Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

581–590 of 606 posts

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

#581
post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is that you think the problem is "the ever more sensitive sensibilities of society" but the real problem is that you're unwilling to listen to other people and communicate with them effectively.

You can't control other people's sensibilities. If you find that your actions don't return responses that you want, you should consider adjusting your actions.

What's the saying? Doing the same thing expecting different results is the definition of crazy?

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

#582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny that you claim I come from a social environment where people are 'more fragile' when I consider it simply basic respect to call people what they want. It seems like you managed to completely ignore my John / Johnny example as well, so I think it's becoming clearer that you're not really here to debate in good faith. Also personally, one of the red flags I find in difficult people is those that choose to st…

Do you know why i ignored it? Like, when im with other adults, the tone is much harsher sometimes, especially when we are drunk. So you need to have the skin for that, which is generally a useful trait in life. So i assumed your argument featuring a fragile cis man was due to a lack of social experience. Did i stereotype an entire group? I explicitly stated that i have problems with a specific behaviour from a part o…

> Do you know why i ignored it? Like, when im with other adults, the tone is much harsher sometimes, especially when we are drunk. So you need to have the skin for that, which is generally a useful trait in life. So i assumed your argument featuring a fragile cis man was due to a lack of social experience.

Generally speaking, 'having thick skin' doesn't give you carte blanche to be an asshole to someone else. If you're an asshole to a coworker and you tell them to get thicker skin, you're likely going to be fired at worst if not reprimanded. That has nothing to do with fragility, that has to do with people not wanting to associate with you. As an aside: Having 'thick skin' means effectively not standing up for yourself when someone's being a dick which is generally a not useful trait in life. There's a balancing act between being getting angry at the drop of a pin and letting someone abuse you.

> Did i stereotype an entire group? I explicitly stated that i have problems with a specific behaviour from a part of a group, and explicitly told that parts of the group don't exhibit this behaviour. You ignored that.

Yes you did.

> 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.

Is stereotyping. Replace 'transgender' with 'black' and you'd be racist instead of transphobic.

> I said that i was leaving communities due to this behaviour. I'm the one leaving, not the transgender people. I'm, at most, ostracizing myself.

Usually I find when people say this, they don't actually leave the community. They're usually chasing off other users, often causing other drama in their wake.

> And then you come and go accuse me of arguing in bad faith. Seriously. You are just looking for something to get offended about.

Because you are arguing in bad faith. The fact that you choose to think that I'm 'looking for something to get offended about' just further proves my point.

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

#583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was part of a group that had a policy of apolitical(ity) Until a topic (think BLM kind) came along that people thought should be an exception; The usual arguments: this wasn't politics, this was basic human rights / existence; It was offensive not to allow, is was oppression to not discuss. Basically, enough people cared more about than their continued membership, or even the continued existence/stability of the gr…

That's politics. If social norms change and you want your group to have continued legitimacy, you may need to change with them. Not having a code of conduct doesn't make things any different.

What "social norms change" require groups wishing to be apolitical to not be, except the most extreme?

The you'd describe being apolitical as not being "legitimate" is chilling.

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

#584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Someone with power will always be in a position to judge

True, but maybe a CoC gave them that power. A CoC is a sufficient-but-not-necessary condition for such abuses.

> an explicit CoC is giving more power to participants

In the sense that it gives an opportunity to self police. The biggest army never needs to fight.

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

#585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know why i ignored it? Like, when im with other adults, the tone is much harsher sometimes, especially when we are drunk. So you need to have the skin for that, which is generally a useful trait in life. So i assumed your argument featuring a fragile cis man was due to a lack of social experience. Did i stereotype an entire group? I explicitly stated that i have problems with a specific behaviour from a part o…

> Do you know why i ignored it? Like, when im with other adults, the tone is much harsher sometimes, especially when we are drunk. So you need to have the skin for that, which is generally a useful trait in life. So i assumed your argument featuring a fragile cis man was due to a lack of social experience. Generally speaking, 'having thick skin' doesn't give you carte blanche to be an asshole to someone else. If you'…

> If you're an asshole to a coworker and you tell them to get thicker skin, you're likely going to be fired at worst if not reprimanded

what? you are joking, right? This is not how stuff works here...

You read that i always said 'self-identified' transgender, right? Because i know that the majority of transgender people aren't like that

> Usually I find when people say this, they don't actually leave the community. They're usually chasing off other users, often causing other drama in their wake.

I left without saying a word. Its not my style to announce myself when entering or leaving a community. Why do you assume such a thing about me?

> The fact that you choose to think that I'm 'looking for something to get offended about' just further proves my point.

I told you that because you started to make unfounded accusations towards me. Check the thread history, what did i accuse you of? Compare that to what you accused me. You are more emotionally charged than it is good for any discussion.

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

#586
post #545
post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont believe I was defending her. i believe in facts and the statement was factually inaccurate, She moved more conservative and started her conservative persona after the left rejected or ejected her from their circle. Not sure how correcting the record with facts is "defending" some one but I guess in times of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act I absolutely am not a fan of her or her works…

You seem to think her rejection by the left was some kind of extreme act ("far more moderate than the Extreme Authoritarian left accepts") and yet she was actually rejected for setting up a doxxing site! It's not an extreme act to reject someone for that, and nor is it a moderate act to set one up.

