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

Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

frenchpress.thedispatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 366 posts

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#101

Post by klyrs »

wpietri wrote: post #78
klyrs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a conservative opinion piece -- or at least, it's not well aligned to the Republican tribe. While it does mention some examples of cancellation on the left, it also devotes significant focus to legislation by Republicans attacking the freedom of speech in academia. But, sadly, it appears that most of the commenters here are responding to what they expect from the title.

It is very obviously conservative in language and origin; you only have to read French's bio or about where The Dispatch's come sfrom. Their tag line is, "Fact-based reporting and commentary on politics, policy and culture -- informed by conservative principles". 5 years ago this would have no question passed for a conservative piece. What has shifted here is the rapid Republican/Trumpist slide toward authoritarianis…

> So I read this as a conservative who is shocked by the monster he helped unleash.

That's an interesting read on the situation. If conservatives are rethinking their devotion to a would-be dictator, would you silence their ruminations?

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#102

Post by vehemenz »

devmor wrote: post #76

"Cultural Health" is a meaningless term. Replace it with "what I think is good" and you have the author's true meaning. This isn't a "think piece" - it's a paid political opinion piece complaining that current events will not produce the outcome the author desires. Why is this on HN at all?

If I understood what he meant, and you didn't, what accounts for our difference in understanding? The "author" is David French—not exactly an obscure figure.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#103

Post by aftbit »

klyrs wrote: post #62
josephcsible wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I see: that affects whether it's allowed to be taught in an elective class or not. Yes, to fully oppose censorship, we should allow critical race theory to be taught in optional elective social studies classes. But then we should also allow optional elective science classes to teach that evolution is wrong, because to do otherwise would be censoring the young-Earth creationists.

If you can find a way to teach that without violating the Establishment Clause, sure. The only way forward I can see here would look like a comparative history of religions course, which would teach various creation stories from a neutral viewpoint. And that doesn't seem to be what those campaigning for anti-evolution education have been looking for. Curious if you've got any fresh ideas, though.

Teaching intelligent design needn't violate the Establishment Clause. Nobody says schools can't mention religions and what they believe, just that they cannot require students to adopt one.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#104

Post by vehemenz »

Nursie wrote: post #99
vehemenz wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you invoked "US right", I'll assume you're not American. Criticism of "cancel culture" is not limited to the right wing. If you think it is, then you haven't done your homework.

The article is about the US right, written by someone on the US right. The US right makes a lot of noise about it. The UK right does too. It's massively hypocritical given their history. This article points out that the fringes of the right have now started doing it, my contention is that the whole of the right has been doing it for decades.

That's fair, but it's worth acknowledging that many of the criticisms—especially the legitimate ones—come from the intellectual left. Especially given that most of us do not live in the right-wing extremist media ecosystem.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#105

Post by zozbot234 »

aftbit wrote: post #103
klyrs wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can find a way to teach that without violating the Establishment Clause, sure. The only way forward I can see here would look like a comparative history of religions course, which would teach various creation stories from a neutral viewpoint. And that doesn't seem to be what those campaigning for anti-evolution education have been looking for. Curious if you've got any fresh ideas, though.

Teaching intelligent design needn't violate the Establishment Clause. Nobody says schools can't mention religions and what they believe, just that they cannot require students to adopt one.

Using taxpayer money to promote religion has been held to be equivalent to an "establishment" of religion. This means that any schools funded by the tax man have to be strictly secular, even in their "elective" activities.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#106

Post by klyrs »

aftbit wrote: post #103
klyrs wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can find a way to teach that without violating the Establishment Clause, sure. The only way forward I can see here would look like a comparative history of religions course, which would teach various creation stories from a neutral viewpoint. And that doesn't seem to be what those campaigning for anti-evolution education have been looking for. Curious if you've got any fresh ideas, though.

Teaching intelligent design needn't violate the Establishment Clause. Nobody says schools can't mention religions and what they believe, just that they cannot require students to adopt one.

