Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate • Hacker News Board

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#111

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 9:02 AM UTC

wesleywt wrote: post #102

colordrops wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but I'm disgusted with this thought process that has taken hold over the last several years. You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits. It's shockingly self-centered and leaves no room for the possiblity that you might be wrong about the matter, and that you are moving the goalposts for what is considered acceptable speech. The road to hell is paved…

Free speech absolutionist, like you, also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled". I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government.

> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled"

Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS.

There's a line when it comes to social consequences of speech and people like you are conveniently ignoring that fact to avoid having to explain why it should be drawn so cancelling falls on the acceptable side.

But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#112

Post by ls15 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 9:05 AM UTC

nhinck2 wrote: post #104

ls15 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is a paradox. As soon as your practice of free speech limits other people's ability to practice free speech, you are not actually practicing free speech, but attacking people's freedom of speech.

I think you have failed to understand the paradox.

I just don't think it applies to free speech. And I don't interpret free speech as I can say whatever I want whenever I want, but I am free to express my opinion. This does not include freedom to attack other people's freedom.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#113

Post by mariusor » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 9:15 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #75

zaptrem wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a current senior at Cornell and I'm conflicted. > On Friday, the administration told students in an emailed statement "we have an expectation and responsibility to engage with viewpoints that we disagree with," but that "we must also respect that walkouts are a legitimate form of protest and an appropriate expression of disapproval." I like free speech as much as the next Hacker News user, but many of the actions…

Sorry but I'm disgusted with this thought process that has taken hold over the last several years. You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits. It's shockingly self-centered and leaves no room for the possiblity that you might be wrong about the matter, and that you are moving the goalposts for what is considered acceptable speech. The road to hell is paved…

> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits

I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things which have an objective quality of being immoral. Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#114

Post by Dracophoenix » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 9:21 AM UTC

endymi0n wrote: post #72

zaptrem wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a current senior at Cornell and I'm conflicted. > On Friday, the administration told students in an emailed statement "we have an expectation and responsibility to engage with viewpoints that we disagree with," but that "we must also respect that walkouts are a legitimate form of protest and an appropriate expression of disapproval." I like free speech as much as the next Hacker News user, but many of the actions…

And there we are again: Demonstrating that an absolutist take on free speech tends to destroy free speech itself in the long run. „The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the…

And what's ignored about the so-called paradox is the commonly omitted second half of Popper's quote:

"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 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."

This already fits well within the realm of free speech, free association, and the retributive justice system. The intolerant and the tolerant (both of which are in their common parlance subjective terms) are not required to associate with each other. Either party has the right to speak its mind. Only when force is involved would intolerance be justified. And even then, such intolerance should exist only in an objectively assessed proportion to the prior intolerant acts carried out and no more.

https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-...

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#115

Post by kybernetikos » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 9:34 AM UTC

dvt wrote: post #93

sofixa wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From 1: > Neo-Nazis are attracted to the town because Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess was once buried there. Though his remains were exhumed in 2011 and his grave was destroyed, far-right extremists still flock to the town year after year And that's why all those dead after Nuremberg were cremated and their ashes were spread in rivers and seas. Nobody wants neo-Nazis shrines.

> Nobody wants neo-Nazis shrines. Ironic, considering the Pyramids at Giza are literal monuments to slavery. Free speech -- i.e. the free exchange of ideas, ergo the natural extension of freedom of thought -- is a fundamental and transcendental ideal, and it's a hill I've died on and gotten downvoted for plenty of times. Germany, Nazis, and the USA probably won't be around 200 millennia from now, but the ideal of fre…

According to some things I've read, the latest view is that slave labor was not primarily used for building the Pyramid at Giza. Wikipedia suggests 'conscripted laborers' as the main workers.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#116

Post by throw_5202 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 9:40 AM UTC

midasuni wrote: post #60

HexDecOctBin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP is saying that if some is criticising the Chinese government, it does not imply that they are being racist towards Chinese people. But these students try to muddy the waters by conflating the two issues.

Sounds like the “criticise Israel and you’re anti semetic” thing

Different people have different motivation: among people who criticize Israel there are people driven by antisemitism. Of course not all critics are antisemitic. The same with China - some can be right (in critics of CCP) for wrong reasons (xenophobia/nationalism). Or one can criticize specific policies for good reasons and be labeled as a racist.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#117

Post by RhysU » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 10:11 AM UTC

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #100

systemvoltage wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're in the US: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Emphasis mine. There is a beautiful expansion by Blackstone. It…

The Constitution is a great document. We no longer live in a world where the spirit of the document matters. It’s a shibboleth, a proxy for the actual political discourse. It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman, in service of whatever opinion one has. Ultimately meaningless. So the question stands. If one is to legislate morals, whose will win? This is the real question of the last 4 decades of Am…

> the spirit of the document

What do you mean by this?

> It’s a shibboleth

It is known by all. What definition are you using for "shibboleth"?

> It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman...

There's not a need to refer to the rules in any game unless one participant thinks that the rules have been broken.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#118

Post by lpcvoid » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 10:43 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #84

It really bothers me how people foam at the mouth about this when there is far more direct evidence of much worse abuses in Israel/Palestine than Xinjiang, but somehow Xinjiang is the next holocaust and China is Nazi Germany. CIA and State Department propaganda at work.

Give me a break. Just because people point out that something is not good, it isn't invalid because worse things exist. Take off the conspiracy hat.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#119

Post by jgwil2 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 11:30 AM UTC

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #111

wesleywt wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech absolutionist, like you, also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled". I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government.

> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled" Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS. There's a line when it comes to social consequences of speech and people like you are conveniently ignoring that fact to avoid having to explain why it should be…

>> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled"

> Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS.

OP never said any consequences were acceptable; we have laws against shooting people so clearly such a consequence is proscribed in civil society.

> But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right.

By that logic, if someone says something racist and then loses friends or a job because of it, that violates their human rights. But surely we cannot force people to associate with someone who says abhorrent things without in turn violating their rights.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#120

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 11:52 AM UTC

jgwil2 wrote: post #119

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled" Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS. There's a line when it comes to social consequences of speech and people like you are conveniently ignoring that fact to avoid having to explain why it should be…

>> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled" > Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS. OP never said any consequences were acceptable; we have laws against shooting people so clearly such a consequence is proscribed in civil society. > But the t…

> By that logic

My logic is that, in order to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, there needs to be a line. The moment the "consequences" of expressing an opinion are predominantly punitive is where it needs to stop.

So no, by my logic, you're totally allowed to not be friends with someone who says something racist. As for losing a job, in an ideal world where this person could just get another job, yes, that'd be acceptable. But when it turns into losing the right to have any job whatsoever, then no, that's definitely not okay either.