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

Why conservatives won't save freedom of speech

thomasprosser.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: Why conservatives won't save freedom of speech

#51

Post by seba_dos1 »

Jensson wrote: post #41
seba_dos1 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, I could consider Sanders as a traditional left-liberal.

Sanders is far more left than any government in Europe. His reforms include giving 20% of every public/large company to workers, make 45% of company boards elected by workers, the government will instruct large companies what their long term plans must be and they are legally bound to follow those rather than the owners wishes, companies restructuring their organizations must give even more ownership to the workers w…

I don't think most governments in Europe could be considered "left" at all, especially not right now, but most European countries have a quite healthy and significant presence of left-wing parties in their parliaments anyway, while in the US Sanders is on the very extreme end of what Democrats (who can't really be described as left-wing on the whole) have to offer already.

That doesn't apply to every European country though. I live in Poland, where left-wing parties have struggled to enter the parliament for many years now and the main fight happens between liberal right and far right. The US scene, although different in several important aspects, appears somewhat similar in this regard. We also have some individuals in the major liberal right party that could transfer into a left-wing party without raising too many eyebrows.

Re: Why conservatives won't save freedom of speech

#52

Post by zozbot234 »

Jensson wrote: post #41
seba_dos1 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, I could consider Sanders as a traditional left-liberal.

Sanders is far more left than any government in Europe. His reforms include giving 20% of every public/large company to workers, make 45% of company boards elected by workers, the government will instruct large companies what their long term plans must be and they are legally bound to follow those rather than the owners wishes, companies restructuring their organizations must give even more ownership to the workers w…

IIRC, Sanders specifically favors "socialism with Scandinavian characteristics".

Re: Why conservatives won't save freedom of speech

#53

Post by yucky »

PaulHoule wrote: post #5
ContrarianBrit wrote: post #2

Conservatives increasingly emphasize freedom of speech, but are their arguments genuine? 'Though the attachment of some conservatives to freedom of speech is genuine, often reflecting Burkean elements of conservatism, I worry that conservative support for freedom of speech has weak foundations, many conservatives wielding the principle as a weapon against outgroups.'

Conservatives have embraced a campaign against "cancel culture" because it's one of the few things they offer that sells. However they are hot to ban "critical race theory" even though they struggle to define it.

"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." ~Ibram X. Kendi

Considering Kendi is the most well known of the "Critical Race" theorists, I think it's fair to say the above quote encapsulates the underlying goal of Critical Race Theory. This also explains why all of their "remedies" seem to center around racial preferences, and other forms of racial discrimination.

If people want to learn how to be a racist on their own time, that's on them. Teaching that shit in school is no bueno.

Re: Why conservatives won't save freedom of speech

#54

Post by krapp »

yucky wrote: post #53
PaulHoule wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives have embraced a campaign against "cancel culture" because it's one of the few things they offer that sells. However they are hot to ban "critical race theory" even though they struggle to define it.

"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." ~Ibram X. Kendi Considering Kendi is the most well known of the "Critical Race" theorists, I think it's fair to say the above quote encapsulates the underlying goal of Critical Race Theory. This also explains why all of their "remedies" seem to center around racial preferences, and o…

>The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." ~Ibram X. Kendi

If you want to criticize CRT, fair enough, but the actual quote is "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination." If you can't (or don't even care to) get the quote right, it seems as if you're not arguing from a position of good faith.

Here's another quote to consider, which gives some of the necessary context for the one you posted:

    “The opposite of racist isn't 'not racist.' It is 'anti-racist.' What's the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an anti-racist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.”
Also, regarding discrimination specifically:

    “The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.”
It becomes pretty clear if you look into what CRT proponents actually say, beyond a single pithy misquote, that their "underlying goal" isn't racism. Their claim is that we're already living in a discriminatory system in which the only way to achieve equity is discrimination against that existing bias in the system.

Re: Why conservatives won't save freedom of speech

#55

Post by chrismcb »

Ekaros wrote: post #35
ContrarianBrit wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the legal restrictions against critical race theory are very hypocritical

So should other things people in general disagree with be allowed in schools? Let's say advocacy for racism, discrimination and genocide? After all those should be free under free speech.

What is taught in schools has nothing to do with free speech. Actually let me rephrase that. A teacher doesn't have free speech in school, just like no one has free speech in the job. A teacher should yeah the school's curriculum. If a private school wanted to reach what you are proposing, it works be their right. But a probiotic school shouldn't be teaching that.

