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

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 284 posts

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#71

Post by jlgreco »

rglovejoy wrote: post #44
tsotha wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Blasphemy" is one of those things I do not get. Religious criticism seems to unearth the general insecurity that people have about their religion (whatever is might be). You don't get it because you're not a devout Muslim of one of the more violent sects, and this is a pretty common problem with people in the West. There's no point in trying to divine motivations in this particular area without understanding the We…

It still doesn't make any sense. If God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the Universe, can't He take care of Himself? After all, back in the Bible days, God was taking out His vengeance on people who got on His bad side all the time.

This is hardly the first case of Abrahamic religions not making sense. If you going in expecting self-consistency and logic, you are going to have a bad time...

Anyway, I don't think the GP is entirely correct. Sure, perhaps to a certain extent religious people react negatively to the blasphemy of outsiders because it is the dogma of their religion to do so. I think the greater cause however is that all people, even religious people, tend to be rather rational. When people hear others poking fun of their religion they become upset, not because they "know" they are right (and most would say without hesitation that they do), but because somewhere deep down inside a part of them considers the possibility that the blasphemer just might be right. Blasphemy tickles those deep-seated insecurities. As rational as people are, they really don't like being wrong and made to look a fool.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#72

Post by gleenn »

javajosh wrote: post #9

Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing blasphemy, violent reprisals work . And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one.…

The real unfortunate thing is that while you may make the personal decision to not take the risk, legislation makes that decision for everyone. I'd definitely err on the side not letting violent extremists censor me.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#73

Post by jlgreco »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #5
yew wrote: post #4

I'm always amused by the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument, mostly because most of the people who use it don't seem to know that it originated as an analogy justifying the prosecution of protesting the draft during World War I. War protests obvious aren't of any real value, after all. They just endanger the public . . .

An analogy doesn't automatically become bad just because it was once used to support a bad policy. :)

The Superior Orders defense did not automatically become a bad defense just because a certain unsavory bunch of people decided to use it.

...but let us be honest. It did.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#74

Post by w1ntermute »

potatolicious wrote: post #66
w1ntermute wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't. What sets the Arabs…

> "If you want to fight militant Islam, the first thing to do is to limit immigration from those countries and spread the immigrants out to force assimilation." It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that it really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a lot of baby for very little bath…

> It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK.

There's a big difference in that those white people are already in America, and getting rid of them would be impossible. Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward, not getting rid of people who are already here.

> The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that it really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a lot of baby for very little bath water.

To be honest, this whole Muslim immigration issue is more applicable to Europe than it is to America. America has (fortunately) maintained much stricter immigration policies than much of Europe, and the latter has consequently suffered from large swathes of Arab/Muslim immigrants failing to properly integrate into mainstream society. I'd say America has done quite well in comparison when it comes to assimilating Arab immigrants (although it has failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic and African Americans).

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#75

Post by w1ntermute »

olalonde wrote: post #64
w1ntermute wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not looking at this from an impartial point of view, I'm looking at this as an American citizen who greatly enjoys the benefits of having been born in a developed nation with global hegemony. I have no illusions about the various immoral and unethical acts committed by the US government over the last 50-75 (and probably more) years in various 3rd world countries in the name of American interests, nor do I think t…

I would use some more empathy and adopt a bit more diplomatic attitude if I were you. There will be suicide bombers well after Arabs go back to being desert nomads. It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up.

> It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up.

9/11 was estimated to have required ~$400-500k. And I'd say it'd be quite a bit more expensive to repeat that feat these days.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#77

Post by potatolicious »

w1ntermute wrote: post #74
potatolicious wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If you want to fight militant Islam, the first thing to do is to limit immigration from those countries and spread the immigrants out to force assimilation." It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that it really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a lot of baby for very little bath…

> It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. There's a big difference in that those white people are already in America, and getting rid of them would be impossible. Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward , not getting rid of people who are already here. > The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists…

> "(although it has failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic and African Americans)."

I wouldn't exactly describe African Americans as immigrants per se... It seems to imply a level of volunteerism that simply wasn't there.

Anyways, that's a nitpick.

> "Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward, not getting rid of people who are already here."

Right, but how do you know there aren't any bad apples in the people who are already here?

Also bear in mind that of all Muslim terrorists who have committed an act of terrorism on American soil, many were visitors to the US, not immigrants. Do you believe we should also restrict Muslim visitation of the USA?

How many more extremists do you think we will create within the existing Muslim population if we essentially had a big "Muslims go home" sign at every border checkpoint? What would it to do in terms of our desire to assimilate these immigrants?

Your idea is fun to think about, but IMO it's not realistic. There are too many moving pieces for "no more Muslims in the US" to be a realistic policy choice.

Not to mention the costs would be rather high. Go to any of the top US schools and look at both the grad student and professor rosters, count the people of Middle Eastern decent or of Muslim faith. These are all huge wins for American society - both in talent addition and talent denial to rival regimes. Do you really want all of these people to, say, go work for the Chinese? Or Iran?

US hegemony is ensured in large (and put large in big screaming rainbow marquee letters) part by talent acquisition. We took much of Europe's best scientific talent after WW2, and we continued mopping up all the smartest and most talented people from all over the globe - Japan, China, India, the whole Eastern Bloc, and beyond. The US's lead over everyone else is economic and technological - leaving a whole swathe of educated immigrants on the table seems to go very firmly against this model. Slamming the door shut on immigration would be like starving yourself so you don't have to poop - it would work, but why?

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#79

Post by chumma »

coolestuk wrote: post #62
milfot wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Almost the whole world that is islamic became muslim through military occupation." This is just plain bullshit! The introduction of islam to much of the world was through trade, just the same as the christians. And if you take slavery, trade and military occupations to be evidence that "The real lesson is that some religions are actually militant political movements wrapped up in religion." then I am afraid you will…

"The introduction of islam to much of the world was through trade, just the same as the christians. " Would you care to provide evidence for that assertion about trade rather than jihad? There is evidence that for areas like Indonesia & Malaysia, trade was the route. For almost everywhere else, it was by war. Next you'll be telling me that the hundreds of years in which islam used violence to dominate Spain was a Gol…

> In the 13 years he was in Mecca, he attained 150 followers. In Medina he embraced war, assassination, slave-taking and robbery. By the time he died, all of Arabia was muslim.

So would you please care to provide evidence to this assertion? How someone with a mere 150 followers could control a whole nation ?

Post reply on HN