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

#591

Post by closeparen » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 9:24 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…

People looking to start outrage mobs aren’t going to care that what you said was acceptable on the channel where you said it. You’re still the speaker, they’re still going to make it expensive for your real-world contacts to implicitly endorse your views by continuing to associate with you.

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

#592

Post by cgrealy » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 10:49 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #544

cgrealy wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

> Nazism, on the other hand, is an inherently evil ideology. Hopefully, I don't have to explain why. The situation I was referring to has nothing to do with the Nazis: it was after WW2 when the East/West conflict ramped up and Berlin was divided in two sectors (Soviet/Western controlled), but surrounded by the Soviet controlled sector of Germany. The Soviet Union then decided to enact a blockade to stop transports to…

Jesus, this is tiring...

First, it's not "my system". I'm not a Soviet apologist, I'm not a communist, and frankly I don't even think communism is a workable system of government.

But I would the same exact things about libertarianism.

Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I think people should be prosecuted for it.

I get that you're trying to say that there's something inherent in communism that causes totalitarian states, but you are confusing correlation with causation.

Whatever terrible things have been done in the name of communism (and absolutely, some of the worst attrocities in history have taken place under communist rule), the same or worse things (slavery, genocide, oppression, colonialism) have been done under capitalist rule.

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

#593

Post by the_resistence » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 12:04 AM UTC

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #311

TuringTest wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This ignores that the web has birthed a global culture of people where participation in online discussion is the majority of their lives. And they sit around looking to be offended to raise their own social value amonst their online peers. Being offended is about obtaining value and for mobs to obtain power. The two way street of both trying to not offend AND the listener trying to honestly interpret what is being sa…

This is so great. We have lost the art and skill of critical thinking and exposure to all ideas because some say free speech is fine so long as you only say things that I agree with. We're regressing intellectually and fast.

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

#594

Post by johnsonjo » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 7:39 AM UTC

johnsonjo wrote: post #161

yc-kraln wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find it to be controversial that questioning someone's humanity or personhood isn't simply "offensive." I find it very surprising that people chanting anti-Semitic nonsense continue to find acceptance and defenders in the United States. To have a tolerant and open society you need to be intolerant to those who are intolerant. Why is this new or subject to debate?

I agree with you and right now antifa and BLM are the ones preaching intolerant rhetoric. They can’t for the life of them figure out that we just need to put the past behind us and see that we really have it good right now. They don’t see how much toleration they get despite their intolerance of American Principles, the founders of America, and capitalism. I even heard recently from Larry Elder’s interview on Great A…

Although sometimes I like playing the keyboard warrior as I did just here in my previous comment. I also feel there are good people that are in the movement of BLM. I sympathize and empathize with those that are hurting right now. I also believe BLM is not fully responsible for the rioting really I don’t know who to blame for that but regardless lawlessness is not cool. I believe in BLM the concept but not the movement. BLM the concept to me is that BLM because some black people feel and at times, if not very often are discriminated against who get nasty looks anything really. I don’t back down with what I said though. Just as there are people in BLM that do the following there are also people in ALM that are being intolerant, anti Semitic possibly racist and the like. I think they too should be treated with intolerance to an extent. They should not feel welcome making those comments, because they should make a change. I still agree that we should defend The right to free speech that we disagree with, but that just means to me that the government shouldn’t infringe on those rights. We have the freedom to speak our words from possible government intervention, but not a freedom to choose the social consequences. I think people forget that part of the Republican platform in America is standing for individual liberty. As I’ve been told recently if we are color blind that may be bad if we are unaware of our own personal things that make us an individual that’s also bad. Individual liberty to me means standing up for everyone including the little guy but you can’t stand up for the little guy at large expense of the group just as you can’t stand up for the group at the large expense of the minority. That principle I learned from the book Economics in One Lesson and also Our Republican Constitution. If BLM the organization donation’s list goes through ActBlue can you really say it’s a bipartisan movement? I believe the Republican Party still aligns with the principle of BLM the concept but the organization and it’s movement seems to me to drift to partisan politics.

More about ActBlue:

> Powering Democratic candidates, committees, parties, organizations, and c4s around the country.

[1]: https://secure.actblue.com/ [2]: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019

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

#595

Post by coffeeling » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 9:25 AM UTC

gentleman11 wrote: post #80

prox wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the problems with upvote/downvote is that it is binary, while topics of discussion in the social rarely aren’t. In the social space of forming opinions, many things happen in a grey spectrum, and need not be polarized all the time (upvote / downvote)

Sam Harris once proposed a “this changed my mind” button as a way to encourage discourse.

Having multiple different reaction buttons would legit be nice:

I agree

I disagree

Thoughtful

Contentless

I learned something

I changed my mind

This way we could eg. express that we disagree with the post, which was thoughtful and a good effort, and didn't change our minds but still learned something.

