Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that its implicit values are generally egalitarian, or at least aspire to be egalitarian, but I don't think there's a clear left-right split. My concern is not that we shouldn't be egalitarians. I'm a socialist; my avatar is named after a famous anarchist. It's that there is a culture of debate - 'cancel culture' - that betrays several flaws. Should we value debate and engage with those we disagree with or ig…
Clearly we should value debate. Clearly we "should" persuade people we disagree with. The question is whether we should be forced to. If I'm an employer, should I be forced to hire people who I personally find unpersuadably vile? That's the "anti-cancel" position, right? I can't fire you, even if you're an asshole. If I run a forum (like HN, or Reddit), I can't ban people even if they're "debating" in a way that is d…
Blog Anonymously
111–120 of 482 posts
Re: Blog Anonymously
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are those list items really that bad, though? Paraphrasing #4: you're saying that we need to welcome, broadcast and hire people who we genuinely think are vile and awful? Where's the middle ground. If we can't fire, say, violent racists, and we can't escape their words, and we can't avoid them socially, what can we do? I think the answer to that, if you look at it carefully, is going to be pretty much isomorphic to w…
I think you're making a false dichotomy. You can avoid ostracising and deplatforming people without welcoming and broadcasting them.
Perhaps I can, but can twitter?
Re: Blog Anonymously
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to inter…
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech" That's not true, it doesn't even really make sense. Freedom of anything is freedom from consequences for it. If I say I believe in freedom to have an abortion, noone would reasonably be said to agree if they said they also believe in freedom to have an abortion, and then immediate execution by the state afterwards. Freedom of speech in the constitutio…
>almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment
Not a true statement at all. 30 seconds over at r/the_donald (yes, I'm aware it's gone) makes it pretty clear there's a large swath of trolls that believe directed harassment and racism is perfectly acceptable.
>It's not a monarchy if someone has the freedom to speak, that doesn't make them a king just a citizen.
Forcing society to accept your speech is absolutely a monarchy, sorry. Your right to speech stops at my front door, up to and including terminating your employment at my company. Why is it the racists always devolve to high-school level semantics and claim freedom of speech means they're free from any consequences for their speech?
Re: Blog Anonymously
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to inter…
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech" That's not true, it doesn't even really make sense. Freedom of anything is freedom from consequences for it. If I say I believe in freedom to have an abortion, noone would reasonably be said to agree if they said they also believe in freedom to have an abortion, and then immediate execution by the state afterwards. Freedom of speech in the constitutio…
>Freedom of speech as used idiomatically in speech generally means a certain level of freedom of reprisals from employers and society.
"a certain level" implies the existence of an acceptable level of consequence, unless by that you mean "absolute." If so, why not simply state that?
>Directed racial slurs is a straw man, almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment, they normally believe in freedom to discuss topics in the abstract.
You're just moving the goalposts around the definition of "speech" so that it conveniently doesn't include the contradictions to your premise. Racial slurs and directed harassment are obviously speech. If you believe there should be consequences for that, then you believe freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Re: Blog Anonymously
#115> Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. They've already come for anyone who showed even the faintest trace of dissent from the mindlessly woke mob's narrative. Next they'll come for those who have stayed silent. Failure to project virtue signaling will soon be us…
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to inter…
And who shall be the judge of what is right and what is wrong? An internet mob? If an unknown woman issues a public twitter statement that she's been abused, is it OK to get the alleged offender cancelled before a court trial? What if they are innocent? How do you un-cancel somebody?
You don't. That's why the cancel culture is ridiculous and needs to end.
Re: Blog Anonymously
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
I probably should have said "broadly", I guess. But I still don't see how that differs from the union folks, who used an internal messaging system to notify other employees about their rights. Again, I can't help but think what you people really want is the inalienable right, not to "free speech", but to be Offensive Without Consequence. And again, Damore is a genuine celebrity now, he's a very bad example of the kin…
>you people what is this ambiguous group you speak of? >Offensive Without Consequence is being offended a protected class? why is the "right to be offended" more important than the "right to offend"?
It doesn't matter if being offended is a protected class. Offending someone isn't. And I. Our society we give individuals and groups broad powers to associate with only the people they choose to.
You can offend whomever you want, your right is protected! But if people don't like you, they're under no obligation to deal with you.
Re: Blog Anonymously
#117This goes into the how, but to me the more interesting question is the 'why'. Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? I only have one example of why; I'm a genuinely curious and open person and I like having my beliefs tested, some of my beliefs are nuanced enough that I sometimes break down my current beliefs and my reasons into blog posts. Things that I thin…
> Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into?
Are you talking about opinion pieces? Because, if something is well-cited objective+factual content that doesn't bother to express any opinions, I wouldn't care about (or even look for) authorship.
Re: Blog Anonymously
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a compelling hypothetical, but I can't think of a single person who only said they were in support of strong border protection and limited immigration and was subject to anything like what you're saying. Could you provide an example of what you mean?
Except its not I have seen people called Neonazis just for being Republican or siding with Trump whether or not they are "Trump supporters" on issues. Even saying the name "Trump supporter" is evidence alone that there is an element of cancel culture. A woman was rejected from a college recently for posting a MAGA video on Tik Tok. Some developer is being called a Neonazi for protesting against an open source org tha…
It's not any different from republicans calling liberals libtards, antifa and communists whenever someone talks about medicare for all. Both sides do it to each other, right wingers just complain about it more because the majority of people who control social media platforms tend to be left leaning.
In general, people only want free speech for things they want to say, but not for things they disagree with.
Re: Blog Anonymously
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to inter…
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech" That's not true, it doesn't even really make sense. Freedom of anything is freedom from consequences for it. If I say I believe in freedom to have an abortion, noone would reasonably be said to agree if they said they also believe in freedom to have an abortion, and then immediate execution by the state afterwards. Freedom of speech in the constitutio…
The implication that "abstract" discussion is acceptable seems to condone dog whistling, especially given that protesting much of that speech could be considered "redefining words or misinterpreting statements in a nakedly disingenuous way", as that coded redefinition by the speaker is literally what dog whistles require, but seems disingenuous outside of that context.
Re: Blog Anonymously
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
JK Rowling is a good example of middlebrow views getting you and anyone who can be associated with you in trouble. She has widely-held opinions like trans-women should be respected, but they are different from women. But if you log on to Twitter, she's vilified so much as a "transphobe" that people have been attacked for merely signing the same open-letter that she signed. https://twitter.com/emilyvdw/status/12805803…
JK Rowling is a good example of quite the opposite — someone who uses flowery language to insinuate pretty heinous things about trans people, and then pretend she’s said something innocuous. At any rate, you can’t cancel a multi-millionaire.
example?