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

Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

scholarship.law.cornell.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 94 posts

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#31

Post by clairity »

krapp wrote: post #28
clairity wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

remember that the abortion issue, as a matter of law, is about the state's interests in the body. it does not litigate religious or social mores, but most of the "debate" is of this latter type. i personally agree with the recent supreme court ruling that abortion rights shouldn't rest on privacy protections, but rather on a robust reading of the constitution that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right above and beyo…

>remember that the abortion issue, as a matter of law, is about the state's interests in the body. it does not litigate religious or social mores, but most of the "debate" is of this latter type. It seems specious to claim this when the states' interests in the body in this regard (as well as gay marriage and any other rights formerly predicated on the right to privacy asserted in Roe) are based on conservative Chris…

there's a whole body of political science literature that would heartily debate that stance. at most, political discourse and religious discourse grew up together and influenced each other, but to say one is based on the other is a rhetorical diversion at best.

gay marriage shouldn't be predicated on privacy either. two people want equal protection under the law as any other two people who have enjoined their lives together. that's basically it. certainly the gender/sex of those two people isn't the state's concern, because reproduction is not a state concern, but rather a private matter.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#32

Post by clairity »

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #29
clairity wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, stop thinking of sides at all, and especially don't start with a side first. start with reasoned first principles (the constitution is a good start) and continue to reason your way to a position on any given issue that is consistent with those first principles, sides be damned. the only reason you pay attention to sides is identifying with and wanting to defend a side in the first place. don't worry about defendi…

Forgive me for my ignorance: why would the constitution be a good start for reasoned first principles? The constitution was written centuries ago by wealthy men who considered women and other men property and its updating process is so onerous that it still has nothing in it that considers women equal to men, despite women's right to vote, pay taxes, own businesses, etc. being established decades ago.

while it's certainly biased by the thinking of the time, that stuff isn't enshrined in the constitution, not to that degree. the wealthy white dude framers knew they weren't perfect, so they allowed for changes by providing an amendment process to patch the rough spots. the constitution is a good start, not the final endpoint.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#33

Post by 14amxn14 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #19
NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #7

[flagged]

Let's have a look at the front page of poal.co, part of your daily reading to get outside the 'standard' filter bubble. OGRellik88 jewspiracy • 10h ago ANN NSFW Graphic How the ADL started. [652x844 - 142KB] (pic8.co) MrPotatoNigger askpoal • 5h ago How do we stop faggots from fucking monkeys? First it was HIV/AIDS and now Monkeypox... and it only affects one group. Clearly faggots fuck monkeys and they need to be st…

No post body was provided.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#34

Post by PuppyTailWags »

clairity wrote: post #32
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me for my ignorance: why would the constitution be a good start for reasoned first principles? The constitution was written centuries ago by wealthy men who considered women and other men property and its updating process is so onerous that it still has nothing in it that considers women equal to men, despite women's right to vote, pay taxes, own businesses, etc. being established decades ago.

while it's certainly biased by the thinking of the time, that stuff isn't enshrined in the constitution, not to that degree. the wealthy white dude framers knew they weren't perfect, so they allowed for changes by providing an amendment process to patch the rough spots. the constitution is a good start, not the final endpoint.

Like I said, the updating process is so onerous that women aren't considered equals under the constitution decades after women are obligated to pay taxes, have the right to vote, and other such things. I don't understand why it should be considered a good set of first principles because of this, because it would imply that the equalness of people isn't a first principle.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#35

Post by clairity »

notriddle wrote: post #30
clairity wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, stop thinking of sides at all, and especially don't start with a side first. start with reasoned first principles (the constitution is a good start) and continue to reason your way to a position on any given issue that is consistent with those first principles, sides be damned. the only reason you pay attention to sides is identifying with and wanting to defend a side in the first place. don't worry about defendi…

I like actually thinking about things, but does that address the problem where you’re more likely to see people who disagree with your (well-reasoned) opinion as violent?

it takes some mental fortitude to maintain this position, but you have to understand that 99.99% of the time, those other people think of themselves as good and reasonable too. and the feeling of violence is a direct result of identifying with your chosen "side", thus feeling personally affronted. rather, you can create space between who you are and what you believe, and in this way, someone can attack those beliefs without it affecting who you think you are. you don't feel it's violent against you because of that separation. you can similarly project that separation onto other people, so that you're not attacking them personally, but just discussing their ideas and beliefs.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#36

