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

Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

pewinternet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#81

Post by erichocean »

LordKano wrote: post #44
seiji wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.

I was tempted to ignore this but my desire to combat this canard won out. There were more than two sides to the Proposition 8 fight. I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist…

> I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist issue a fiat.

My friends are generally liberal, so I don't know many people who would vote for Prop 8 for religious reasons. That said, of the people who did support Prop 8, all of them had the same reason as you, and without fail, all of them wanted to see same-sex marriage become the law of the land.

Which ended for me the notion that supporting Prop 8 meant you hated gays and deserved to be silenced, run out of a job, and alienated by all right thinking people.

Thanks for sharing.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#82

Post by LordKano »

tedks wrote: post #55
LordKano wrote: post #6

I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse. Look at Brendan Eich, no matter what we think of Proposition 8, I think it's crazy that his support of a political position that was also supported by a very narrow majority of his fellow Californians could cause him to have to leave his job six years later. It's entirely possible that Eich could become a verb, like Bork. Any one of us could support one side of a conte…

Trying to keep queer people out of acceptable models of life like marriage, having families, and being responsible is a literal attempt to silence and kill them. There is a straight line from homophobia to the effective genocide Reagan committed against queer people in the 80s by turning a blind eye to the AIDS crisis. I think it's entirely correct that Eich was deposed and shamed for what he did. I wish that we had…

You're attempting to look back into 1983 with the knowledge that we have today.

In those days, the LGBT community fought against attempts to close the bath houses where the disease was spreading because they didn't know what was going on either.

The sentiment that you're expressing here is precisely why discussion is dying.

There is nothing shameful about Eich's activity, he chose a side, his side won and the side that lost were so outraged that they began to threaten the business of his employer.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#83

Post by dasil003 »

tbrownaw wrote: post #80
dasil003 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you're trolling. Did you really just say that gay marriage rights are about bikeshedding?

From what I understand, a significant part of the fight (in general, not just California) has been about wanting to legally use the word "marriage", with all the social/religious connotations it's picked up over the years, rather than about just getting equal legal rights thru the law and then sorting out social perception thru social means. This also comes at the expense of other non-traditional relationships, by ma…

You are conveniently ignoring the material grievances that they suffer by focusing on one aspect of the debate and pretending it's the whole thing. The fact is that gay people's life partners can not be granted power of attorney or numerous other marriage benefits is huge glaring inequity in our legal system.

Also, your original argument that a debate about Communism is also about human rights is applicable to any political debate, because of course politics is all about deciding things that affect people.

If you can't understand the difference between a class of people being denied common rights, and standard political debate about rules that ostensibly apply to everyone then I have no additional argument to try to help you see the light.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#84

Post by eevilspock »

ianstallings wrote: post #9

I was going to sternly object, and then I remembered how a friend deleted me on facebook because I liked a certain politician. Then my work friended me so I went back and pruned every semi-controversial topic from my feed and "unliked" a ton of subjects. And now I keep it all to myself. I probably reveal more here in my writing than I do on those outlets. And to say I edit my thoughts here on HN would be an understat…

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair

HN is a sort of social network for coders. Anytime I post something about the evils of advertising, I attract enough downvotes to usually cancel out if not override those who see my points. I can see this as I watch the vote tally constantly go up and down. The sad thing is that the downvotes represent not that my comments are low quality and unworthy of HN, but that they are threatening to a culture that is sadly, for the present at least, beholden to advertising for its very survival.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#85

Post by LordKano »

seiji wrote: post #59
cgore wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, freedom of speech is one of the places where conservatives tend to do a lot better than liberals. You are making a really good example of that.

Freedom of speech means the government (notably: federal government, though most states have similar rights) can't stop you from saying things or shut you down just because they don't like what you have to say. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with private parties exacting revenge on you for saying, doing, or promoting objective wrongness. Freedom of speech is not freedom of equality of validness of opinion.

Because of the 14th Amendment, the states are bound by the 1st Amendment's prohibitions against abridging the freedom of speech.

"Freedom of speech" is a concept that is bigger and more far reaching than the government. If someone threatens to punch you in the face for saying something that he doesn't want you to say, he has violated your freedom of speech.

If your employer fires you for something that you said outside of work and separate from your duties as an employee, that employer has also violated your freedom of speech. The notable difference being that in most circumstances, there's nothing illegal about that.

The point that I'm making here is that it's absolutely possible to suppress suppress freedom of speech without violating the law.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#86

Post by JoeAltmaier »

LordKano wrote: post #85
seiji wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech means the government (notably: federal government, though most states have similar rights) can't stop you from saying things or shut you down just because they don't like what you have to say. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with private parties exacting revenge on you for saying, doing, or promoting objective wrongness. Freedom of speech is not freedom of equality of validness of opinion.