One huge poison in a lot of modern discourse is that accepting your interlocutor has a point should mean you start to agree with them. Why? Some of the best things I've ever read in my life didn't change my overall stance on a subject, but gave it a lot of new nuance and depth, and appreciation for the person talking.

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

#596

Post by coffeeling » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 9:29 AM UTC

rini17 wrote: post #148

scarmig wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a fan of easy ability to downvote and upvote. What I would be interested in is a more sophisticated ordering than by net number of votes. For example, I'm sure some people's upvotes correlate well with my own (and probably some people's downvotes correlate with my upvotes!) If comments could somehow be ordered by how likely I am to upvote them, based on historical correlations between my and others' votes, that s…

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.

I'd really like "I learned something" as a vote button. It's poisonous to think that I agreeing with something means I have to adopt the other person's stance on an issue, and if I disagree I have to denounce their contribution as horrible and bad.

Some of the best stuff I've ever read didn't change my overall stance on the issue, but gave it nuance and depth it didn't have before, and more respect for the person on the other side.

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

#597

Post by coffeeling » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 10:01 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #4

rbecker wrote: post #2

Just in case someone finds the examples in the article all acceptable censorship, here's a few more off the top of my head: Evergreen professor forced to resign for opposing day of white absence: https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstei... UCLA professor placed under investigation for reading MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lect... Dat…

The last one about the data scientist tweet got even crazier : https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-raci...

O_o

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

#598

Post by coffeeling » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 10:29 AM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #95

To quote Noam Chomsky, "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for people we despise, we do not believe in it at all." That's not to say you're entitled to not be fired for any reason that makes you a liability to a company, but I'm seeing far too many people applauding political violence. "Punch Nazis" is now the standard internet response to any right-wing demonstration and those who repeat that slogan always fa…

Punch Nazis is bankrupt in any case: Punching an ideologue makes you feel good, but it won't change their mind. So it serves your own need for righteousness but little else.

"But it worked in WWII", someone will say. No. They didn't punch Nazis in WWII. They killed them. They took to them with rifle and bayonet, bombed their towns and factories, and forcibly dismantled their party and government.

You don't need to convince the person if you're unilaterally revoking their right to live. You just shoot, bomb, and stab them. Punch a Nazi is bankrupt because it doesn't solve the problem it purports to. You reduce Nazi headcount by convincing them and by giving people sane alternatives so they don't end up throwing their lot in with clowns celebrating Hitler's birthday or by straight up killing them, and Punch does none of those.

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

#599

Post by coffeeling » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 10:41 AM UTC

yc-kraln wrote: post #107

cwhiz wrote: post #34

Shouting people down in public and on the internet doesn’t change opinions. People just talk more quietly or take more care with whom they share their thoughts and opinions. Cancel culture, outrage culture, and the general “social justice” movement is not much more than a wide scale attempt to silence dissenting thought. Build your own bubble, and shout down anyone who thinks or speaks differently. Yell and call it “…

I don't find it to be controversial that questioning someone's humanity or personhood isn't simply "offensive." I find it very surprising that people chanting anti-Semitic nonsense continue to find acceptance and defenders in the United States. To have a tolerant and open society you need to be intolerant to those who are intolerant. Why is this new or subject to debate?

> To have a tolerant and open society you need to be intolerant to those who are intolerant. Why is this new or subject to debate?

It's a somewhat gross simplification of Popper's original:

"Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

- Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies" (1945)

Doesn't the social justice movement nowadays look rather much like Popper's second paragraph?

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

#600

Post by coffeeling » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 10:46 AM UTC

johnsonjo wrote: post #594

johnsonjo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you and right now antifa and BLM are the ones preaching intolerant rhetoric. They can’t for the life of them figure out that we just need to put the past behind us and see that we really have it good right now. They don’t see how much toleration they get despite their intolerance of American Principles, the founders of America, and capitalism. I even heard recently from Larry Elder’s interview on Great A…

Although sometimes I like playing the keyboard warrior as I did just here in my previous comment. I also feel there are good people that are in the movement of BLM. I sympathize and empathize with those that are hurting right now. I also believe BLM is not fully responsible for the rioting really I don’t know who to blame for that but regardless lawlessness is not cool. I believe in BLM the concept but not the moveme…

> I also feel there are good people that are in the movement of BLM.

There are good people in any movement, especially if it is sufficiently large enough. And you will certainly find much virtue even in people advancing vile causes if you take stock of their character apart from advancing the vile cause.

Social justice itself is a pile of toxic thought patterns trying to fight for goals that are by and large good. They just do it twelve different kinds of wrong. If a person doesn't think there are good people protesting on the streets and in the movement just because they genuinely care and want to see things better, I'd posit they should go get some new eyes. They just have a nasty brain virus infection.