Post by mensetmanusman »

krapp wrote: post #28
clairity wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

remember that the abortion issue, as a matter of law, is about the state's interests in the body. it does not litigate religious or social mores, but most of the "debate" is of this latter type. i personally agree with the recent supreme court ruling that abortion rights shouldn't rest on privacy protections, but rather on a robust reading of the constitution that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right above and beyo…

>remember that the abortion issue, as a matter of law, is about the state's interests in the body. it does not litigate religious or social mores, but most of the "debate" is of this latter type. It seems specious to claim this when the states' interests in the body in this regard (as well as gay marriage and any other rights formerly predicated on the right to privacy asserted in Roe) are based on conservative Chris…

The state is based on Christian beliefs? What beliefs should it be based on if any?

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#37

Post by gruez »

clairity wrote: post #20
notriddle wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't just partisan "sides." It's also sides of specific legal questions. I don't think "just stop picking a side regarding abortion, gun ownership, or gay marriage" is a reasonable solution. These are political wedge issues, but they are also legal questions with answers that can affect your daily life. Of course you want it to go a certain way!

no, stop thinking of sides at all, and especially don't start with a side first. start with reasoned first principles (the constitution is a good start) and continue to reason your way to a position on any given issue that is consistent with those first principles, sides be damned. the only reason you pay attention to sides is identifying with and wanting to defend a side in the first place. don't worry about defendi…

>start with reasoned first principles (the constitution is a good start) and continue to reason your way to a position on any given issue that is consistent with those first principles, sides be damned.

How do you come up with first principles? Consequentialism vs deontology has been around for centuries and it's obvious which one is the the correct one.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#38

Post by clairity »

gruez wrote: post #37
clairity wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, stop thinking of sides at all, and especially don't start with a side first. start with reasoned first principles (the constitution is a good start) and continue to reason your way to a position on any given issue that is consistent with those first principles, sides be damned. the only reason you pay attention to sides is identifying with and wanting to defend a side in the first place. don't worry about defendi…

>start with reasoned first principles (the constitution is a good start) and continue to reason your way to a position on any given issue that is consistent with those first principles, sides be damned. How do you come up with first principles? Consequentialism vs deontology has been around for centuries and it's obvious which one is the the correct one.

that's a false dichotomy for the rhetoricians. it's both, and more, and more complicated than that.

we spend the first 18 years or so of our lives empirically deriving those first principles together, along with the derivations of our ancestors in the form of documents like the constitution. since none of us are intrinsically perfect, we have a whole running population who nonlinearly superpositions our perspectives to create a common, if dynamic and imperfect, consensus of what's reasonable in a social context, and what's not.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#39

Post by notriddle »

clairity wrote: post #35
notriddle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like actually thinking about things, but does that address the problem where you’re more likely to see people who disagree with your (well-reasoned) opinion as violent?

it takes some mental fortitude to maintain this position, but you have to understand that 99.99% of the time, those other people think of themselves as good and reasonable too. and the feeling of violence is a direct result of identifying with your chosen "side", thus feeling personally affronted. rather, you can create space between who you are and what you believe, and in this way, someone can attack those beliefs…

Unfortunately, it’s easy to bury your feelings and convince yourself that you’re looking at things impartially, even when you’re actually not.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#40

Post by clairity »

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #34
clairity wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while it's certainly biased by the thinking of the time, that stuff isn't enshrined in the constitution, not to that degree. the wealthy white dude framers knew they weren't perfect, so they allowed for changes by providing an amendment process to patch the rough spots. the constitution is a good start, not the final endpoint.

Like I said, the updating process is so onerous that women aren't considered equals under the constitution decades after women are obligated to pay taxes, have the right to vote, and other such things. I don't understand why it should be considered a good set of first principles because of this, because it would imply that the equalness of people isn't a first principle.

i mean, do you really believe that today, women are not considered equal, even if it's not perfectly spelled out by the constitution? more importantly, does that matter for using the constitution as a starting point? it doesn't have to be the constitution by the way; that was simply a convenient and relevant example of a starting point.
Post reply on HN