Because of the 14th Amendment, the states are bound by the 1st Amendment's prohibitions against abridging the freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech" is a concept that is bigger and more far reaching than the government. If someone threatens to punch you in the face for saying something that he doesn't want you to say, he has violated your freedom of speech. If your employer fires you for something that you said outsi…

A common misconception. The freedom to speech is the guarantee that the government will not silence you.

In contrast being shouted down at a meeting or losing your job is common and not protected. If your employer doesn't want to support your opinions, they are free to stop paying you. That is a freedom too.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#87

Post by cgore »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #86
LordKano wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the 14th Amendment, the states are bound by the 1st Amendment's prohibitions against abridging the freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech" is a concept that is bigger and more far reaching than the government. If someone threatens to punch you in the face for saying something that he doesn't want you to say, he has violated your freedom of speech. If your employer fires you for something that you said outsi…

A common misconception. The freedom to speech is the guarantee that the government will not silence you. In contrast being shouted down at a meeting or losing your job is common and not protected. If your employer doesn't want to support your opinions, they are free to stop paying you. That is a freedom too.

The philosophical concept of freedom of speech and the legal protections of that concept are not the same thing, although the one protects the other from which it derives. The protections are a viewpoint legally enshrined that was common in the political circles at the time and that I still agree with: No matter how much I disagree with your viewpoint, I think you should be allowed to express that viewpoint. If I am a family member or a friend I'm not going to disown or disavow you for them.

I think it is very important that bosses embrace this view too, because otherwise you just get a lot of sycophantic yes-men, an echo chamber. The correct approach is to let everyone be free to voice their opinion before the decision is made: if you don't want their opinions, then what are you paying them for? Once a decision is made it is necessary for everybody to work towards that, but making a good decision requires lots of input, and those who disagreed with the final choice shouldn't be punished in any way, otherwise there quickly won't be any disagreement.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#88

Post by WeaselHunter »

dasil003 wrote: post #83
tbrownaw wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, a significant part of the fight (in general, not just California) has been about wanting to legally use the word "marriage", with all the social/religious connotations it's picked up over the years, rather than about just getting equal legal rights thru the law and then sorting out social perception thru social means. This also comes at the expense of other non-traditional relationships, by ma…

You are conveniently ignoring the material grievances that they suffer by focusing on one aspect of the debate and pretending it's the whole thing. The fact is that gay people's life partners can not be granted power of attorney or numerous other marriage benefits is huge glaring inequity in our legal system. Also, your original argument that a debate about Communism is also about human rights is applicable to any po…

You are conveniently ignoring California law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califor...

See under "Scope". By 2008 as amended, California afforded domestic partnerships the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law.

Federal law was of course different due to DOMA, which was overturned in 2013.

Prop 8 did not remove any legal privileges available under CA Domestic Partner law. It did not revoke any marriage licenses, either.

As for denying "common rights", you are begging the question. What common public good (not "right") is secured by marriage, defined based on that public good, that the state should regulate it in the first place?

Traditionally (in the US), legally regulated marriage had to do with family law, children, rearing as well as getting of children, forming legally recognized kinship based on procreation and adoption.

Along the way, baggage including visitation rights at hospitals and jails was thrown on board, but such regulations are not essential.

If people can't agree on the common good of marriage, then marriage should not be legally regulated at all.

It's stupefyingly clear from this case that people do not even use the same definitions for words including "marriage" and "rights". That this is true does not make anyone on any particular side of the multi-sided debate an outlaw for dissenting from whatever might be the dominant position, in 2008 or now.

Anyway, ignore the lack of consensus on a common good. You didn't even bother to be accurate about relevant California law. You just made up stuff about "material grievances" and "common rights" to try to dodge debate and cast others as beyond the pale.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#89

Post by [deleted] »

dasil003 wrote: post #83
tbrownaw wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, a significant part of the fight (in general, not just California) has been about wanting to legally use the word "marriage", with all the social/religious connotations it's picked up over the years, rather than about just getting equal legal rights thru the law and then sorting out social perception thru social means. This also comes at the expense of other non-traditional relationships, by ma…

You are conveniently ignoring the material grievances that they suffer by focusing on one aspect of the debate and pretending it's the whole thing. The fact is that gay people's life partners can not be granted power of attorney or numerous other marriage benefits is huge glaring inequity in our legal system. Also, your original argument that a debate about Communism is also about human rights is applicable to any po…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN