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

211–220 of 366 posts

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

#211

Post by wonnage »

golemiprague wrote: post #161
wonnage wrote: post #79

The article never once tries to define what it thinks would be good "cultural health". You can kinda infer that the current level of vitriol and animosity is bad, but what kind of society would that look like and how would we get there? I can see three versions. First is a homogenous culture where there is nothing to fight culture wars over. I don't think such a thing is possible, nor desirable, since the author's fr…

I don't see what is the problem compromising on those issues, it is not all or nothing issues, there is a whole range of possible compromises on most of the issues you have mentioned. For example abortions, you can compromise on the maximum month in which abortion is legal. Climate change, many conservatives will agree to stop subsidising coal power stations because it bode well with the free market views. Covid, you…

Look at where we’re at today. We’ve “compromised” on every issue you listed; abortion is illegal in several states, the coal industry is slowly declining, vaccinations are encouraged but not required. Theoretically this is state #2 and everyone is happy… yeah no.

You can’t “compromise” on abortion if you think it’s murder. Nor on climate change if your city will disappear under the waves in 30 years. Nor on Covid policy if you think mask policies and vaccination requirements are tools of a police state.

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

#212

Post by teddyh »

Nursie wrote: post #18

The rants about "cancel culture" from the US right are hilarious, given their long history of boycotts of brands they dislike and escalating hate and fear for everything up to actual book burnings of material like Harry Potter. I'm not saying that the accusations of cancel culture are unfounded, I'm saying they are wildly hypocritical. (It's good that efforts at censorship on the right are raised in the article as a…

An accusation of hypocricy is not an argument in the debate; it is a simple ad-hominem, and as such it is a fallacy which can be disregarded.

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

#213

Post by suslik »

dusted wrote: post #178

The application of censorship itself, not what is being censored, is the main symptom of the declining cultural health. The mentality that there are so universally wrong and right things that the right ones must be forced upon any mind, no matter the context, and the wrong ones must be extinguished no matter the context.

Unfortunately, this. Censorship on moral grounds, amplified by a lack of epistemic humility, is a key characteristic of modern western culture. Not only western, and modern, of course - I suspect that the feeling that 'I am more correct than the other' is a natural property of consciousness itself; an understanding of one's own mind is always more intuitive than a theory of mind.

Anyways, I feel - and would be great to be wrong here - that there is no technocratic solution to prevent censorship in the context of culture that demands, even begs for it. Splitting facebook, making twitter a utility, developing government-controlled platforms - none of these sound convincing.

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

#214

Post by 6510 »

keithnz wrote: post #198
issa wrote: post #139

I have a foreign wife and it really drives home one truth: America is a very nuanced place. We have this idea of almost unlimited free speech. Which sounds great, but in practice, it is not really true. Because ultimately, Americans do not have equal rights. We see this over and over in different aspects of society. The Frederick Douglas example from Boston in the article is a great example of why free speech is good…

liberty and free speech tends to overly concern Americans when they have more pressing and bigger problems. The big mistake with the title is "way back to cultural health", stop looking backwards. If you do want to look back to the idea that founded your republic, look back and see a whole bunch of people trying to look forward. Do that. Fix your system of government, a two party system is bad for you, you've become…

Most have had the joy of building or organizing a thing and seeing their effort unfold. Some have enjoyed the same joy creating things with others. If there are nation wide efforts to accomplish something and people get to work at it themselves and marvel at the fruits of their labor the natural question is: What shall we build next? If a nation is overly focused on the self over the collective those efforts will decline and the question what to build next is drowned in the noise.

The new man, who talks in text over the internet, is rendered without the context a face to face conversation offers. Take how one can ask people to do something for you. 30 years ago I would frequently ask people to do things that took hours. I would buy something to drink, cook a meal, take them out for drinks or dinner or do something for them later. When I got online it took me quite some time to realize you cant ask random strangers for more than a few sentences worth of assistance or worse, they would get furious if I send them a pm.

Marveling at our collective accomplishments is now even further away. I'm not even going to ask anymore what we can do together to turn the tide or progress in some other way. I'm no longer going to offend anyone with the idea that if they are the one who can do something they are also responsible for the outcome.

This clip from coneheads was brilliant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6ANOBnwpSA

This is who we are now.

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

#215

Post by YEwSdObPQT »

issa wrote: post #139

I have a foreign wife and it really drives home one truth: America is a very nuanced place. We have this idea of almost unlimited free speech. Which sounds great, but in practice, it is not really true. Because ultimately, Americans do not have equal rights. We see this over and over in different aspects of society. The Frederick Douglas example from Boston in the article is a great example of why free speech is good…

I listened to a video from a guy who is most probably a white nationalist and most probably a fascist in the UK quite a while ago. While I find his view abhorrent he understands the free-speech debate better than anyone else.

To paraphrase him:

> Those who cry about free speech are weak, they don't have political power. Those that are strong (those in power) will censor.

His view of free speech is that whichever group doesn't have power and being censored will claim to want free speech. When they get power (culturally or politically) they will then start to censor.

I happen to think his framing of it is the most correct. I've personally seen happen over the years.

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

#216

Post by scotty79 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #210
scotty79 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't jewish minority suffer because of too much of free speech in Germany at some point? What about too much of free speech Hutu enjoyed in Rwanda at some point?

No, that was certainly not the reason, on the contrary. Speech was severely restricted at the time and Germany also had hate speech laws. That probably had a severe negative effect because people became more radical as they were disallowed to vent their grievances. Those that demanded restraint often did it because of their own vanity. Open hate speech with government propaganda which discriminated against Jews came…

> Speech was severely restricted at the time and Germany also had hate speech laws.

Nope. It had way too weak protections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Weimar_R...

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

#217

Post by roenxi »

bruce511 wrote: post #205
roenxi wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's talking about this at a school. The fundamental premise of a school is that someone is going to decide what is and is not valuable to learn. And that there is an authority (embodied in the teacher) who has the power to decide what will and will not be discussed in class. Assuming you mean what you wrote, you may be arguing for abolishing the public school system. In principle that seems like an interesting idea,…

So yes, clearly there is a carriculim, and someone has to set that, and there will be a flavor to that carriculim based on the social environment. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't have a problem with teachers bringing their own personality to the classroom. I am not vegan, but if my kid has a vegan teacher that would be valuable in exposing them to that world-view. I do object to political interference i…

You may struggle to reconcile this with the idea of public schooling and keep your position coherent. Particularly compulsory public schooling.

It is hard for the government to control the school system and also for the government not to exercise any control over the school system. I think you might be advocating voluntary, private-only schooling here - although I also think you might disagree with that opinion.

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

#218

Post by raxxorrax »

scotty79 wrote: post #216
raxxorrax wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that was certainly not the reason, on the contrary. Speech was severely restricted at the time and Germany also had hate speech laws. That probably had a severe negative effect because people became more radical as they were disallowed to vent their grievances. Those that demanded restraint often did it because of their own vanity. Open hate speech with government propaganda which discriminated against Jews came…

> Speech was severely restricted at the time and Germany also had hate speech laws. Nope. It had way too weak protections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Weimar_R...

> The Weimar Republic maintained a number of criminal provisions for hate crimes and anti-Semitic expression.

> The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information

I believe Goebbels said something that the mistake was giving them free speech in the first place. He didn't like free speech at all, but he was also a propaganda expert and knew that some people would again try to censor speech which would work in his favor.

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

#219

Post by strawhatguy »

dirtyid wrote: post #199

"he noted that there exists not just a right to speak but a right to hear" Is that so? I don't see why a speaker is entitled to an audience, let alone access to mass private communication.

Where did Frederick Douglas say anyone was entitled to an audience?

The speaker has a right to speak, but cannot demand others listen. The listener has a right to hear, but cannot demand others to speak.

The speech he gives is amazing to read, he goes further: "Equally clear is the 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. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money."

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

#220

Post by scotty79 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #218
scotty79 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Speech was severely restricted at the time and Germany also had hate speech laws. Nope. It had way too weak protections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Weimar_R...

> The Weimar Republic maintained a number of criminal provisions for hate crimes and anti-Semitic expression. > The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information I believe Goebbels said something that the mistake was giving them free speech in the first place. He didn't like free speech at all, but he was also a propaganda expert and kn…

When Nazi regime came to power it was already too late.

And protections against ant-Semitic expression were too weak as evidenced by Nazi regime coming to power by being elected in democratic process.

Another source: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-propa...

"When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. "

But I concede that there are exactly opposite views.

After all it's history so anyone is free to make stuff up about it that fits his narrative.

Post reply on HN