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

171–180 of 189 posts

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#171

Post by tim333 »

ipython wrote: post #143
shusaku wrote: post #33

I think that people of certain generations need to be taught the beauty of a burner account. You get to say whatever you want, and are invulnerable to criticism. The downside is there’s no ego boost to seeing your name in the news or using your fame to get impressions. But that’s the double sided sword of reputation. When I was growing up on the internet, everyone understood the value of pseudo anonymity. But then Fa…

What about legal threats from government representatives when they don’t like your speech and attempt to force the social media platforms to reveal your burner identity? Devin Nunes attempted to doxx a “cow” for example: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/devin-nunes-subpoena-ai...

Devin failed and the cow goes on.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#172

Post by lmm »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #123
lmm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 recognis…

> 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.

You've already got plenty of documented cases of e.g. person gets fired, loses medical coverage, has to start rationing insulin, dies. So the slippery slope is real.

> 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.

Right, and the rationale for that is that discrimination on the basis of those specific characteristics was so widespread that it crossed the line from freedom of association to denying people their rights. At least that's what I was told here.

(Also note that many lists of specific characteristics that should be protected, e.g. in the UN declaration of human rights, explicitly include political opinions in their list alongside things like race and religion; omitting that in US law seems like a historical oversight rather than real social consensus)

> 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.

If and when you've fixed that, that will be a good argument for at-will firing. But until then it isn't.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#173

Post by Izkata »

pyvpx wrote: post #170
zmgsabst wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many racists proclaim people “misunderstand racism” when their different standards for different races are denounced for being racist. After 160 years of the same political party fighting to rebuild racism, generation after generation, people are done hearing the moralizing excuses for why this time Democrats have the magic formula for virtuous bigotry.

you can’t be racist against white people. the definition of racism centers on power not the tone of dermis. read some different books and open up that independent thinking some.

That is a very new definition created by the woke left to justify being racist against white people. Pretty much only they believe it.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#174

Post by somenameforme »

felixgallo wrote: post #169
somenameforme wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend, straw men are rarely the sign of a literate mind, but you took it to a bold new level here. WW1 was in 1914. The Nazi party did not exist, and Hitler was a 24 year old low ranking dispatch runner of no note, volunteering in the Bavarian army.

speaking of bold new levels of misdirection and Nazi apologia, I was, and clearly, referring to your nonsensical implications about Nazis really not being to blame in your third para.

It's the same story there. Hyper inflation began in the Weimar Republic / Germany in 1921. The Nazi party was only formally formed in 1920 with a handful of members. By the time hyperinflation was raging, the Nazis were a group of people with 0 political power, largely made up of drunkards and misfits.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#175

Post by somenameforme »

wredcoll wrote: post #166
somenameforme wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're glossing over the initial catalyzing event here. Austria Hungary just had their leader in waiting assassinated, with state backing from Serbia. Many wars, if not most, are started under false pretext, or with false evidence. Another state participating in the assassination of your heads of state is one of the most just, reasonable, and textbook causes for war imaginable. Austria Hungary invading Serbia was…

> And you're glossing over the initial catalyzing event here. Austria Hungary just had their leader in waiting assassinated, with state backing from Serbia. Many wars, if not most, are started under false pretext, or with false evidence. Another state participating in the assassination of your heads of state is one of the most just, reasonable, and textbook causes for war imaginable. I guess we'll just have to agree…

You're starting to make as absurd of statements as the other guy in this thread. Franz Ferdinand was the defacto leader of the entirety of the entirety of Austria Hungary, and had already assumed all major responsibilities. He was the heir to his brother (not his father) 84 year old Emperor Franz Joseph, who would die 2 years after Ferdinand's assassination. And if you know anything at all about history, this is also where the House of Habsburg met its leadership end, having been in power since the 11th century! The succession mess after Franz Ferdinand ended up with Charles I becoming the heir. And as Joseph died 2 years after Ferdinand's assassination, everything slid down hill rapidly.

Simply suggesting Austria Hungary should have been content to simply let the state, which had just backed the assassination of their head of state, investigate themselves, and be happy with having caught the useful idiots at the end-point of the act, is beyond absurd. This is why their terms to Serbia included the presence of Austria-Hungarian investigators within Serbia. And ultimately I think that accepting a state backed assassination while opposing invasions is just arbitrary mental gymnastics. In many ways I think assassinations and other such acts should be treated vastly more harshly, as there is something particularly pathetic about those who act in the shadows, exploiting good faith and idiots.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#176

Post by somenameforme »

vaidhy wrote: post #164
somenameforme wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure there is an other side on this? There are a limited handful of legal exceptions to free speech including for unlawful or criminal acts such as defamation, libel, and fraud. I think relatively few people would oppose strengthening these. Where people diverge is when people want to censor, hurt and ideally destroy people who make unpopular but otherwise completely kosher comments. For instance Martin Kulld…

I do not know if you will see this reply.. but you are 100% correct. There is a price to pay to social cohesion and I am not sure if I can draw the line correctly. Let us get a few strawman arguments out - freedom of speech is not a fundamental value for centuries. Like all other things, it is an evolving principle and what was true a few decades ago might no longer be kosher. People who are part of LGBTQ community h…

Oh come now, we're all narcissistic and more than occasionally skim back through that 'threads' button, if not to find new posts then to sniff the most beautiful aroma of our own arses.

