. As a thought exercise, if you were to change your argument to be one about race, it would be a racist thing to say 'I don't wish to work with black people because they take things so personal'.

You probably missed what i meant with "self-identified", in context of an online community. A better analogy than the one you provided: If someone comes to an online community and announces that they are cisgendered and must be referred in way X, i don't want to work with them, either. This isn't a question of gender, race or sexuality. Its a question about not being self-absorbed prick that forces everyone around th…

I think I love you.
Post reply on HN