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

My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

popehat.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 189 posts

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#121

Post by rpmisms »

vacuity wrote: post #74
rpmisms wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Jewish Communities" doesn't mean "All Jews", and that's obvious to anyone not looking for a reason to be angry. Muslim communities just bombed the hell out of Israel, and that's not islamophobic to say, because it doesn't implicate all Muslims.

You say "that's obvious" but your terminology is ambiguous. I wouldn't say "Muslim communities bombed Israel". To me, that sounds something along the lines of "the predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East teamed up and bombed Israel".

And that's your bias speaking, since my statement is factual. It's perfectly normal, and you can accept that my meaning and your interpretation can be wildly different, therefore accusing me of the worst possible interpretation is unfair.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#122

Post by deely3 »

smrtinsert wrote: post #95
whatshisface wrote: post #80

Unfortunately, it's a scale. Where do you think criticism ends and censorship begins?: 1. Tweeting that someone is wrong. 2. Tweeting that someone is bad. 5. A corporate Twitter account saying someone is bad. 4. One hundred thousand people tweeting that someone is bad. 6. A company withdrawing advertising from a businessman whose tweets they disagree with. 8. A company withdrawing twitter service from a customer whos…

Well sure, everything sounds awful if you remove the context. The context is someone is saying anti-Semitic things and others don't have to go along with it or deal with their business. "Do you believe speech should have consequences" is just the type of spin political parties pay for research to manipulate the masses and will always sound murky or confusing or dangerous.

Also, "what about childrens"?

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#123

Post by JoshTriplett »

lmm wrote: post #111
JoshTriplett wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that we impose negative consequences for undesirable speech via different mechanisms than the direct actions of government agents does not make what we're doing fundamentally different. It absolutely does. There is a fundamental difference between "go to jail because of your speech" and "people don't want to do business with you because of your speech". The former is making speech illegal ; the latter is t…

> It absolutely does. There is a fundamental difference between "go to jail because of your speech" and "people don't want to do business with you because of your speech". The former is making speech illegal; the latter is the fundamental right of every person to decide who they associate with. "Illegal" is just a word; if the village locks you in a cage, or hangs you, it doesn't make any real difference whether they…

> Extreme example obviously, but that's the direction we're heading in.

It's really not. There's no slippery slope here; the slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. We can, in fact, draw a line between "refuse to do business with someone" and "let someone end up dead", and say that the former is perfectly acceptable and the latter is not. This is not an argument against freedom of association.

> We already recognise that enough individuals choosing not to associate with someone adds up to a denial of that person's rights

No, we don't. We recognize that choosing not to associate with someone because of some specific protected characteristics is discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics, and we've decided to create narrow exceptions to freedom of association to prevent discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics.

There are many other characteristics for which you are absolutely allowed to refuse to employ someone. You are absolutely allowed to refuse to employ someone because they promote hatred towards others, for instance, just as you can refuse to employ someone because they can't or won't do the work you're hiring for.

That doesn't mean they should starve to death or get no medical care. Everyone should have food and medical care. By all means, let's fix that in our society, and have it not be tied to employment. That would solve many problems.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#126

Post by Obscurity4340 »

Obscurity4340 wrote: post #98
vacuity wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If so many people actually adopted this view or could be convinced to a comment like this, we probably wouldn't be experiencing this. You're not wrong in the least, but I'm just saying, we can't have that dialogue right now. Can't worry too much about designing better rock climbing gear when you're living in the moment of dangling from the cliff face.

UBI + qualified parental rights (u don't "own" your kids if you hurt them) + kids have a say in spending/auditing of child support + emotional iq teaching in school from the start + media literacy classes == problem solved Edit: converting people to tolerance should take second place to removig their power and abillity to capriciously have any influence in any matter of currency or effect on others but themselves. Th…

It would be great if there was a way to give kids a bounty to rat out deadbeat loser "caregiver" to whom the kids are expected to parentify

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#127

Post by Obscurity4340 »

soerxpso wrote: post #43

Can we not have articles on this site that amount to nothing more than political editorial? The only thing this has to do with tech news is that the individual the author is seething at happens to be a tech CEO.

Its relevant, some attitudes need to go the way of DOS

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#129

Post by Obscurity4340 »

zoogeny wrote: post #29

> Musk is also a fan of the theory that when he speaks, your criticism of him violates his rights I hate to use such trite debate bro topics, but isn't this a motte and bailey fallacy [1]? The motte is "we're just criticising Musk" while the bailey is "we're systematically contacting all of his advertisers and letting them know that if they continue to support him then we will campaign against them as well". The whol…

TIL: Billionaires need a support system, they really are just like us

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#130

Post by somenameforme »

wredcoll wrote: post #118
somenameforme wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure many understand the historical context of the rise of the Nazis. Germany had just ended up on the losing side of "the war to end all wars" or WW1. In the Treaty of Versailles, which Germany was not allowed to participate in the negotiation of, they were forced to accept all guilt for the war, give up vast tracts of land, and then pay an a unpayable amount on top, which many even at the time argued was ex…

> In the Treaty of Versailles, which Germany was not allowed to participate in the negotiation of, they were forced to accept all guilt for the war, give up vast tracts of land, and then pay an a unpayable amount on top, which many even at the time argued was excessively myopic. This repeats several depressingly common myths. For starters, germany was "forced to accept all guilt" (several other countries were conside…

That is not a particularly fair recounting of WW1. The entire world was at fault for that war. A Bosnian Serb, probably with state backing, assassinates the heir of Austria Hungary. Serbia then refuses Austria Hungary's terms for settlement of the affair, so Austria Hungary decides to invade Serbia. This then drives Serbia's ally Russia to intervene. But Germany had a military alliance with Austria Hungary which then drove them to intervene on behalf of Austria Hungary. Of course France then also had a military alliance with Russia, so they're now in the game. And so on, and so forth.

Germany is only uniquely guilty there in the sense that the loser of a war is always the one who did wrong.

And the Nazis didn't cause hyper-inflation. They didn't take power until 1933. The inflation, that would quickly end up turning to hyperinflation, began shortly after the Treaty of Versailles in the early 1920s, in the Weimar Republic. Germany didn't have anywhere near enough money to pay off their debts under the Treaty of Versailles, which demanded payments in gold or foreign currency only. With their gold reserves long since exhausted, Germany had little choice but to begin printing money in order to buy foreign currency. And even that wasn't enough, as their currency inflated to the point of worthlessness causing them to default on their debt, which then lead France/Belgium to make things even worse by invading and occupying the [industrially key] Ruhr region of Germany in 1923, and responding to predictable German acts of civil disobedience by killing civilians. And as above - 'so forth, and so on.'

Post reply on HN