Again we are back to revisionism. The Authoritarian left likes nothing more than to doxx people, it happens every day on twitter and it is a critical part of Cancel Culture

That was not way she was rejected

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

#587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's politics. If social norms change and you want your group to have continued legitimacy, you may need to change with them. Not having a code of conduct doesn't make things any different.

What "social norms change" require groups wishing to be apolitical to not be, except the most extreme? The you'd describe being apolitical as not being "legitimate" is chilling.

Put another way, if as a leader you don't take time to recognize the priorities of those whom you are responsible for, they'll eventually revolt.

In some sense, what I'm saying is that it's not possible to be apolitical. Politics is just lens through which we analyze human interaction. You can't have social groups without politics.

If you mean specifically "politics" in the US democratic/republican party sense, that's in theory a more attainable goal, but keep in mind that under that definition you excuse what is objectively bad behavior (IBM supporting the Nazis, as an example). Not to mention that the political parties in some sense have a vested interest in making things that shouldn't be political issues "political".

And you also get into the question of what is political? Are facts political? Is saying "black people are killed by police at a higher rate than white people" political? You're ultimately just advocating for a different form of censorship, which is fraught with all the same problems as any other form, but additionally with the duty to appear unbiased in how you define what is or isn't political.

That's an inherently conservative position to take. Which you should recognize if you want to take it.

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

#588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you know why i ignored it? Like, when im with other adults, the tone is much harsher sometimes, especially when we are drunk. So you need to have the skin for that, which is generally a useful trait in life. So i assumed your argument featuring a fragile cis man was due to a lack of social experience. Generally speaking, 'having thick skin' doesn't give you carte blanche to be an asshole to someone else. If you'…

> If you're an asshole to a coworker and you tell them to get thicker skin, you're likely going to be fired at worst if not reprimanded what? you are joking, right? This is not how stuff works here... You read that i always said 'self-identified' transgender, right? Because i know that the majority of transgender people aren't like that > Usually I find when people say this, they don't actually leave the community. T…

> Stop taking sexual identity so seriously - its not central to anything.

> You are just looking for something to get offended about.

> You might come from a social environment where people are much more fragile than in my environment.

It sounds like you might need to grow some thicker skin yourself. You started off by stereotyping, making a lot of assumptions and also accusing another user of being rude.

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

#589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is still how trans people think today. Some trans people find external validation important, yes. But being trans is not defined by external validation (and certainly not external perception), but instead self perception.[0] This is obvious: it would imply that a man in drag is a trans woman, which is obviously untrue. > If the identity of gender-fluidity can be externally erased by your wording, its perceptio…

> But being trans is not defined by external validation [...] Did i say so? My observations and your 'definitions' are different. > Like I said, I was simplifying, and specifically the simplification erased some identities. Language is inherently symbolic and thus an simplification (an reduction). This makes "Identity erasure" an very toxic concept - you are guilty of it because there wasn't a way to comply with it i…

> Did i say so?

I've isolated the statement I was responding to at least twice: "because this is what they think makes their voice 'valid'." You seem to think that trans people believe that, even if you yourself don't.

> Wow. You can't say that - that's really rude and a offense to transitioned people.

I don't see how differentiating between passing and non passing when we're talking about the impact of external perception is offensive, but please elaborate, I'm open to criticism.

> They only want to be accepted as Women.

And as I explained, this limits the definition of Trans to only a very specific type of trans person. It seems like you're saying that those are the right kinds of trans people. Perhaps that's why you're met with friction with those people: you're choosing to invalidate their self-perception because they don't conform to how you think a trans person should be.

In your mind, the trans "identity" is someone in one gender role who swaps to another gender role quietly.

After this point, the rest of your post was really just a rant about how you don't want to accept trans people who don't conform to your perception of them. That's you playing identity politics, it's forcing an identity on to them. And this is why I mentioned that I don't get identity politics: it's not a liberal or US-centric thing. It's a lens. It's a form of analysis of the world, a framework for looking at interpersonal interactions. Forcing someone to conform to an identity is identity politics just as much as identifying with an identity in a way you disagree is. They're two sides of the same coin.

The argument that identity politics forces you to be controlled is the exact same argument that the US religious right used for years to push back against all the "personal life choices" you mention, like marrying a same-gender person. It's the same argument that the US religious right pushes when they try to ban trans people from using the right bathrooms. The argument that respecting someone else's personal choice is an imposition on you. It's the same argument.

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

#590
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As of 2015, same-sex marriage is legal across all 50 states (no idea about territories). Progress can sometimes can incredibly ugly, and I wish it wasn't, but a win is a win.

Civil Rights Act was 1964, and we're still struggling to live up to standard proposed by the law.

Women were given the right to vote in 1920, and they still make on average 20% less than men (and 40% less for Black women).
Post reply on HN