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

Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 480 posts

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#191

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

version_five wrote: post #130
ARandomerDude wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say the word "trans" in a sentence and put an "x" on an otherwise common adjective and no other effort is required.

I expect the above will get flagged but it's correctly pointing out that we've effectively brute forced some loopholes that allow normal protections on speech and thought to be bypassed. The fact that you "can't" say certain things ends up shifting the game to claiming your opponent has said one of those certain things. Edit: to wit, the parent post claim in ridiculous action: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=348…

> The fact that you "can't" say certain things

what fact is that? who enforces the "can't" ?

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#192

Post by rootusrootus »

Zetice wrote: post #139
rootusrootus wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't really call it a marketplace of ideas, then, if your response is [metaphorically] a SLAPP. E.g. people weren't just critical of Justine Sacco, they tried to destroy her. Tell me again who the bad guys are?

How should a marketplace of ideas work, then?

You attack the idea, not the person.

If you go after the person, you are not participating in any marketplace of ideas, you're now the one committing the violence.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#193

Post by listless »

breadbreadbread wrote: post #144

I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics. Everyday on the internet I see trans…

> Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence...

Granted that there is an overreaction happening but that seems largely in response to a rather hostile approach from that community. “If you deadname me I’ll have you banned”. “If you refuse to use my pronouns I’ll have you fired.” “If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you”.

This is no way to solve problems in a free society. Let’s trans people be trans. And let people who think there are only two genders think that. Forcing a set of beliefs or values on people is exactly what we should be trying to avoid.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#195

Post by Swenrekcah »

devmor wrote: post #98

Another thinkpiece positing that facing consequences for saying fucked up shit is somehow a bad thing. How many of these must we suffer through? Why do none of these people grasp the concept that when you speak to other people, they do not have to passively absorb your words? This author, like many others, could use the sage advice my father gave me in 5th grade when I taunted and made fun of another student and got…

There are two distinct things people often confuse on either side of this issue.

Say a stupid/offending/violent thing and you’ll face consequences from

1) other people listening in the form of shunning/shouting/lost opportunities/laughing.

2) the government in form of fines or even imprisonment.

People on both sides get all hot and bothered when they receive 1) and complain that they have freedom of speech or that their opponents are bigots. This should mostly be ignored, like you said: "Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash."

Some people however want their opponents to face 2) and that is very dangerous. That is literally fascism and this sentiment exists on both sides as well.

It’s 2) we need to defend against and pretending that we’re only talking about 1) is a fatal misunderstanding.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#196

Post by trieste92 »

banannaise wrote: post #173
trieste92 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some speech suppresses the speech of others Isn't this exactly what you're trying to do here? > Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment > it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Ahh yes, because the people who try to redefine "free speech" like what you're doing…

> Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment It is very odd to assert that the morality of speech is completely, correctly, and undeniably established in a document written 250 years ago that defines the laws of only one country.

> morality of speech

Where are you getting this morality business from?

Free speech is how it's defined in law, in the USA that's the 1st

Talking about "morality of speech" is just noise and deserves the quotation marks

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#197

Post by colechristensen »

breadbreadbread wrote: post #144

I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics. Everyday on the internet I see trans…

It doesn't matter if words affect you. Threats are illegal, go ahead and prosecute. Disrespect is and should be legally protected. Government cannot, will not, and should not be in the position of making people like or be nice to you. People should be nice to each other but it is not the government's job to enforce this.

Nobody's rights extend to government banning speech that isn't supportive. No speech suppresses anybody else's.

Free speech isn't about "free speech for people who say things I support".

I'm tired of authoritarians pretending to be liberal.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#198

Post by somesortofthing »

kneebonian wrote: post #69
somesortofthing wrote: post #47

I think this article makes a key mistake that I see almost all commentators make of visions of free speech less radical than, say, the first amendment: They consider only the direct effects of speech on those who hear it. If you accept this, it's very easy to(correctly) respond that it's not the state's job to police mere offense, no matter how grave it may be. Some people who try to make criticisms of a radical free…

> but at the same time, it's undeniable that a lot of money and attention is flowing to ever-bolder provocateurs whose only possible goal is to escalate existing tensions and iniquities to violence in service of their political aims. Then you should defeat them in the marketplace of ideas and be able to counter their facillous words. To suggest otherwise is to stand in a position where you claim that some people are…

> Then you should defeat them in the marketplace of ideas and be able to counter their facillous words. To suggest otherwise is to stand in a position where you claim that some people are incapable of intelligently reasoning about something and that another superior individual should be able to police what they hear.

How do I defeat someone "in the marketplace of ideas" when the person inciting violence is backed by a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate, an undemocratic government, or a police union/sheriff gang?

> If someone says racist hateful things you're argument is that people should not be allowed to listen to it because it is a "bad thing" and other people who aren't as wise as you shoudlnt be allowed to hear it because they might act violently.

It's not about being "wise", it's about incentives. Plenty of people directly and benefit from violence against marginalized groups, and it's in their interest to accept and encourage the normalization of violence against those groups. Media provocateurs have an impeccable sense of what they need to say and what ideas they're communicating when they speak. Plausibly deniable provocation works so well precisely because the target audience understand the real message perfectly.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#200

Post by disembiggen »

trieste92 wrote: post #162
breadbreadbread wrote: post #144

I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics. Everyday on the internet I see trans…

> Some speech suppresses the speech of others Isn't this exactly what you're trying to do here? > Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment > it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Ahh yes, because the people who try to redefine "free speech" like what you're doing…

Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment

Lol, USAian moment, how about the other 7.7 billion of us?

Post reply on HN