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

Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

journals.sagepub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 506 posts

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#281

Post by Levitz »

bandyaboot wrote: post #229
cies wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance. Yup, that's me. What's wrong with that according to you? If your expression is promoting violence, especially violence against a vulnerable group (children, minorities, I'd say even animals), I'm okay with drawing up laws against such things. Thereby reducing freedom of expression. Advertising for instance. If every building/land owner or municipality could…

Could someone explain to me why the mass downvoting of the above comment is not hypocritical? I believe it is, but would be interested in hearing opposing thoughts.

The paradox of tolerance explains how in an open society, when one ideology dismisses rational thought and discussion and opts to, instead, silence opposition, society must be intolerant of that ideology in order to be tolerant itself, because if it allows intolerance then it will become less tolerant itself.

That is the paradox. In order to be as tolerant as possible you must not be as tolerant as possible.

This formulation is very often misquoted, interpreted to mean that a tolerant society must repress bigoted beliefs. That leads to no paradox at all, the term "tolerance" is used with different meanings in order to misconstrue a formulation. In doing so, people misquoting are being what the first, correct formulation warns us about.

It is a quite ironic phenomenon, people use an argument of authority that actually states the complete opposite of what they want. I don't think it is hypocritical to support the correct formulation and, thus, silence people positing the incorrect one.

Not that I downvoted him, not that I can, not that I would, I believe these matters to be better left out in the open, but I don't think it's hypocritical.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#282

Post by wincy »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #111
Dig1t wrote: post #55

I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…

The news media are decidedly less pro-free speech than before. They could afford to promote free speech back when they had a monopoly on people's attention when it came to news. Now that Google can direct you to any number of independent sources, the news media feels threatened and wants to censor unapproved views so they can maintain the Overton Window. Noam Chomsky: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedien…

My wife is part of a focus group for public radio and she’s an avowed anarcho capitalist. She says things like “I suspect in 50 years the US will either not exist or be a much looser organization where the states rule” and the focus group woman says “that’s not going to happen!”, dismisses her out of hand, and refuses to write it down then moves on to the next person.

I think at a certain point the Midwest will have had enough of the stuff going on on the East and West coasts and it’s probably going to be a really bad time. Probably ultimately worse for the conservative parts but not after a very unstable and possibly violent period. I hope I’m wrong though.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#285

Post by lettergram »

TimPC wrote: post #261
hirsin wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Book banning is the right's equivalent of deplatforming, with the bonus that they are getting the government to do it, not just a private company. They do take it further though, with banning of talking about how to get an abortion, banning of talking about LGBT topics in school. I can't say that allowing those topics, or even pushing them, is targeting the right. By definition it's about some other group being suppo…

It always surprises me the right wants to ban books. After all they want minors to read a book with beastiality in it. It will be fun to see what the courts say on banning the bible from elementary schools in Florida on the grounds that beastiality is not age appropriate.

Pretty sure the Bible also isn’t taught in public schools.

This is why I strongly support school choice. Let the parents decide how to raise their children.

Also that said, those sections of the Bible typically aren’t highlighted, aren’t graphic, don’t appear in all bibles and kids will get abridged versions.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#286

Post by sebastianconcpt »

It makes total sense. The more diversity of ideas the more filtering noise and evaluating paradigms capacity you need. A simple ideology creates a prefabricated filter so people that can't or don't want to put the work can outsource filtering discernment to ideologies and save brain horse power.

They also willingly brainwash themselves when they allow ideology dictate their behavior, of course.

PS: Just paying behavior in exchange for convenience. World-view reason, consistency, logic and principles are totally irrelevant for ideology.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#287

Post by chroma »

cies wrote: post #198
MichaelCollins wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? The way it works is: "Sure I support free speech, but saying X is not free speech and saying it should be against the law because its offensive and might incite violence or something." If you object, they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance.

> they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance. Yup, that's me. What's wrong with that according to you? If your expression is promoting violence, especially violence against a vulnerable group (children, minorities, I'd say even animals), I'm okay with drawing up laws against such things. Thereby reducing freedom of expression. Advertising for instance. If every building/land owner or municipality could…

Three problems with that:

1. Every time you restrict what people are allowed to say or write, you are in effect restricting what people are allowed to hear or read. I read and listen to many things I disagree with. Sometimes I even find the content abhorrent. But I don’t want the government saying what I can and can’t read.

2. Who decides? Any government body with such powers is ripe for abuse. And do you expect such officials to be unbiased in their application of the law? My bet is that each administration would use it as a cudgel against their political opponents.

3. What about religious texts like the Bible, Qur’an, and Torah? All of them contain commandments to do violence to women, children, and animals. All of them command the reader to kill homosexuals. Hell, all of them are pro-slavery. By any sane reading of your proposed law, they’d be banned. And if you carve out an exception for them, you realize that such restrictions are impossible to apply objectively.

The original proponents of free speech weren’t dogmatic, they were pragmatic. They simply thought the world would be better off if government agents couldn’t arbitrarily restrict what people were allowed to read.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#288

Post by falcolas »

cortesoft wrote: post #105
Dig1t wrote: post #55

I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…

I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud? I think what you mean is that people are calling for internet platforms to kick out certain groups. This is in no way a call against freedom of speech. I am not sure why people suddenly believe that being for 'free speech' means that other p…

Free speech is, in most countries in the UN, a human right, not a restriction on government action.

So, yes, I believe that private companies (which effectively make up the whole of the internet) are morally responsible for helping to provide platforms for legal speech.

Especially if they want to claim free speech protections for themselves.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#289

Post by sejje »

abathur wrote: post #250
sejje wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Domain registrars and webhosts are canceling accounts based on content, so no, not anyone can use the internet to communicate.

There's a substitution, here. The GP's statement is still roughly correct: approximately anyone can use the internet to communicate. Everyone using other people's infrastructure to communicate on the internet is to some degree subject to content restrictions.

"The internet" has "other people's infrastructure" built in to its very fabric. You cannot have the internet without other people's infrastructure, whether in 1995 or 2022.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#290

Post by stjohnswarts »

throwawayacc2 wrote: post #165
cortesoft wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud? I think what you mean is that people are calling for internet platforms to kick out certain groups. This is in no way a call against freedom of speech. I am not sure why people suddenly believe that being for 'free speech' means that other p…

> Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud Proponents of hate speech laws and their silent enablers would be one answer. Certainly not the only one. > I think what you mean is that people are calling for internet platforms to kick out certain groups. This is in no way a call against freedom of speech. You keep telling yourself self that. Especially when social values will change again as they always do and…

Those laws were made to protect specific groups and their basic human rights to operate in a society. You have you no right to force me to host your opinion however. Especially when that are dozens (hundreds?) of hosts that will pretty much allow anything if they will allow Gab, Stormfront, 4chan, etc.
Post reply on HN