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

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

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 480 posts

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

#291

Post by yterdy »

kmeisthax wrote: post #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 vi…

>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.

I laughed, but it's important to point out that fatwas are not a formal Islamic method of putting out a hit on someone. A (likely inexhaustive) list of major fatwas declared over the past few centuries includes edicts like, "You should get vaccines," and, "Don't smoke cigarettes," and, "Coke and Pepsi are fine, actually." A lot of them are objectionable from a Western humanist's point of view, but they're not all (or even mostly) concerned with unaliving someone.

I imagine tht this lack of understanding is kind of a crucial disconnect, frustrating the West's efforts to help to curb human rights abuses in Islamic regions.

>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 [threats against life and limb] built-in.

Important to emphasize. People are surprised when good ol' boy speech gets you self-defensively cold-cocked, not understanding that such speech is often part-and-parcel of attempted assault and murder. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Richard_Collins_III) It's not speech that proceeds violence, it is speech as subject to violence's predicate, a sort of kiai.

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

#292

Post by s1artibartfast »

farmaway wrote: post #235
garbagecoder wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't realize this and they also don't realize that equal opportunity laws also apply to white, male, christians, etc.

The laws are almost never enforced that way and almost always flouted in that direction, so the common misperception is understandable.

This hyperbolic nonsense to say laws are almost never enforced that way.

There are real biases and Injustice, but it doesn't a disservice do any reasonable debate to make such exaggerating claims

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

#293

Post by gallopingcomp »

commandlinefan wrote: post #50
vannevar wrote: post #7

I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought. They are calling for boycotts and de-platforming, both of which fall well within the bounds of the "marketplace of ideas." While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We…

> I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought Well, they're literally doing this in the UK - people have and are being arrested for offensive speech.

And sometimes fined, but also sometimes having their convictions overturned - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_Unit...

Not “literally” the same as assault charges though - “public order” laws have a long sordid history of their own.

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

#294

Post by s1artibartfast »

dqpb wrote: post #46
jrm4 wrote: post #9

Lawyer here, and this definitely strikes me as one of a surprising number topics in which, the law has for some time, already a very effective and useful way to get at this concept. Sure, speech can be harmful and hurtful, to the point that someone should get punished for it. But the law has generally done very good job of reminding us that this tends to be a VERY NARROW possibility, i.e. the harm has to be very spec…

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

Harm and causality are not the sole factors that the law turns on. I can convince people to do all types of terrible things, but that does not make it illegal

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

#295

Post by luckylion »

keerthiko wrote: post #272
luckylion wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This flavor of "cancel culture" transcends my definition in a lot of ways (often involving physical violence, unjust law enforcement incarceration, employment discrimination and more). Employment discrimination aside (you'll find that with the tolerated kind of canceling, too, even though the employers may not do it voluntarily, but catering to mob pressure, but then again, aren't they often in racist settings as w…

> The problem I see with tolerating the common cancel culture is that it's often as arbitrary as those motivated by racism etc because it depends on exactly what the article was arguing IMO any "arbitrary" cancel culture response will quickly self-correct, unless the affected party doubles down on their offense and doesn't handle the response well. That's kind of a PR skill and I don't see it as a problem of cancel c…

Thank you for your explanation and for not regarding my questioning as an attack against you. I now understand your position better and for what it's worth, I find it consistent in itself, and that's, at least to me, the major hurdle any position on these things has to take and very few do.

I'm not worried too much about celebrities facing cancellation. But with normalization of the approach, it becomes a generic tool against individuals, celebrity or not. It's certainly not swatting, but well-placed campaigns against someone can quickly find them in hot waters with their employer, landlord, neighborhood or even friends and family, who might want to cut ties to not be targeted themselves, even if they don't believe that the allegations are true or that they're offensive. It looks too much like a mob to me, and mobs rarely care about truth, justice or appropriateness, they care about annihilation (and the thrill of the act, and the bonding experience).

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

#296

Post by s1artibartfast »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #177
rootusrootus wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court won't need to get that far, convincing itself falls under conspiracy without having to conflate it with coercion.

That strongly depends on how you convince them. If you one-on-one talk someone into shooting up a school, that's conspiracy. If you tell a large audience that teachers and children are a scourge upon society that must be eliminated and count on some small fraction to be unhinged enough to connect the dots, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Even the private conversation does not raise to the level of conspiracy without a plan.

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

#297

Post by Zetice »

rajin444 wrote: post #171
Zetice wrote: post #127

Sigh, every single time this comes up, people gloss over the part of freedom of speech that involves free association. I’m free to say, “i hate ”, and you’re free to refuse to associate with me as a result of that. It’s so simple. The government can’t, but you can. As long as we all agree with that, then yeah freedom of speech is great, you just don’t get to stop applying it when you feel satisfied.

This argument always comes up too and you end up with certain people trying to force others to bake cakes a certain way. The whole idea of “protected classes” spits in the face of free speech. I think free speech is a noble goal but can only really exist when we don’t live in a zero sum world. Until then: > "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more or less." Alice responded to Humpty Du…

Protected classes are a whole different thing, about how what you are isn’t something someone can evaluate you by.

There are so many “exceptions” to free speech, but acting like it’s all or nothing seems silly.

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

#298

Post by fallingknife »

flippinburgers wrote: post #240
fallingknife wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who equate speech with violence are usually looking for a way to respond to speech with violence.

You bring up a very observable fact about how the extreme left is approaching the right via antifa. I don't see a reason for downvotes.

My comment is not directed towards any one political orientation.

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

#299

Post by comte7092 »

flangola7 wrote: post #260
rajin444 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument always comes up too and you end up with certain people trying to force others to bake cakes a certain way. The whole idea of “protected classes” spits in the face of free speech. I think free speech is a noble goal but can only really exist when we don’t live in a zero sum world. Until then: > "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more or less." Alice responded to Humpty Du…

The cake thing isn't about speech but public accomodations.

Exactly, no one is barging into private homes and forcing people to bake cakes for strangers. It’s about what you’re required to do if you’re open for business to the public.

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

#300

Post by lo_zamoyski »

breadbreadbread wrote: post #144

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…

There is a strange hypocrisy to your post. In my experience, I have seen respectful and compassionate critics of the very notion of transgenderism shouted down, ridiculed, attacked verbally, and so on merely for asking questions or pointing out what they see as problems or presuppositions they believe are incoherent. It is as if they are expected to shut up and accept without question the position you hold. Is that what you are proposing? Are you claiming that gender theory is beyond question? Do you require everyone to agree with its claims and play along?

> Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table

Would you agree to having blatantly, but shall we say genteel Nazi or white supremacist academics on campus? You would likely answer in the negative based on what you've written because you would, I infer, see their works as violent and threatening speech, speech that might also reduce the number of voices at the table. But that would make what is acceptable speech depend on what people find violent and threatening. But which people? Which table? In the case of gender theory, you acknowledge this concerns a minority. Are you suggesting that a minority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? If not, are you suggesting that a majority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? Is either of those acceptable? What exactly are you proposing here because it certainly seems like you are manipulatively trying to force your own speech norms on everyone else through the use of grievance. Should your sense of grievance become the basis of law or social norms? Imagine what would happen if we treated that kind of norm consistently. We couldn't, could we, and not just for practical reasons, but in principle.

I would go further. Liberalism as the philosophical and even theological position that informs the constitution and the very founding of the United States is truly very fatally flawed. The very notion of liberal neutrality is extremely problematic. There is no such thing as a neutral position. And so what liberalism effectively does, in an intellectually dishonest way, is it presents its own position as neutral and therefore beyond criticism. "Oh, yes, well, liberalism can accommodate everything, it can tolerate all positions, and allows the brotherhood of man to live together in harmony". Yes, all positions...that subordinate themselves to liberal norms and conform to its rather fleshy expectations. Liberalism is a definite position and its tyranny rests to a great degree on the pretense of this public neutrality, that all else is a private footnote added to the purity of this accommodating 'neutrality'. At least the mullahs are more honest.

(Btw, D. C. Schindler talks more about this in his book "The Politics of the Real" [0]. The arguments require some philosophical sophistication, but that's the point. Liberalism isn't the obvious truth. It's just the water we western fish have been swimming in and have formed habituated biases toward and favorable but vague associations with. There is much that is untenable with the liberal project, and as with many intellectual errors, it can take time for the abstract consequences to manifest in all their concrete and ugly glory.)

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Real-D-C-Schindler/dp/173650...

Post reply on HN