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

371–380 of 506 posts

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

#371

Post by remarkEon »

slg wrote: post #363
remarkEon wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that's the paragraph I was referring to, and seems to be the only one that's relevant to what you're saying. No one knows what the state standards are? They're all listed right here on their website[1]. Do you think your hypothetical conversation qualifies as "classroom instruction"? I don't think so. [1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

>No one knows what the state standards are? They're all listed right here on their website[1]. Where are they listed on that website? I don't see them. Maybe the standards have been defined in the last few months, but they didn't exist at the time the bill was first proposed.

>TITLE XLVIII EARLY LEARNING-20 EDUCATION CODE

Are you saying Florida had no education standards before this bill was passed?

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

#372

Post by wpietri »

throwawayacc2 wrote: post #232
wpietri wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I'm not seeing the relevance to my points. Are you sure you meant to reply to me?

Yes, I am sure I meant to reply to you.

Well I still don't see the relevance. Unless your point is that to you I'm a fanatic and various books by academics and respected writers are the same thing as ancient religious. So either way I don't see much point in further discussion. Enjoy your day.

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

#373

Post by nibbleshifter »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #353
daniel-cussen wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flyover Country Revolution. Flyover no more. Charge toll for overflying it. Why shouldn't private jets pay you up directly?

What are they going to do? SAM a few civilian flights?

And now someone's said it.

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

#374

Post by remarkEon »

29083011397778 wrote: post #364
remarkEon wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that's the paragraph I was referring to, and seems to be the only one that's relevant to what you're saying. No one knows what the state standards are? They're all listed right here on their website[1]. Do you think your hypothetical conversation qualifies as "classroom instruction"? I don't think so. [1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

Do you think most kindergarden teachers have the money set aside to pay for time off (likely unpaid) and a lawyer to defend them in court from overzealous parents? And would you stake your career on that? Because that's the chilling effect that keeps getting brought up here. Will the lawsuit be thrown out? Maybe. Will you win? Probably. But finding out is a gamble that costs time, money, and stress, whether you win o…

How is any of this relevant? The danger of some overzealous parent misinterpreting something their 2nd grader says has always existed, which is why teachers go through extensive training. You're going from a law that essentially says "instruction on sex and sexual orientation starts in 3rd grade, not before" and inventing a scenario where teachers in Florida basically quit because the risk is too high.

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

#375

Post by lamp987 »

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…

>Yup, that's me. What's wrong with that according to you?

The wrong part is that you didnt read the Popper's book because that million-times repeated internet argument is a complete and total misunderstanding of his point, based on a small part cut out of the bigger context.

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

#376

Post by csa »

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…

> 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?

1. Conservatives regarding LlGBTQ issues, especially in schools, especially towards younger people, especially regarding books.

2. Liberals regarding some conservative thought that is most definitely not illegal to say (e.g.(it’s not a direct call to violence). Very common on US college campuses.

3. NFL (and other orgs) regarding peaceful symbolic of police violence during the national anthem. See Kaepernick and his torched career due to the direct and indirect prohibitions.

4. Olympics.

5. Lots of topics where folks may advocate for policies that existed in the past regarding things like rights for women, rights for various ethnicities, rights (or even acknowledgement) of non-cis people. Those policies are considered regressive by most modern day liberals and moderate conservatives, but are harbored (often somewhat secretly) by a not small number of people. Determining who is allowed to marry is a sample theme.

> Did people complain that newspapers wouldn't allow the KKK to print opinion essays whenever they wanted? Did they get upset when a convention hall wouldn't let certain groups rent out their space?

Yes and yes. You either don’t know these peoples or don’t have access to their personal thoughts. As an example, I live in California, and I’m white, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard casual conversation about the imminent (all-white) state of Jefferson that will secede from CA. It’s bonkers.

> Free Speech was never about requiring private citizens to provide a platform for any speech someone wanted to make. It is about not using the law to stop the speech. That belief is still strong in the United States.

Largely true, but some only mildly controversial speech is being restricted by orgs that get federal and state funding. That’s an issue that really needs to be addressed and resolved.

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

#377

Post by ls15 »

jimbob45 wrote: post #178
gruez wrote: post #121

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? That sounds like the logic behind "free speech zones". Yeah, we're not blocking protests, or arresting legal protesters. You just have to protest in a designated area 5 miles away where it won't disrupt everyone.

There has to be some reason behind protesting or we end up wasting resources arresting everyone and trying to fight over who gets to protest in prime space at prime time. It’s better for everyone if we’re civilized about it.

So the French should have refrained from storming the Bastille in 1789 and later executing the king, and instead should have brought the issues with liberty, equality and fraternity to Louis XVI's and the clergy's attention in a non-aggressive tone?

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

#378

Post by chroma »

wizofaus wrote: post #365
chroma wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>But I don’t want the government saying what I can and can’t read So because you personally don't want something, you're arguing free speech should be completely unrestricted even if it's demonstrably causing harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre)? You're OK with the government restricting how you can physically interact with others (assault/battery etc.) but somehow you believe that the way you verbally interac…

The "fire in a crowded theater" analogy is from Schenck v. United States[1], in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr sent socialists to prison for distributing flyers that protested the draft in World War I. So yes I am against more restrictions on speech. Any restriction will be abused by those in power. The cure is worse than the disease.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

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

#379

Post by slg »

remarkEon wrote: post #371
slg wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No one knows what the state standards are? They're all listed right here on their website[1]. Where are they listed on that website? I don't see them. Maybe the standards have been defined in the last few months, but they didn't exist at the time the bill was first proposed.

>TITLE XLVIII EARLY LEARNING-20 EDUCATION CODE Are you saying Florida had no education standards before this bill was passed?

I'm not looking for their general education standards. I am looking for their education standards specifically on how to teach about "sexual orientation or gender identity" in an "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" way because that is what the law we are discussing references.

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

#380

Post by kelseyfrog »

afpx wrote: post #270
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…

The Popper quote, I’m guessing: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” As long as there are more tolerant than intolerant, then everything’s ok, right? Why does a society…

Society creates intolerance out of a few simple social mechanisms: typification, legitimation, institutionalization, and reification. Let me explain.

Typification is the psychological process of simplifying human behavior into causal chains. It is an expression of the desire to deacribe, compress, and explain human actions without an infinite number of edge cases and suffers from the bias variance tradeoff as it is an inherently predictive activity.

Legitimation turns the descriptive rules of typified behavior into normative rules of how people ought to behave eg: that person didn't meet my expectations, therefore their behavior is wrong.

Instutionalization codifies these normative behavioral rules into social systems eg: justice, educational, scientific, medical, &c.

And finally reification externalizes the process entirely and frames it instead as a natural product of facts and reality (either secularly or religiously, or a combination of both). The end result is a subjective internalization of such an externalized reality used to justify legitimation at the individual and/or institutional levels.

Intolerance arises as a reaction to the breaking of such behavioral norms in that either specific behaviors or their embodiment in groups of people are incompatible with the internalized norms. Rather than adjust ones norms, the behaviors or people embodying the violated norms are sought to be extinguished.

At this point you should have a working model of the process and can begin to imagine what it would look like to throw a spanner into the works.

Note: I've purposely skipped over essentialism and some other topics that could be useful in understanding the process well enough to disrupt it, but this comment is already getting too long.

Post reply on HN