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

441–450 of 480 posts

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

#441

Post by mafribe »

breadbreadbread wrote: post #400
mafribe wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> most disingenuous response i've ever seen

Promoters of sex-deception and concomitant fertility destruction, typically seem to communicate in a way that is (1) a refusal to address substantial points, (2) adversarial hyperbole, and (3) refusal to engage in any kind rational argument that could lead to mutually beneficial truth-seeking and learning.

I'm sure that you agree that the quoted sentence above confirms those patterns? Can I invite you to reflect on why we see this pattern?

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

#442

Post by jzb »

LastTrain wrote: post #123
jzb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My recollection, which could be faulty, was that people sided with Rushdie but there was a "but he probably shouldn't be so provocative" attached to it. So that tracks with the "entirely without fault" bit, as I remember it. However, that's based on my memory from the "buzz" around the book and the fatwa when I was a high school senior. I could easily be misremembering or maybe took too strong an impression from a sp…

That isn't my recollection at all, can you provide an example of a mainstream publication or politician attaching "he shouldn't be so provactive" to their support. And if you can't, why would you go on believing it?

As I believe I said in the original comment - finding the coverage at this point is tricky. That was from the late 80s, and digging up the original sources[1] is far more research than I'm willing to do. I don't see you demanding evidence in the other direction.

If you'd like to prove me wrong, feel free. I was quite open that this is based on my memory of events and I didn't assert it as cold hard fact. If I'm shown evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to believe differently. I look forward to your extensive research.

[1] Some of which might be available online, much of which in the form of talk-show commentary and TV news, etc., is unlikely to be and may not even be preserved.

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

#443

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

mansion7 wrote: post #410
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that you "can't" say certain things what fact is that? who enforces the "can't" ?

According to the Twitter files, Silicon Valley enforces it at the behest of the federal government.

Somehow, I don't think that the material covered by the so-called "Twitter files", or the material not covered by them (e.g. Trump asking directly for deletion), is what the GP was referring to.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

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

#444

Post by breadbreadbread »

wonderwonder wrote: post #411
breadbreadbread wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal. this in an incredibly disingenuous take. Who is trying to make saying antitrans things should be illegal? last i checked trans people were still trying to access affirming medical care and not be attacked in the streets. If you are referring to like pronouns/names, I sti…

"Who is trying to make saying antitrans things should be illegal?" Come on, did you read the post I was responding to? My post was a response to another post. Op appeared to want it to be made illegal. Calling speech violence implies that certain speech should be illegal as inflicting violence on others is illegal. "Every minority group fighting for their rights has been told this" The recent movement against trans i…

I wrote that comment and I don't want to make speech illegal I want acknowledgement that speech can be harmful and allow communities to self moderate if they are threatened.

> The recent movement against trans is wholly due to the movements attempt to bring kids into it

Frankly this is a lie. The root of your issue with trans people is that you think they are gross. It's circular logic to say that trans adults shouldn't exist because it will encourage my kid to grow up to be a trans adult. It's like saying that you don't want to live around Atheists because you want your kid to be Christian, fine enough but you can't stop people from being a thing you don't like, and your ability to stop your child from being it probably wanes earlier than you'd like.

> Stop doing that and no one cares about drag queens anymore.

no yall will find another reason to demonize trans people because you actually don't care about safety you care about your delicate sensibilities. It's a witch hunt and drag shows are the current "spell"

Where is the line with where one persons existence affects children? Sure your libsoftiktok "citation" is an example of an entertainer being too lewd for the audience but in no way does an entire demographic need to take the fall for a cherry-picked example of lewdness. Also who gets to decide what is too lewd? Do you want to give the government that power? Should it be illegal to show your kid an R rated movie? Is it the parents responsibility or the production team of the movie? Or are movies and movie likers at large to blame? Is a trans person going to the grocery store a danger to your kids? Is telling kids that trans people exist a danger? Where is the line between telling kids that its ok that some people in the world are trans and turning kids trans?

IDK Maybe we should also not tell our kids anything about "traditional" gender norms lest we anger any indignant parents who might agree/disagree that girls should have aspirations beyond motherhood.

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

#445

Post by breadbreadbread »

pondlifer wrote: post #439
breadbreadbread wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal. this in an incredibly disingenuous take. Who is trying to make saying antitrans things should be illegal? last i checked trans people were still trying to access affirming medical care and not be attacked in the streets. If you are referring to like pronouns/names, I sti…

> by people who think a penis is the thing that makes you dangerous It is the means by which a man can forcibly impregnate a woman. This is a very real risk to women, and is one reason why so many women are deeply uncomfortable with males imposing themselves in spaces where women are vulnerable, like bathrooms and locker rooms.

our current system does not prevent sexual assault from occurring in public restrooms, men can enter restrooms and assault someone if they really want to and sexual predators arent transitioning to get more access to women. Trans women also experience a high proportion of sexual/physical assault from men, should they be asked to enter a potentially dangerous situation? Is 1 trans woman a threat to a bathroom with 3 cis women in it? Or are 3 cis men in a bathroom a threat to 1 trans woman?

