Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive • Hacker News Board

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#181

Post by zarkov99 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:53 AM UTC

AHappyCamper wrote: post #86

imgabe wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the issue is that some people consider any speech they disagree with as a threat of violence or "endangering my safety".

Again, I empathize with the feelings of people who may feel emotionally threatened by a derogatory comment, but some speech deals with people whose lives are in imminent mortal danger (e.g. those about to be sold on Black Market) and if we can't quickly discuss their cases and potential responses to rescue them, then they will be doomed to a life of untold misery. In such situations, there is no time to filter every…

You are right and I do not think you should waste a single thought on the easily offended. They suck. There is no hope for that kind of faked fragility. Somewhere will always claim to be offended by something you say or do, to the point that the only safe thing for you to do is nothing at all (maybe). Much better stay true to your heart and plow ahead with the good work your are doing. Good people will see it and as to the others, fuck them.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#182

Post by DanBC » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:54 AM UTC

dependenttypes wrote: post #116

maccard wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with the point you're making at all here. OPs point is that if you attend a gathering with people you don't know, and that gathering turns out to be heavily represented by white supremacist groups, you are going to be labelled with it. You're furiously defending an argument that you've made, which is exactly the point that is being made repeatedly in this thread, that's it's very difficult to have a dis…

In the same spirit, gentleman11's point is that if you attend a gathering with people you don't know, and that gathering turns out to be heavily represented by looters and rioters, you are going to be labelled with it. > You're furiously defending an argument that you've made More like trying to show to DanBC that their line of thinking is illogical. Regardless, I do not see anything furious about it.

There's nothing illogical about describing as racist a group of people who make Nazi salutes, who attack black people, who spray racist graffiti.

I'm pointing out that this is a simplistic, dishonest, framing:

> Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories[1].

A more honest framing would be "people out protecting Churchill statutes, many of them making Nazi salutes and chanting racist slogans, are labelled as racists in several stories".

This isn't just the extreme left calling everything racist. Here's the Telegraph[1] quoting Boris Johnson[2] who condemns "racist thuggery". https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/13/black-lives-matt...

[1] A right wing newspaper.

[2] A right wing PM.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#183

Post by clort » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:57 AM UTC

AHappyCamper wrote: post #115

eirini1 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not all, there are plenty of ways to phrase something without offending people - unless of course the content of what you are saying is itself, offensive :)

We were dealing with life and death situations. The pressure is beyond intense. If you mess up, a girl will be locked in a cave for much of her life. It's not a "calm" environment where you can nitpick every term for political correctness. You just need to convey the info that you need. Re raising awareness, there is no way to say "We're trying to stop slavery in the Middle East and shut down the human Black Markets"…

I appreciate your concern about the naming and I think you are right to have that concern. The problem with this (to be obvious) is that 'black' is being used as an perjorative because there are good markets and bad markets but the good ones don't have an adjective, and 'black' is an attribute which is also used to describe people who are born with darker skin (perhaps unavoidably so, for the forseeable future).

Is there a reason can't you just call this a Slave Market ? I mean, wikipedia has a page entitled just that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_market. If you wish to disambiguate from historical you could add 'modern', 'contemporary', 'underground', or 'secret' very easily.

As to the location, it might be the case that the middle east is where you were involved, but I rather suspect that a) not all the slaves sold remain in that area and b) this does not only happen in that area. Certainly I have read of modern slavery occurring here in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. I have certainly read of women from China, Nigeria and Eastern European countries for instance, being trafficked for prostitution in recent years and I'm pretty sure that this is not the whole story. You are doing great work[0] actively working against slavery, right? If your organisation were successful in the middle east, would it then simply close down?

[0] and thank you for that.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#184

Post by NohatCoder » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 9:58 AM UTC

AHappyCamper wrote: post #78

I understand that there are a lot of people who are hurting right now, and I empathize with their pain, but how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other or convey important information to the public if we believe there might be serious reprisals against us if we "say the wrong thing". For example, I personally helped work against slavery on the Black Market in the Middle East, and I wanted…

>All speech besides threats of violence needs to be free, or we can't progress as a society.

The problem with that simple rule is that there is no simple way to distinguish threats. Take a statement like "I don't think black people deserve to live", technically not worded as a threat, but the sentiment is no different. Similar examples varying in strength, obfuscation and contextual meaning can be produced in unlimited quantities. No hard rule can deal with all this, so have to debate what should and should not be allowed.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#185

Post by notahacker » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 10:01 AM UTC

syshum wrote: post #153

nmfisher wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but by the same token, there is a clear distinction between these two opinions: 1) I believe the government should outlaw firing people based on what they say in the office 2) I believe that companies should not fire people based on what they say in the office. Believing in small government doesn't mean you have no opinion on cultural norms. It just means you don't think the government should enforce them. But…

it is not just conservatives that do not grasp that The 2 statements are the difference between a liberty minded person and the authority minded person Liberty mined (or libertarian) can easily separate their personal beliefs on what is "proper" but still allow that other people may view differently and as long as they are not harming them (or anyone else) should be allowed to live their life in the manner they deem…

And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do.

Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence, the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections in the sphere of employment. You'll find a large set of people with a general presumption in favour of protecting political speech including some which they find disagreeable, but even involves debating where to draw the line, because speech which is ostensibly political can to differing degrees also be abusive, damaging to staff relations, bringing the company into disrepute, contrary to professional ethics, directly undermining the organization's position etc. And of course who should be given stronger-than-average protections is also a matter of some debate, and you'll usually find plenty of people arguing for government protections on the freedom of conscience for racists but not homosexuals and vice versa. Some people believe in restricting employers with more general presumptions in favour of speech than others, but assessing which ones and why is more useful than simply claiming the other side is more authoritarian, especially when those arguing for fire-at-will for any reason also consider themselves to be doing so on libertarian grounds.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#186

Post by worik » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 10:02 AM UTC

zarkov99 wrote: post #173

Mangalor wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. The effect of which would silence both their work rights and free speech rights. Google, a private corporation, not a government, decided to stop contracting with him, as they have women and minorities on staff whose employment output likely outweighs his personal need to write…

> Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. That is completely false and you should be ashamed if yourself for spreading such blatant lies. I urge anyone reading your comment to check for themselves and read Damore's essay, which was well researched, rational and compassionate, the exact opposite of the kind of libel th…

Not completely false.

"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership."

Which could be interpreted, honestly, as saying...

"women and minorities could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics"

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#187

Post by krapp » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 10:05 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #22

klmadfejno wrote: post #15

As great as free speech is, I don't think western political systems will survive it if it's not accompanied by transparency and accountability. Humans are hard wired to perceive their environments as local. They are not local anymore. The bar of plausible deniability has sunk two inches into the mud we stand on for any dumbass political justification. I don't want restrictions on free speech, but I also feel absolute…

Sorry, but both "transparency" and "accountability" are considered censorship now.

I'm being censored for my facetious, low quality comment!

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#188

Post by worik » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 10:05 AM UTC

zarkov99 wrote: post #173

Mangalor wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. The effect of which would silence both their work rights and free speech rights. Google, a private corporation, not a government, decided to stop contracting with him, as they have women and minorities on staff whose employment output likely outweighs his personal need to write…

> Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. That is completely false and you should be ashamed if yourself for spreading such blatant lies. I urge anyone reading your comment to check for themselves and read Damore's essay, which was well researched, rational and compassionate, the exact opposite of the kind of libel th…

"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. " was of course a proposition, not advanced,but the propasition that it could not be debated was put forward.

Newsflash!! This was being debated 30 years ago. No evidence ever found, apart from So whatever the truthity fairly idiotic

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#189

Post by kgwgk » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 10:05 AM UTC

worik wrote: post #186

zarkov99 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. That is completely false and you should be ashamed if yourself for spreading such blatant lies. I urge anyone reading your comment to check for themselves and read Damore's essay, which was well researched, rational and compassionate, the exact opposite of the kind of libel th…

Not completely false. "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership." Which could be interpreted, honestly, as saying... "women and minorities could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics"

That seems an acceptable interpretation only if it also means that "men and majorities could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics."

Because both are encompassed by the more general "people could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics."

And that's of course not the only interpretation possible, but the one you choose. You say it's because of "capability" but you could look at it in terms of "inclination", "interest", "comparative advantages" or other angles.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#190

Post by DanBC » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 10:06 AM UTC

Aengeuad wrote: post #150

DanBC wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories You missed out the bit where some of them were doing Nazi salutes or carrying EDL / Britain First etc flags.

With all the talk of people doing Nazi salutes it seemed like you could open any news story about the counter-protests and you'd see clear evidence of Neo-Nazis but it was anything but, even when people point to videos [0] that are supposed to demonstrate the Nazi salute it's a struggle to even figure out who is supposed to be doing it. Another video [1] of that same scene is even less supportive of the claim of Nazi…

> this is literally the first time I'm hearing that the leader of Britain First showed up

It's somewhat frustrating that people who do not know who attended the demonstration are telling me that I'm wrong when I say it was mostly comprised of recognised far right groups.

The protests were organised by far right groups such as FLA / DLFA, with calls from people like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and Paul Golding for people to attend.

Here's a photo of a Britain First flag: https://twitter.com/harshmallow01/status/1272099528175386625... (This is the un-modified version).

Here's Stephen Yaxley Lennon calling on the Football Lads Alliance (a recognised far right leader talking to a recognised far right group) https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2020/06/08/football-hooligans...

Here's a right-wing source, describing a right wing PM who calls the protest "racist thuggery". https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/13/black-lives-matt...