Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by breadbreadbread » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 2:44 AM UTC

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #300

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 w…

I wrote a long thoughtful response to this but then YC crashed as I tried to post it. The gist was: Im not offering a solution, I just want some acknowledgement that there are harmful voices. we can bicker about who they are, but we need tools for dealing with them. And no the government shouldnt be the ones to wield them.

Also your tangent on liberalism is gibberish

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

#392

Post by wonderwonder » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 2:53 AM UTC

cmh89 wrote: post #378

wonderwonder wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So if a group of people were plotting to kill you, you'd only want the State (i.e. the police) to step in after they had gone through with their plot?" That's already a crime friend. Conspiracy. I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder. "I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense". Cool, I still support near absolute free…

>That's already a crime friend. Conspiracy. Yes it is, because the State decided to censor and restrict 'free speech' in that case. >I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder. Sure, I'm very open to my belief we should censor and punish some speech. I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let th…

Never claimed to be an absolutist. In other posts I specifically say: "My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence." There are likely other crime related caveats. Now with that said I am not advocating for freedom from social consequences just preventing the state from using its lock on violence to implement those consequences.

"I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction." I do think its an appropriate reaction. Again large difference between saying something mean about a group of people and calling for their murder. I think anti-trans people are bad, just like I think the same of anti anything people. I just think banning speech is worse.

I support government restricted speech in the context of preventing physical harm, that's pretty much it. You are right that congress creates the laws but in most cases the supreme court is going to prevent things that are overruled by the 1st. As it should be.

My main point is that saying speech is violence makes no sense. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives. We spend 99% of our time worrying about things that in reality have no effect on our lives. If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares? Stop worrying about pointless nonsense.

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

#393

Post by wonderwonder » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 2:58 AM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #370

wonderwonder wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, I'm guessing all of your posts are to hamper you political beliefs? Sheesh indeed my friend, sheesh indeed.

So because your post was obviously made in an effort to expound upon the validity of your beliefs, it must be the case that I only ever do that? I don't follow. I wasn't projecting, I was just using basic reading comprehension skills to understand why someone would write what they did. It's a totally normal skill: https://www.lsac.org/lsat/taking-lsat/test-format/reading-co...

I honestly have no idea what you just said :) I look forward to your insulting response.

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

#394

Post by kitsunesoba » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 2:59 AM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #383

kitsunesoba wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is calling for anything remotely extreme as your post seems to be hinting at in a tongue-in-cheek manner. From the perspective of someone who sits in the middle with a leaning to the left, it looks to me like the left doesn’t have problems with others holding differing views, so long as following those views doesn’t result in the harm or impediment of liberty of others. Nobody is saying it’s wrong to be be a c…

In my personal experience the left is much worse at handling disagreement. I have had lefties get angry at my more conservative opinions, but conservatives never seem to get angry when I'm more liberal than them.

When it comes to day to day interactions, it probably varies a lot between circles. Having been raised in a deep red area but living in a more blue area the past decade or so, my experience has generally with a few exceptions been the opposite… lots of buttons I need to tiptoe around and avoid accidentally pushing when visiting back home.

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

#395

Post by breadbreadbread » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 3:13 AM UTC

TMWNN wrote: post #320

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…

>I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do Why? >Some speech suppresses the speech of others. No speech can ever suppress that of others, except in the literal sense of talking over someone. >it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table So, how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy ? How do you feel…

> Why?

why are you compelled to respond to me? why do you listen to anyone? why speak at all?

> No speech can ever suppress that of others

Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat. Or if you want a more subtle example, try talking to a minority group about microaggressions and what situations they feel safe to speak freely in. If you are in a minority group but don't feel oppressed in that way, I'm sure you have a peer who does.

> how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy?

Truly a nonsequitor but since you asked nicely: the developers were paid to do a job, no shame in that. JKR is a bigot who filled that world with inescapable racism and the design lead ran a youtube channel that pushed some bigotted views about feminism and "sjws". Im too exhausted to care who plays it although personally think its easier on the conscience to not. Reviews are fine, but if you wanna talk about separating art and artist and media crit's place in that, its a long nuanced discussion

I think that's my main frustration. No discussion of free speech is ever allowed to be nuanced. Disagreeing with Free Speech absolutism is impossible to argue with because to say that "sometimes bigotry should be discouraged" is seen as an affront to the idea of speech itself.

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

#396

Post by anonymousiam » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 3:14 AM UTC

kneebonian wrote: post #276

kitsunesoba wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

It's clear to me that you left off the /sarcasm tags. Hopefully it's clear to others as well.

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

#397

Post by breadbreadbread » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 3:22 AM UTC

throwawayacc6 wrote: post #233

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…

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 White…

you could have said "I know you are but what am I" and it would've been easier and have the same effect

nuance is dead and internet comment sections killed it

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

#398

Post by Shared404 » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 3:22 AM UTC

dighp wrote: post #337

Shared404 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For context, we belong to the same religion, or at least, your ancestors and I do. > should it be acceptable to "other" people by calling them Christofacist? Yes. The whole point even in your example is freedom of religion. Denying anyone freedom of or from religion is inherently wrong from both a religious perspective and a secular perspective. If someone is behaving in that manner, then they should be called out by…

> > Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights? > It doesn't, though the phrase "To those on top, equality feels like oppression" comes to mind. The rights of women to enjoy female-only spaces, for their safety and dignity, is being invalidated in the name of so-called "trans rights", whereby a subset of males who demand access to such spaces, entire…

Here's a pretty good refutation of people using feminism as backing for

https://feministkilljoys.com/2015/02/15/you-are-oppressing-u...

Actual data disagreeing with your position on this specific situation:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z (https://sci-hub.st/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...)

That aside, I was more referring to people's ability to just... live their life.

Whether being murdered like Brianna Ghey a few days ago, or "just" being unable to access relevant medical care, there's lots of issues with things that cis people can just take for granted.

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

#399

Post by Shared404 » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 3:26 AM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #303

Shared404 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a legal perspective, sure. From an ethical perspective? You'd be hard pressed to argue that point. Normalization of ridiculous rhetoric like calling LGBT folks groomers is leading towards more and more hate crimes towards those people, as well as helping push for regulations against adults being able to opt into their own health care and make decisions about their bodies[0]. [0] https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-bil…

Who gets the power to decide what is ethical and to then ban what they deem unethical? Elected officials? Academics? Who do we give that level of power too? You? Me? Biden? Trump? I understand that saying negative things about people is not a nice thing to do and can cause emotional pain, I just think that the consequences of removing free speech are far worse and leads to a place where suddenly people you voted agai…

> Who do we give that level of power too? You? Me? Biden? Trump?

Society as a whole, via the sort of discourse that we're having now.

Freedom of speech comes with other people having the right/responsibility to also have freedom of association and reject the sort of speech that is found to be intolerable.

Note that in this specific instance, it is not a case of legally unavailable speech, but a case which is more likely to result in ostracism of those who use it - which is the system working as intended.

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

#400

Post by breadbreadbread » Thu, Feb 16, 2023, 3:26 AM UTC

mafribe wrote: post #236

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…

> maximizing the number of voices at the table The easiest way of doing so is to maximise the number of humans on the planet. Those who engage, and promote reproduction organ destruction whether surgical or chemical, do the exact opposite and decrease the number of voices -- in the long run to zero.

this is the most disingenuous response i've ever seen