321–330 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can’t have an open and intellectually gratifying discussion if you know there are things you cannot say. False. There are always things you cannot say if you truly want to have an open and intellectually gratifying discussion. Freedom of speech, legally and conceptually, has never meant freedom from the consequences of that speech.
Responses like these are why we are where we are. Enjoy the ride.
The methodological flaw here is amusingly it’s own fascinating study: using some verbal sophistication proxy as a cognitive ability proxy to correlate political attitudes is arguably the key feature of modern hyper-polarized, Internet-speed news cycle politics. It’s difficult to watch a screen without hearing some version of “most people are stupid”. This is deeply wrong: most people are very smart , but this is diff…
> most people are very smart Only half are above median intelligence. There's a difference between being smart and being well-educated. Wisdom is the combination of intelligence with knowledge. > coastal lefties are always befuddled Being well-educated in STEM is not indicative of being well-educated in history and/or economics, which most Americans seem very poorly educated in.
The methodological flaw here is amusingly it’s own fascinating study: using some verbal sophistication proxy as a cognitive ability proxy to correlate political attitudes is arguably the key feature of modern hyper-polarized, Internet-speed news cycle politics. It’s difficult to watch a screen without hearing some version of “most people are stupid”. This is deeply wrong: most people are very smart , but this is diff…
I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…
I'd argue free speech is in a historically relatively good place (from my perspective in the US at least). In recent history within the US, there were times that film was not considered protected speech, comedians were arrested for saying simple swear words, and like a zillion different times protesters and laborers were killed for their speech. Protesters are killed far less often today. Plus, with the internet, peo…
sorry, 'free speech except for special pleading for the ideas i don't like' is not free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? The way it works is: "Sure I support free speech, but saying X is not free speech and saying it should be against the law because its offensive and might incite violence or something." If you object, they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance.
that's interesting, 'saying X should be against the law' is precisely not what I'm hearing. instead I'm hearing 'there shouldn't be a law that requires a private entity to broadcast X' and 'you really shouldn't say X, and I would strongly suggest that you do not say X' and 'if you say X, there may not be legal consequences, but legal consequences are not the only kind of consequences' so i don't agree that 'the way i…
You've never heard anybody in the US advocating for laws against hate speech? I mean 'hate speech' which isn't inciting imminent lawless action, the present standard set by Bradenburg v. Ohio. Something like "ethnic group X are bringing crime to our community"; this sort of statement is called hate speech, but is legal in America.
I have met a fair few people in America who believe that all hate speech such as that is intrinsically an incitement of violence, rejecting the imminent lawless action standard. They reason that any statement which could inspire negative feelings towards another, particularly a marginalized group, might also indirectly inspire people to commit acts of violence and should therefore be illegal.
I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…
I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud? I think what you mean is that people are calling for internet platforms to kick out certain groups. This is in no way a call against freedom of speech. I am not sure why people suddenly believe that being for 'free speech' means that other p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure about the policies bit. Sure, on the social front God, Guns, and Gays are powerful motivators to get those people to vote. But economic policies from the same side seem to be mainly about lowering the tax burden of the rich. What am I missing?
Not sure what your point is, but wealthy people are the source of investment capital. Less capital investment means a less prosperous economy, which negatively impacts about everybody.
> that huge blocks of the rest of the country (and world) vote with their ballots or feet or both for very poorly-articulated policies and agendas
My point is that the policies and agendas seem to be driven more on anger than on structural policies that will enrich their lives.
I'm trying desperately to not engage in any sort of partisanship here, but I'm not aware of any significant policies from the previous administration that actually made their lives better.
It's been shown that fear (and anger) are powerful motivators: https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2020/fear-motivator-elections
tl;dr -- fear+anger > economics/domestic policy
It's worth digging into the methodology here: the study participants were found through Mechanical Turk, and the proxy for cognitive ability is a vocabulary quiz. You can just as well use this study to show that the kind of highly educated people whose circumstances are dire enough they have to work for pennies an hour have been socialized into giving correct answers about questions pertaining to freedom of speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue free speech is in a historically relatively good place (from my perspective in the US at least). In recent history within the US, there were times that film was not considered protected speech, comedians were arrested for saying simple swear words, and like a zillion different times protesters and laborers were killed for their speech. Protesters are killed far less often today. Plus, with the internet, peo…
>I'd also be careful not to conflate "people who think free speech is a bad idea" and "people who want limitations on speech." sorry, 'free speech except for special pleading for the ideas i don't like' is not free speech.
If you are arguing in good faith, why are you on HackerNews? Censorship is built-in to the platform with votes and flags, and this is one of the most strictly moderated (censored) social media sites.
This isn't special pleading, it's simple nuance. I don't think it's worthwhile to explain why StackExchange would be worse if they allowed porn, or why HackerNews would be worse if we could compare it disfavorably to Reddit (something you're not allowed to say here.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance. Yup, that's me. What's wrong with that according to you? If your expression is promoting violence, especially violence against a vulnerable group (children, minorities, I'd say even animals), I'm okay with drawing up laws against such things. Thereby reducing freedom of expression. Advertising for instance. If every building/land owner or municipality could…
Three problems with that: 1. Every time you restrict what people are allowed to say or write, you are in effect restricting what people are allowed to hear or read. I read and listen to many things I disagree with. Sometimes I even find the content abhorrent. But I don’t want the government saying what I can and can’t read. 2. Who decides? Any government body with such powers is ripe for abuse. And do you expect such…
Is there any advocation of violence that you think should be blocked? F that guy, lets roll over there and kill is just fine? I think people who believe there is nothing that justifies that aren't someone who is vulnerable.