Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end • Hacker News Board

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#171

Post by vkou » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 6:22 PM UTC

bcrosby95 wrote: post #153

vkou wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Popper was so daft as to believe that only Soviets and Nazis are capable of the kind of intolerance that should not be tolerated. I'd daresay that democracies happily carrying out repressions, summary executions, lynchings, concentration camps, institutionalized slavery, etc, etc would meet that bar as well. You don't need to drape a swastika around you to be a fascist, you can get by just as well with…

The point is that he wasn't talking about people saying dumb shit on twitter. He's talking about people using intolerance to justify physical violence against people.

You are wrong. That's exactly the point he is making. That we have to take action against intolerance before it gets to the point of physical violence.

> 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.

The thing he wants suppressed here is the act of 'denouncing all argument' and of 'forbidding their followers to listen to rational argument' and of 'teaching them to answer arguments by the use of (force)'. Any of these Quips remind you of anything in modern discourse? They should.

Because he's not interested in seeing if their grab for power is actually going to work or not, before suppressing it.

To continue quoting Popper:

> We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

And a lot of the shit on Twitter today is ranges from skirting those lines to stepping right over them. He views this behavior on a spectrum of borderline-to-actual criminal.

If what he was preaching was 'wait for fascists to start beating people/doing the Beer Hall Putsch/invading Poland before doing anything about them', it wouldn't be called The Paradox of Tolerance. There's nothing paradoxical about stopping intolerant violent action after it starts. What's paradoxical is that you have to stop intolerant violent action before it starts, by stopping intolerant non-violent action.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#172

Post by splistud » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 6:23 PM UTC

russdill wrote: post #80

colechristensen wrote: post #3

"I find people who don't think exactly like me to be intolerable" is the bread and butter for controlling a population. People look at the past and think to themselves "those people in the past were wrong, that's why the one acceptable way to think being enforced with power was immoral, on the other hand, my opinions are right, so the ends justify the means". Intolerance is intolerance, regardless of how morally just…

That's a super broad brush. Throwing in the "exactly" makes this particularly overbroad. It's perfectly OK to think that people with certain views are intolerable and that isn't some path to fascism. There are people I don't want to associate with because of views I deem intolerable. I think the necessary addition is "and they need to be stopped".

No. It's not wrong at all. THIS is the obstacle to free expression.

If you want to police actions according to societal laws, that is moral. Policing speech you don't like IS fascist.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#173

Post by dbingham » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 6:23 PM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #3

"I find people who don't think exactly like me to be intolerable" is the bread and butter for controlling a population. People look at the past and think to themselves "those people in the past were wrong, that's why the one acceptable way to think being enforced with power was immoral, on the other hand, my opinions are right, so the ends justify the means". Intolerance is intolerance, regardless of how morally just…

There's a line though. It's called the paradox of intolerance. If we are tolerant of intolerance, then we risk intolerance winning.

So we need to be tolerant of different ways of thinking - EXCEPT - for those ways of thinking that seek to take power to oppress others.

And that, of course, is where things can get sticky. Because we often differ on what constitutes oppression. There are those who believe that any form of taxation is oppression, while most would agree it is necessary for society to function.

There are certain things that we really should all be able to agree constitute oppression however - and top among them is wanting to kill, enslave, or restrict people for nothing more than being who they were born as.

Today, many people seem to equate those who are being intolerant of intolerance with those who are actually being intolerant.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#174

Post by SiempreViernes » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 6:23 PM UTC

josephh wrote: post #147

phillipcarter wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an influx of right-wing people who are trying to rebrand "free speech" as being able to say reprehensible things with zero _social_ consequences. So you're unfortunately trying to reason with the wrong person. Their belief is that all speech in all forms should be free from any consequences, social, legal, or otherwise.

And what is your point? Let them face consequences. That is not a justification for suppressing such speech.

To clarify, you think they should face the consequence of their speech that is owners of platforms not wanting to associate with them, and you think such authors loosing their platforms is not suppression of speech? Or just one of those?

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#175

Post by lucideer » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 6:23 PM UTC

hunglee2 wrote: post #35

the article is an example of orientalism, presenting the case as if there is no urgency on the matter in the Western world. Cancel culture, de-platforming, algorithmic dampening, account mislabelling, brigading on-platform, account suspension and deletion - all of these things are happening in the Western world, on US platforms. I used to have sympathy with the the argument that 'private company's can do what they li…

Your first sentence started out being a very valid point (the West is certainly portrayed in a biased favourable fashion by this article).

But then your 2nd paragraph descends into nonsense... those are not good examples.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#176

Post by angst_ridden » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 6:24 PM UTC

ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: post #121

hotpotamus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see these complaints (generally from the right wing), and I think... so what? No one ever seems to have any action tied to resolve their complaints, presumably because it would ironically require creating laws that restrict speech - what is cancel culture other than a reflection of free speech in its own right after all? Of course, if you start talking about boycotting Israel, they'll be happy to send the law after…

Cancel culture is not the result of free speech, it's the result of a toxic social environment. Here are some actionable solutions that don't require limiting free speech: 1. Improve labor laws so craven employers can't just dump their employee because they said something online (unrelated to the company on their personal time) and people are complaining. 2. Regulate social media algorithms to prevent the feedback lo…

Should employers be required to retain employees who say things that damage their business?

Are algorithms free speech? Who gets to determine which algorithms I'm allowed to implement to promote or demote comments on my private media platform?

How do you propose altering media incentives without restricting people's freedom of expression? Passing laws?

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#177

Post by ad404b8a372f2b9 » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 6:25 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #151

ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancel culture is not the result of free speech, it's the result of a toxic social environment. Here are some actionable solutions that don't require limiting free speech: 1. Improve labor laws so craven employers can't just dump their employee because they said something online (unrelated to the company on their personal time) and people are complaining. 2. Regulate social media algorithms to prevent the feedback lo…

You don't think employers should be able to fire people who cost them money?

Definitely not in these circumstances but the cost is irrelevant to this discussion.

Should employers be able to fire cancer patients who go on sick leave for months or years?

Should employers be able to fire a green man if their clients hate green people?

What matters is where you set the bar for someone losing their means of survival, in what circumstances would you like your neighbour to go homeless: Because he has cancer, because he is green, or because he said something controversial in public.

I don't want any of these, and I believe a healthy society should have strong enough labour laws to put the employee before the employer in these circumstances.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#178

Post by nostromo » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 6:25 PM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #160

nostromo wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Popper is literally talking about Soviets and Nazis marching into your country and killing dissidents. It's ridiculous to extend his thinking to our modern and relatively mild transgressions.

I'd like to point out that the US had people with literally Nazi flags walking through the streets attacking people who looked different, supported by a significant portion of the establishment (including a president). I would not call that minor transgressions. How do you think Hitler got into power?

This endless catastrophizing, something you're taking part in, is a big part of the problem.

Trump isn't Hitler and Antifa burning down police stations is not the Warsaw Uprising.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#179

Post by rascul » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 6:27 PM UTC

polski-g wrote: post #164

bondarchuk wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think it's too high or too low?

Too high... You can be put in a cage, for words, in the UK.

I don't know any specific examples off the top of my head but I'm fairly sure that's true for the US as well. The bar might be higher, though.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#180

Post by immibis » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 6:27 PM UTC

dleslie wrote: post #47

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance 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 self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

Popper also sets the limit fairly clearly in his description of the paradox, and it's: > 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 argu…

Even that line is blurry. A lot of people who reject rational argument will give the appearance of accepting it, but then after a little while you realize they're not even listening to your rational arguments and they're just spouting more and more irrational nonsense each time.