Re: Why conservatives won't save freedom of speech

#56

Post by hefferbub »

giantg2 wrote: post #50
krapp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one has banned religion or prayer in schools. The Supreme Court ruled that public schools requiring the practice of a specific religion by students was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as public schools are government entities. Granted, the campaign to ban coerced prayer in schools was led by a famous atheist activist, Madeline Murray O'Hair, but it's difficult for me to see the Supr…

Yes, SCOTUS only did away with state sponsored prayer. However, the implementation of that decision tends to go farther. For example, prayer must be done privately, so most overt prayer is banned. Some schools have/tried banning religious items that would be overt, such as rosaries. So it goes farther than simply banning state sponsored prayer and becomes a 1st Ammendment issue if students are being told they can pra…

I have never seen a public school that teaches firearm safety (aside from a coach teaching a marksmanship team), and never heard anyone try to claim (until today) it is some kind of historical core curriculum under siege.

But setting that aside, until recent decades schools were not routinely attacked by gun-wielding misfits, so as that circumstance changed perhaps celebrating gun culture in schools seemed like a poor idea—at least to those who don’t buy the NRA’s gun industry sponsored propaganda that the solution to gun violence is to make sure every fool is carrying one…

Re: Why conservatives won't save freedom of speech

#58

Post by orwin »

krapp wrote: post #54
yucky wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." ~Ibram X. Kendi Considering Kendi is the most well known of the "Critical Race" theorists, I think it's fair to say the above quote encapsulates the underlying goal of Critical Race Theory. This also explains why all of their "remedies" seem to center around racial preferences, and o…

>The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." ~Ibram X. Kendi If you want to criticize CRT, fair enough, but the actual quote is "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination." If you can't (or don't even care to) get the quote right, it seems as if you're not arguing from a position of good faith. Here'…

Also, while Ibram X. Kendi might use CRT for his researchs (most historians do, even those that coulb be classed "right-wing" like Furetians in France), i don't think CRT have anything to do with these quotes.

CRT, from what i've understood, is used in history to take into consideration racial interactions before trying to emit hypothesis from a text or from objects.

Critical theory is basically saying "hey other humanities, our field (sociology) is very helpfull to help you decipher weirds thing from the past!" At least that's what i understood from the lecture i got like ten years ago (eleven actually). It is also present in science history, and i guess in law studies (not sure about that).

My pet theory: CRT really took off in the US because you are less able/willing to talk about class and the spectacle of race is quite easy to find and understand, while hiding other issues.

Re: Why conservatives won't save freedom of speech

#59

Post by giantg2 »

hefferbub wrote: post #56
giantg2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, SCOTUS only did away with state sponsored prayer. However, the implementation of that decision tends to go farther. For example, prayer must be done privately, so most overt prayer is banned. Some schools have/tried banning religious items that would be overt, such as rosaries. So it goes farther than simply banning state sponsored prayer and becomes a 1st Ammendment issue if students are being told they can pra…

I have never seen a public school that teaches firearm safety (aside from a coach teaching a marksmanship team), and never heard anyone try to claim (until today) it is some kind of historical core curriculum under siege. But setting that aside, until recent decades schools were not routinely attacked by gun-wielding misfits, so as that circumstance changed perhaps celebrating gun culture in schools seemed like a poo…

I'm curious, how is firearm safety education celebrating gun culture? And how is that linked to school shootings?

It wasn't a major part of any curriculum, but that's similar to D.A.R.E. It was usually (in my experience) a lesson or two on what to do if you came across a gun (and the opposite of celebrating it - don't touch it and leave to tell an adult; although some places let older kids take hunter safety education). But also, many schools (including colleges) used to have marksmanship teams. Many of those have been shutdown over the years. PSU used to have a team. They were regulated out of existence with nonsensical ever increasing demands (like everyone on the team needs to be a certified instructor or range safety officer, when in reality you only need one or two present).

How does carrying firearms fit into this? That generally has nothing to do with firearm safety education in schools. Perhaps this, and the language used, is an indication that this is a highly politicized issue.

Re: Why conservatives won't save freedom of speech

#60

Post by ykevinator2 »

giantg2 wrote: post #37
krapp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancel culture isn't a pursuit of legalized limits on free speech, it's an expression of free speech. Only conservatives are currently pursuing anything of the sort, by attempting to regulate social media, banning critical race theory, the discussion of gender identity and sexuality, etc.

"Only" Are they also banning religion/prayer in schools, or firearm education/imagery, etc? After Trump won, I seem to remember a lot of people supporting the idea of managing misinformation on social media. My point is that all sides do it.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN