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

Removing Holocaust Denial Content

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#571

Post by CydeWeys »

jimbob45 wrote: post #522
CydeWeys wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if 99+% of people agree that someone is a hateful extremist? Isn't "the only important moral imperative is unrestricted free speech above all else" itself an extremist position? Very few people agree with what you're espousing, so, just practically speaking, there's always going to be extremist views considered so far beyond the pale that they are always "censored" by society (pro-pedophilia would be a good exam…

Such a person or belief should still be afforded due process or a reasonable platform to state their case. Otherwise, how else could it be evident to all that they’re truly wrong? I would hardly regard the ideas of due process or balanced debate to be niche ideas. Also, to my knowledge, what you said is incorrect. It is perfectly legal to debate the legality and ethicality of pedophilia and vaccination. It is not leg…

You're making all sorts of arguments here against various strawmen that don't represent my actual points in this discussion.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#572

Post by JKCalhoun »

raverbashing wrote: post #538
dcolkitt wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The Most Intolerant Wins" Except Taleb's thesis is not supported by history whatsoever. The past three centuries have had ups and downs, but overall there's been a remarkable and consistent global trend towards tolerance, liberalism, and democracy. This didn't happen because intolerant groups decided to let up on their zealotry. It didn't even happen because intolerant ideas were violently suppressed. (In almost e…

> Except Taleb's thesis is not supported by history whatsoever. Do you think the major religions got to be the size they are because people though their story was cute? > totalitarian ideologies like fascism and Marxism consistently failed to gain traction WWII and their aftermath shows exactly the contrary.

I thought the major religions got to be the size they are because they tend preach conversion to their religion (other smaller religions do not).

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#573

Post by dragonwriter »

will4274 wrote: post #559
lostgame wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Maybe it hurts freedom of speech, and maybe it's overreach That you are even willing to say that is both admirable and shows just how far out of control the concept of 'freedom of speech' has gotten; and how unfair it is - when you, whose family actually died from the Holocaust - allow room for these perspectives, while they would look you in the eye and tell you, point-blank; your family didn't die / you're makin…

Free speech includes hate speech. > since there are laws against hate speech Not in the United States. See e.g. this unanimous high court decision https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... I understand not everybody is fully supportive of liberal ideas like free speech. But there shouldn't be any confusion about what it means. Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an e…

> I understand not everybody is fully supportive of liberal ideas like free speech. But there shouldn't be any confusion about what it means. Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech.

One of the disputes that exist within the group supporting the liberal idea of free speech is it's boundary; there is general agreement that some range of speech that is both false and harmful is excluded, but the boundary of the kind and mechanism of harm that qualifies is disputed.

> Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech.

It's both false and in many contexts quite arguably harmful; whether it (in any particular context) involves the kind of harm that take it out of the realm of free speech is very much a dispute within the liberal, pro-free-speech community.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#574

Post by grasshopperpurp »

nostromo wrote: post #526
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way. Again, that’s not how people work. “The marketplace of ideas” is an idealism, a mini-utopia. It does not account for known and unpatched vulnerabilities in human psychology - and a fix from the vendor is not expected any time soon.

It is how people work, as evidenced over and over again by a widening view of compassion for others. Just look at the past 20 years and the success of the gay rights movement. Views changed because of millions of one-on-one conversations between people who disagreed on gay marriage. No censorship was required for progress. In fact, censorship would have been counterproductive, as I believe it is here. It's no coincid…

>It's no coincidence that the countries with the least free speech also tend to be the most regressive on civil rights and some of the worst places to be an ethnic minority.

Feels like this is an attempt to simplify something complex. Most Western European countries have more restrictions on speech than the US, but many of them do a better job of upholding civil rights. Just today someone posted a thread about the broken bail system in the US - for example.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#575

Post by thefringthing »

nabla9 wrote: post #222
ignoramous wrote: post #14

Admirable move. I think Facebook (and all its properties), Twitter, and other hyper-connected social networks must show a healthy level of intolerance towards groups and ideologies that are beyond reason and recall, especially when those said groups are overtly and unmistakably intolerant themselves. This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speec…

Civil law systems have "The abuse of rights principle". It means that legal right can't be used in the purpose of _only_ causing annoyance, harm, or injury to another or violating or invalidating the rights. In the EU the principle is codified in the article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. They both prohibit the use of rights in a way that…

Canada uses the common law system (with the exception of provincial courts in Quebec), but our constitutional rights are granted only up to "reasonable limits", which gives courts a lot of room to allow legislation which nominally infringes on one of those rights but which might have an overall positive effect on the exercise of others.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#576

Post by UncleMeat »

davidivadavid wrote: post #561
UncleMeat wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History isn't written by the victors. This is a common if pithy misunderstanding. For example, there has been explicit effort among historians over the last 40 years to give voice to previously silent actors throughout history. Examples include women, the poor, and the colonized.

I don't think it's a misunderstanding so much as a tautology. "Giving voice" is something victors decide to do on their own terms, they're still the ones writing history.

History professors come from a variety of backgrounds. Many of them are from groups that are still struggling in the US (ex. trans people). The definition of "victor" must become so amazingly broad that it becomes useless if you want to encompass modern historical narratives.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#577

Post by enraged_camel »

mistermann wrote: post #550
enraged_camel wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>If your case is correct, "in fact", it should be defensible in the context of a non-simplified representation of reality. The problem is that it is much easier to spread lies and misinformation than to contest and correct them. Mark Twain once said that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can even put on its shoes. This is especially true in this day and age where all it takes for something t…

This is indeed a problem, so acknowledge it as such. But do not use this problem as a justification for misrepresenting actual reality - that is dishonest. If your position is correct and righteous, misrepresenting reality should not be necessary. It is a rather sad and concerning state of affairs that there is such a widespread aversion to honesty on a site as normally clear-thinking as HN. As well, there seems to a…

Sorry, what exactly am I misrepresenting?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#578

Post by UnpossibleJim »

asimpletune wrote: post #374
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this same denial of "well documented fact and to discredit reality itself" extend to religious doctrine, also or do the corporations get to pick and choose what realities they choose to censor?

Good point but I don’t think so because those ideas, religion, are not falsifiable.

I don't think that refugees flew through space on 747's, a la Scientology (I may have gotten the specifics wrong). But, if you can show me how a 747 can fly through space, I am more than happy to be shown the error of my ways.

Many religions have falsifiable ideas in them. Some of their "core tenets" may not be falsifiable but, again, you can't pick and choose through these books to get the pieces parts to fit your conclusion after the fact.

That isn't how proofs work.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#579

Post by raverbashing »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #572
raverbashing wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except Taleb's thesis is not supported by history whatsoever. Do you think the major religions got to be the size they are because people though their story was cute? > totalitarian ideologies like fascism and Marxism consistently failed to gain traction WWII and their aftermath shows exactly the contrary.

I thought the major religions got to be the size they are because they tend preach conversion to their religion (other smaller religions do not).

Yes, but that wasn't pacific in a lot of cases.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#580

Post by throwaway894345 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #549
throwaway894345 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> recall the Hispanic utility company employee who was terminated for making the 'ok' sign inadvertently or the data scientist who was terminated for Tweeting a prominent black academic's research on the efficacy of nonviolent protests or the journalist who was harassed by coworkers and nearly terminated for interviewing a black man who expressed concern about crime in his neighborhood Which of these are things an em…

> do cancel-culture proponents really want to cement the precedent that employment is just an ordinary association, and that anyone's employment (and thus livelihood and health insurance) can be terminated on the whims of their employer? If we're talking about the US, that's already extremely firmly cemented outside of specific union protections (I haven't heard about unions going to bat for employees getting called…

> If we're talking about the US, that's already extremely firmly cemented outside of specific union protections (I haven't heard about unions going to bat for employees getting called out; I'd be interested to see if it's happening).

It's not firmly cemented, it's a common law, but it's well within the realm of possibility that Congress would pass a bill that strengthens employment protections. This is something the US has gone back and forth on for a long time; why do you assume it's fixed (i.e. "cemented") now? And if it's not cemented, why would you want to lean into that precedent?

> but is somewhat orthogonal to the question of calling out people for bad behavior.

How can you make the argument that it's "just employers' exercising their freedom-of-association rights" and then argue that freedom of association is orthogonal? Anyway, we're not talking about them exercising their freedom of association rights, we're talking about coercing employers into terminating employees who fail to toe the party line.

> That happens all the time. So does employers supporting employees' support of a political candidate.

Right, but I'm guessing you would argue that this is immoral and harmful behavior--if so, why would you advocate for those who would emulate it (note that canceling is even worse, because it's not just an employer parting ways with a heretical employee, but a mob pressuring an employer to part ways with said heretical employee)?

> Politicization of labor isn't new. My relatives who are union are required to spend off-job time working a phone bank for a few hours every election cycle in support of the candidate the union is backing; it's part of their union agreement.

Why would they do this if the status quo was already "extremely firmly cemented"?

Post reply on HN