Live data from Hacker News

Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

bigthink.com

221–230 of 480 posts

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#221

I am not a liberal. Many people are not. The paradox of tolerance is the easy counterarguement to this. If you choose to never do anything in response to the things people say that's your perogative, I on the other hand can listen just fine to other people and my response to the things they say might be to tell them to stop saying it. "I don't believe you should be allowed to say this without consequence" is also a t…

Ah yes the paradox of tolerance. The "our enemies will stop us so we must stop them first" argument. Never found it convincing for some reason.

Well it actually is something that people have to be aware of.

There’s a reason for the “ah you see, the cops have to follow the rules taps forehead” trope.

It’s genuinely hard to maintain a truly tolerant liberal democracy in the face of determined adversaries that can skillfully use the system against itself.

Now, that is no reason to take sloppy shortcuts like saying this or that opinion should be banned, but it is absolutely worth keeping in mind.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#222
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a group that is likely to be violent at that sort of provocation, you very much want to provoke them so they can be found out and somehow extinguished.

You can't extinguish an ideology, and someone who has been murdered is already murdered even if you do. By your insane logic, we should put kids out on the street by themselves to catch child predators. Sometimes the safety of the threatened party is more important than finding out who wants to harm them.

We absolutely should do that, if we can do that without actually harming children. Literally this is why we do not do that: because it would be wrong to harm children.

There should also be an international institute of holy text destruction. Build a big armored building where once a day, mass-market copies of all holy text's in common circulation in the world are unceremoniously set on fire and live-streamed.

Because if you can't deal with that without trying to kill someone, you have no place in modern society (not to mention that contextually, burning a holy text - and a flag for that matter - is considered the correct way to dispose of it).

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some speech suppresses the speech of others Isn't this exactly what you're trying to do here? > Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment > it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Ahh yes, because the people who try to redefine "free speech" like what you're doing…

> Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment It is very odd to assert that the morality of speech is completely, correctly, and undeniably established in a document written 250 years ago that defines the laws of only one country.

Just because a document is written 250 years ago doesn't make it a 'bad' document.

Why the fuck do I care what the laws in Australia are when I don't live in Australia. you should see how govts interpret the "morality" or "offending" clauses in nation-states like India and Egypt to give themselves more power and arrest dissidents.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#224
>In 1989, the novelist Salman Rushdie went into hiding. The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had issued a fatwā calling on “all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world” to kill the writer without delay, for which the assassin would receive a bounty of $1 million.

It's not a good look to start your article on how speech is not violence with a concrete example of someone using speech as violence. Or to then keep referring back to it, but only to chastise liberals and leftists for being mildly critical of Rushdie, rather than the actual god damned supreme leader of Iran who called for his death.

Fatwas are exactly the sort of thing I'd point at if I wanted to say that speech is violence. And there are plenty of examples of fatwas in the western world now. Hell, we coined the word "stochastic terrorism" to refer to them, because apparently you're not allowed to call a fatwa a fatwa unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling murder.

To be perfectly clear: we can't have a liberal intellectual society in the Arab world[0] for as long as people like the Ayatollahs have power and a platform. Likewise, speech-shaped violence in the Western[1] world harms liberal values way more than left-wingers saying offensive speech is violence. In fact, the reason why left-wingers are up in arms about offensive equals violent is specifically because a lot of that offensive speech comes with implicit fatwas built-in.

Bonus inaccuracy nit:

>The Roman Catholic Church considered the idea of heliocentricity to be harmful in the 16th century

No, they considered insulting the pope to be harmful. The academic establishment wanted heliocentricity dead, because Galileo was a mathematician - the lowest rung of the academic hierarchy at the time. They silenced Galileo by convincing the Catholics that they had been insulted by a book he published on the topic of heliocentricity.

[0] Iran is majority Shia Muslim but this isn't specific to one sect.

[1] As in, "countries with liberal constitutions and rule of law". Western countries are not literally the westmost parts of the planet.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#226

The thing is, people on the far left and the far right DON’T want a liberal society. They want authoritarianism. They want control to suppress their adversaries.

In the context of the US, everything I’ve seen suggests the right seeks authoritarianism more than the left does, doing things like getting books they don’t agree with banned, working to eliminate the votes of those not aligned with them, and weakening the barrier between church and state.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. "Kill x people" is fine and protected. "Kill x people at y date at z mall" is not.

Does that pass the "likely to produce" requirement?

Hess v Indiana did that.

Note:

>Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct.

>The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because Hess' statement, at worst, "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time." In contrast to such an indefinite future time, the Court emphasized the word imminent in the "imminent lawless action" test of Brandenburg. Because the evidence did not show that Hess' speech was intended and likely to produce "imminent disorder", the state could not punish Hess' speech.[3][4]

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#228

I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics. Everyday on the internet I see trans…

> Some speech suppresses the speech of others.

No, it doesn't.

> it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table

No, it's about making sure people can spew a continuous stream of whatever hateful crap they feel like day in and day out every day for their whole life. One of the big reasons I'm a fan of things like universal income/healthcare is because currently employment is too critical to surviving which forces people to censor their speech. Hopefully the social safety net can improve to the point where someone can be almost comically offensive every day without fear of starving.

> If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices

That's an acceptable tradeoff for a free society.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but at the same time, it's undeniable that a lot of money and attention is flowing to ever-bolder provocateurs whose only possible goal is to escalate existing tensions and iniquities to violence in service of their political aims. Then you should defeat them in the marketplace of ideas and be able to counter their facillous words. To suggest otherwise is to stand in a position where you claim that some people are…

> Then you should defeat them in the marketplace of ideas and be able to counter their facillous words. To suggest otherwise is to stand in a position where you claim that some people are incapable of intelligently reasoning about something and that another superior individual should be able to police what they hear. How do I defeat someone "in the marketplace of ideas" when the person inciting violence is backed by…

>How do I defeat someone "in the marketplace of ideas" when the person inciting violence is backed by a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate, an undemocratic government, or a police union/sheriff gang?

Violence. I would not bet against escalating physical violence in the coming decade or two in the US along political lines.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#230
post #63
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you convince someone not to have kids, is that harmful?

how can convincing (not coercing) be harmful? What's the definition of harm

Woman convinced her boyfriend to kill himself and was convicted:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michelle-carter-found-g...

Post reply on HN