Yes, freedom of speech has been a fundamental value for centuries, that people have unfortunately come to take for granted. In history all of the great causes you might have felt passionately about were able to openly debated and pursued in no small part because Free Speech. Abolitionism, suffrage, equality issues, and so on could all have, and probably would have, been easily censored in a US without Free Speech. And thanks to the US' historic role in advancing near to all knowledge and technology, these ideals that were able to be fostered and grown, also spread across the globe. The world as we know it today would likely look dramatically different had Free Speech not been enshrined within the US.

What you're talking about is something more like the Overton Window [1], which is related, but different.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#177

Post by zmgsabst »

pyvpx wrote: post #170
zmgsabst wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many racists proclaim people “misunderstand racism” when their different standards for different races are denounced for being racist. After 160 years of the same political party fighting to rebuild racism, generation after generation, people are done hearing the moralizing excuses for why this time Democrats have the magic formula for virtuous bigotry.

you can’t be racist against white people. the definition of racism centers on power not the tone of dermis. read some different books and open up that independent thinking some.

Institutional racism happens against white people — and denying that is supporting racism, even by your modern definition meant to minimize the on-going racism of the Democratic Party.

Eg, this racist policy by Democrats.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-farmers-loan-forgiveness-...

Democrats are also systemically racist to Asians such as at Harvard and UNC.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

I’d encourage you to stop taking your talking points from KKK meetings about how you’re virtuous for engaging in race-based discrimination.

Your modern apologetics for bigotry are as vapid as 1920s Klansmen talking about “protecting their community”.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#179

Post by b112 »

mindslight wrote: post #165
b112 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just think it's vital to not even mention the two in the same sentence. You seem to agree with me, in one respect, for you cite how you wish to focus on control. I'm all for that. But each of these two controlling aspects of our lives, are different entities, with different ways to address, rebuke, curtail, and prevent that control. And the control they each exert is unique. This is why I replied, for even though y…

I said 'sufficiently coercive', because the equivalence is in the limit. Even just one corporation that you can opt out of is a step up from government in many regards. But it can also be a step down in other regards if there are fewer ways to influence that corporation, and the consequences of opting out are significant. There are of course differences in the ways you can " address, rebuke, curtail, and prevent that…

Realistically, I think you're more hitting up on how to convey, than what the actual is. Probably this should be more dynamic, where different audiences receive the same, but differently phrased message.

Here's an example. Discrimination. Here's a factual phrase: women are less intelligent than men. That's not discriminatory, what is discriminatory, is if I use a minor deviation in averages, to look at $random_woman, and presume she is less intelligent than $random_man.

For example, there are many women that are more intelligent than many men.

My point is, we've had to "dumb down" discrimination, by trying to claim, in many respects, there there is absolutely no difference between men and women. This has led to detrimental outcomes for women, a key example being that as most medical volunteers are men, many models of the brain are predicated upon the male, and therefore? As people say "why, there's no difference between the male and female brain!", it has actually harmed women's outcomes.

I am concerned about the parallel here. That the more we lump things into mega-categories, the more positive outcomes for nuanced groups is lost. And that means that the best solutions may be unavailable, for if they cannot be applied to "overall group", then they may be deemed useless.

I know you're not advocating any of this. And I know your goal is to just ensure people fully understand the risks.

But my point is, much as the fight against discrimination has been whittled down to "there is no difference!", because the stupids cannot understand nuance, you seem to be in a trap of having to whittle down to no-nuance, for the same reasons.

Which is sad.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#180

Post by pauldenton »

atoav wrote: post #5
vaidhy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same holds true for the other side, right? Everyone's speech has consequences and only some can afford to silence others through the power of money, law, personality or just being an asshole.

Jup. If everybody is allowed to say whatever they want, the side with the sticks will use it to threaten those with slightly less sticks into silence. Which ironically means that collectively speech will be more free if you prohibit certain types of it for all. A free society doesn't strictly have to tolerate anti-free-society positions like those of ISIS terrorists or neo-nazis — some (including Karl Popper) would s…

[dead]
Post reply on HN