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

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#41

Post by clairity »

notriddle wrote: post #39
clairity wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

this is true, but that's even moreso why we need to have such conversations openly, especially with people different from us, to elucidate our blind spots.

and that's the crux of why diversity can be powerful. it's not about diversity of demographics, but diversity of perspective and thinking that strengthens societies (and companies and teams).

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#42

Post by [deleted] »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #36
krapp wrote: post #28

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. 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?

[deleted]

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#43

Post by int_19h »

clairity wrote: post #25
karaterobot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've got an opinion on some issue, especially a strong one, then you're on a side, and there is an 'other'. Be careful not to conflate a sense of your own independence with a sense of your own lack of biases or immunity to human irrationality.

no, you don't have to think in sides. you can have a position and discuss your position with others. you don't have to think of them as your enemy, but rather your conversation partner, someone who can help you expand your perspective and perhaps even change your mind.

At the end of the day, all those discussions still result in actual decisions. In some cases, those decisions affect people in a very negative way. Given that, why shouldn't one see someone advocating for decisions that will negatively affect them as an enemy?

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#44

Post by clairity »

int_19h wrote: post #43
clairity wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, you don't have to think in sides. you can have a position and discuss your position with others. you don't have to think of them as your enemy, but rather your conversation partner, someone who can help you expand your perspective and perhaps even change your mind.

At the end of the day, all those discussions still result in actual decisions. In some cases, those decisions affect people in a very negative way. Given that, why shouldn't one see someone advocating for decisions that will negatively affect them as an enemy?

because it doesn't help in the long run, even if it soothes the feathers in the short.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#45

Post by OOD »

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.

>Like I said, the updating process is so onerous that women aren't considered equals under the constitution

Mind pointing out where exactly in the current, live form of the constitution where women are not considered equal?

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#46

Post by asiachick »

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.

> nothing in it that considers women equal to men

The 14th amendment covers this. It requires all persons to be treated equal under the law.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#47

Post by OOD »

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.

>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.

Mind pointing out where exactly in the current, live form of the constitution where women are not considered equal to men?

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#48

Post by specialist »

clairity wrote: post #9
karaterobot wrote: post #8

Before making moral evaluations, it's really useful to look at these situations, and try to automatically reverse the "polarity" of the actors involved. If you see people doing something and you think they're on your side, imagine a similar scenario in which people are taking the same actions for a cause you are violently opposed to, or on behalf of a group you find deplorable. And vice versa. This helps reduce the c…

or even simpler, stop being on a side, then you don't have to do mental tricks like "reversing the polarity". you can just see things for the way they are, without personal identity invested in the situation. this is exactly what being independent is.

> this is exactly what being independent is.

"I think that, a) you have an act, and that, b) not having an act is your act."

-- Linda Powell, Singles [1992]

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#49

Post by niknoble »

guelo wrote: post #17
NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #7

[flagged]

Quoted post unavailable.

What he means is that there is vastly more pressure on people to align with the Democratic party than the Republican party. It's hard to imagine that anyone would disagree with this in good faith. It was already true ten years ago, and the amount of pressure has increased by an order of magnitude in the last two years.

Thanks to social media, the effect goes well beyond America, and the Democratic Party of the United States effectively sets the tone for all political discussions in Europe and many in Asia.

It's one thing to say, "Yes this is a seismic shift, and I support it." I'm happy to have that discussion. But it's so surreal to watch people deny it outright. This whole saga has changed my view of history and human nature.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#50

Post by niknoble »

dibujante wrote: post #11
NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #7

[flagged]

Gonna stay out of gab, thanks: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYr3HYCWAAE6A6T?format=jpg&name=...

And Gab's rivals use their megaphones to say less-than-flattering things about white people, men, etc. You're not going to escape bias or vitriol by sticking to one echo chamber. Not in this cultural climate, at least.
Post reply on HN