The language I used allows that possibility. But, in the specific legal challenges I'm aware of in this area, that's been the constitutional obstacle to teaching creation as fact.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#107

Post by JetAlone »

ReactiveJelly wrote: post #97
BobbyJo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then on top of that giving people independent, client-based, advanced AI powered tools en masse, and making sure they know how to use them and why, for accurate elected censorship on their own devices of things they personally find detrimental to their mental health. Basically, do what you can to allow for the censorship of the influence of the people with money, onto the people without it. I lay blame for a lot of…

I wonder if this is true. Is there any guide to finding these ideas that I might be sheltering myself from, that I should not be sheltering myself from?

I believe we have a responsibility to find and trust guides on our own, and make or revise them... I experience, visible in my recent post history on here, many times in recent memory, where I get driven by rage cycles to a point where I'm not who I know I ought to be and could have been. I laugh about it to myself, but I know I love a good verbal joust, which if not handled carefully can be very bad for me and the other person. Some of those "censorship" tools are in my own mind, or accessible to it where I can ignore what riles me up. I'm not omnipotent in that way, but there's work that can be done, and helped, to be appropriately dispassionate.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#108

Post by rayiner »

Sebb767 wrote: post #14
josephcsible wrote: post #2

One major distinction this glosses over is the difference between making it so you can't read something (e.g., banning it), and making it so you aren't required to read something (e.g., removing it from the curriculum). Only the former is censorship.

He actually handles that distinction early in the article as a quote: > [...] he noted that there exists not just a right to speak but a right to hear. “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.” But this is of course a gray area. You don't have to listen to anything anyone has to say, but it's also possible to sideline something enough that it is…

That’s completely inapposite to the point being made above. Choosing a curriculum is about curation—it has nothing at all to do with free speech, neither in the legal sense, nor in the broader “free speech values” sense.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#109

Post by phs318u »

BobbyJo wrote: post #83
JetAlone wrote: post #70

I think censorship actually could help us in a huge way back to cultural health; start censoring big data, rage cycle algorithms, sexploitation, advertising. Then on top of that giving people independent, client-based, advanced AI powered tools en masse, and making sure they know how to use them and why, for accurate elected censorship on their own devices of things they personally find detrimental to their mental he…

> Then on top of that giving people independent, client-based, advanced AI powered tools en masse, and making sure they know how to use them and why, for accurate elected censorship on their own devices of things they personally find detrimental to their mental health. Basically, do what you can to allow for the censorship of the influence of the people with money, onto the people without it. I lay blame for a lot of…

> the ability of people to filter the ideas to which they are exposed

I'd say its the reverse. The inability of people to apply a reasonable filter on the stuff they are exposed to (and I mean mental filter, not technical filter). I've seen people go full-on down the rabbit hole of conspiracism to their own detriment purely on the basis of following YouTube's recommendations (without actively seeking specific topics).

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#110

Post by vba616 »

BobbyJo wrote: post #83
JetAlone wrote: post #70

I think censorship actually could help us in a huge way back to cultural health; start censoring big data, rage cycle algorithms, sexploitation, advertising. Then on top of that giving people independent, client-based, advanced AI powered tools en masse, and making sure they know how to use them and why, for accurate elected censorship on their own devices of things they personally find detrimental to their mental he…

> Then on top of that giving people independent, client-based, advanced AI powered tools en masse, and making sure they know how to use them and why, for accurate elected censorship on their own devices of things they personally find detrimental to their mental health. Basically, do what you can to allow for the censorship of the influence of the people with money, onto the people without it. I lay blame for a lot of…

>I lay blame for a lot of the bipolarism of modern discourse on the ability of people to filter the ideas to which they are exposed to a great degree.

The ability? I think the lack of ability.

I think it's wrong to assign agency to people over what they see just because they provide inputs to the algorithms.

Post reply on HN