Any enforcement of bathroom norms sounds more dystopian than this fiction of rampant trans sexual assault. Do you want genital checks at the bathroom door? Maybe you want to have a security detail watching people piss. Do you want trans people to be reported to the authorities for using an enclosed stall alone?

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

#446

Post by nickthegreek »

insickness wrote: post #435
mansion7 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the Twitter files, Silicon Valley enforces it at the behest of the federal government.

Not clear why you're getting downvoted, but this is the exact right answer. The Twitter files was proof that the Federal government put pressure on Twitter to censor specific viewpoints.

What was the pressure?

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

#447

Post by breadbreadbread »

mikrotikker wrote: post #422
breadbreadbread wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 do…

> Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat. That is weakness and the 2nd amendment is a tool to fight back and secure ones self against death threats. Get strapped, stand up and say "try it mother fucker". Defy your oppressor, or be crushed under their tyranny.

responding with violence is also "being affected by words". It also enforces the point that words can incite violence.

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

#448

Post by cmh89 »

wonderwonder wrote: post #438
cmh89 wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Never claimed to be an absolutist. You're whole premise is that the government shouldn't regulate speech, as it "leads to dictatorship" >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." That's fine if that's what you believe. 'Believable threats of violence' is a completely ambiguous and meaning…

hmmm, your entire argument appears to be overly focused and convinced on the supposed fact that everyone that holds negative views of a race or people becomes a mass murderer. That's very much not the case. If if was, there wouldn't be very many people left at all. 99.999999% of the time JewHater99 is just going to go about living a normal life and continue posting anonymously on the web.

>hmmm, your entire argument appears to be overly focused and convinced on the supposed fact that everyone that holds negative views of a race or people becomes a mass murderer. That's very much not the case

That's not what I've said and you know it. It really seems like you don't actually understand the position you think youre arguing against.

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

#449

Post by vannevar »

tomjen3 wrote: post #416
vannevar wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is amplification---without Twitter, there would be no tweet to search for. And never forget, the actual point of Twitter is to deliver value to its shareholders.

Twitter is now a private company, but that is besides the point, as it would only provide value to whomever owns it people use it, and they only do that if they can get access to what they value. And no, to be amplification, Twitter would have to boost certain tweets artificially. It is very unartificial when I get results for searching. Otherwise it is also boosting if I use the municipal library to checkout a book,…

You're taking for granted the existence of communication services like Twitter. Twitter is amplification. You can't walk out your front door and give a speech that millions of people instantly have access to. You can only do that because of the existence of private services like Twitter. And the reality is that you have no inherent right to use those services, they can exclude you from them for any reason they like.

Libraries are also amplification, but they are generally public. When a book is banned from a library, it potentially violates the First Amendment. Twitter is not public, so when a user is banned from Twitter, the First Amendment does not apply.

If and when we have a government-operated Twitter, it will have to offer equal access to everyone, and it will have to tolerate any speech that falls under First Amendment protection. But until then, you'll have to live with the possibility that the private services you use will kick you off because they don't like what you say.

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

#450

Post by wonderwonder »

breadbreadbread wrote: post #444
wonderwonder wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Who is trying to make saying antitrans things should be illegal?" Come on, did you read the post I was responding to? My post was a response to another post. Op appeared to want it to be made illegal. Calling speech violence implies that certain speech should be illegal as inflicting violence on others is illegal. "Every minority group fighting for their rights has been told this" The recent movement against trans i…

I wrote that comment and I don't want to make speech illegal I want acknowledgement that speech can be harmful and allow communities to self moderate if they are threatened. > The recent movement against trans is wholly due to the movements attempt to bring kids into it Frankly this is a lie. The root of your issue with trans people is that you think they are gross. It's circular logic to say that trans adults should…

"The root of your issue with trans people is that you think they are gross" What? I have no issues with trans people at all as long as they just live their lives like everyone else and stop attempting to enforce trans education in schools, unfairly compete in women's sports and not perform lewd acts in front of kids. Other than that I wish them nothing but happiness. Trans people should be able to do whatever they want in normal polite society. The backlash that the trans community has started over parents just saying please don't be sexual around my kids is crazy. Or please don't tell my kids in school that maybe they may be the wrong gender. Or schools please don't lie to parents if our kids express gender confusion. How are these outrageous requests? It very much seems that a portion of the trans community wants special treatment above and beyond the general population.
Post reply on HN