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

331–340 of 480 posts

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

#331

Post by aidenn0 »

Zetice wrote: post #135
dadjoker wrote: post #89

"What many people failed to understand, and therefore failed to defend, is an unpleasant fact of intellectual liberalism: When speech causes emotional or mental pain, the offended parties are morally entitled to nothing in the form of compensation from or punishment for the offender." A line that many people still can't handle.

It’s not that people expect compensation or punishment, it’s that as private citizens, we’re totally and completely free to judge the shit out of people for what they say and do. I don’t expect the government to step in when someone says something hateful, but I do pay attention to which groups allow that kind of behavior in their associations and which don’t. We all do have a right to leave the rooms hateful people…

This privileges the government as one of many organizations with outsized power.

Should we also restrict private, yet powerful, organizations from similar actions?

Clearly the article was considering various non-governmental institutions as places where liberal intellectualism are traditionally important and whether or not they should continue to have those values.

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

#332

Post by aidenn0 »

devmor wrote: post #108
dadjoker wrote: post #89

"What many people failed to understand, and therefore failed to defend, is an unpleasant fact of intellectual liberalism: When speech causes emotional or mental pain, the offended parties are morally entitled to nothing in the form of compensation from or punishment for the offender." A line that many people still can't handle.

It's entirely subjective. For instance, if you're a Christian, the Bible would have you beaten, stoned, amputated or killed for different types of speech deemed offensive to specific parties. The US legal system also provides many avenues for punishing people based on their speech. Most legal systems and most religions follow similar rules.

That's why the quote specifically mentions "intellectual liberalism" not Biblical laws nor the US legal system.

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

#333

Post by aidenn0 »

tootie wrote: post #255

Who exactly is this article speaking to? Who right now is trying to put legal limitations on speech? Maybe Ron DeSantis? Most of the agitation against hate speech is not demanding formal punishment from a court. It's asking for platforms to choose not to amplify their messages. Or for the speakers to rethink their lives and choose to be different. The entire article is arguing against a point of view that doesn't rea…

My interpretation is it's speaking to former bastions of "intellectual liberalism" (e.g. universities).

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

#334

Post by wonderwonder »

cmh89 wrote: post #329
wonderwonder wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence" Legislation in the US has actually made trans people vanish or are we using large amounts of hyperbole? People have been saying mean things about other groups for millennia, as long as its just words, its fine. I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they…

> I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they want to come at me with physical violence then that's something else. I'll respond in kind You're acting as though the likely outcome of neo-nazi groups is some skinhead trying to fight you. What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at…

There are always consequences to freedom of ideas. Some good, some bad. The suppression of speech and ideas leads to a dictatorship. I think people that attack others verbally for who or what they are are bad people. I just think that the consequences of suppression of speech are worse. It's all good when the leaders we like are in power and stifle the speech of those we disagree with. It's not so fun when the pendulum swings and those we disagree with have that power.

"What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue." Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban? The only way to eliminate violence based on ideals is to eliminate free will. 1984 here we come.

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

#335

Post by s1artibartfast »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #145
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #111

On the other hand, you can't have your liberal, intellectual society if you allow people to go around making credible threats of violence, which are "just speech" if you subscribe to the speech-is-speech, violence-is-violence approach. If you have to wait until the threat is realized, then any group capable of having members take the punishment for individual acts of violence can grant credibility to making threats t…

I didn't think that credible threats of violence or harassment were protected yet they've become almost normalized.

I cant even remember the last time I saw a credible threat of violence online. It is hard for me to believe they are normalized.

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

#336

Post by s1artibartfast »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #154
rootusrootus wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question is simply where the line gets drawn. Not that simple. First you have to decide who gets to draw it.

In a "liberal, intellectual society", surely each individual would choose for themselves where the line is drawn, and then vigorously debate amongst themselves until a position wins out in the marketplace of ideas, right? Nothing says liberal and intellectual like unquestioningly handing off decision making to some authority figure.

I dont think there is ever complete wins in a marketplace of ideas. This is the problem that people struggle to deal with

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

#337

Post by dighp »

Shared404 wrote: post #281
kneebonian wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes some people employ terms to other people based on religious belief or skin color, should it be acceptable to "other" people by calling them Christofacist? Or suggesting that we should #killallmen? Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights? And before you say that is extreme, hypothetical or doesn't count because it comes from a position of power…

For context, we belong to the same religion, or at least, your ancestors and I do. > should it be acceptable to "other" people by calling them Christofacist? Yes. The whole point even in your example is freedom of religion. Denying anyone freedom of or from religion is inherently wrong from both a religious perspective and a secular perspective. If someone is behaving in that manner, then they should be called out by…

> > Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights?

> It doesn't, though the phrase "To those on top, equality feels like oppression" comes to mind.

The rights of women to enjoy female-only spaces, for their safety and dignity, is being invalidated in the name of so-called "trans rights", whereby a subset of males who demand access to such spaces, entirely disregarding women's boundaries, are being granted access.

This isn't equality, this is male dominance over women.

And yet again, same as it always is, this is oppression of women to meet the demands and desires of males.

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

#338

Post by Clubber »

hpen wrote: post #309

My solution for banning any speech is that the rules have to be nearly unanimously voted in, and voted in for multiple (maybe 3?) presidential administrations. Things like banning the shoutout of “fire” in a theater. Some laws need to be low pass filtered.

>Things like banning the shoutout of “fire” in a theater. Some laws need to be low pass filtered.

That was mostly overturned in 1969, though the history of it is interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

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

#339

Post by hpen »

Clubber wrote: post #338
hpen wrote: post #309

My solution for banning any speech is that the rules have to be nearly unanimously voted in, and voted in for multiple (maybe 3?) presidential administrations. Things like banning the shoutout of “fire” in a theater. Some laws need to be low pass filtered.

>Things like banning the shoutout of “fire” in a theater. Some laws need to be low pass filtered. That was mostly overturned in 1969, though the history of it is interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

Interesting info. I think people still get the point I’m making but thanks for the clarification

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

#340

Post by CamperBob2 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #202
CamperBob2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that you equate speech (not credible, specific threats or other extreme examples of non-protected speech) with having your life threatened physically. I wish I could understand where you're coming from. I genuinely do. ------------- Replying here due to rate limit: That's why I said "generally." I'm not setting out to invalidate or disrespect any individual's experience. It's likely that we'd have no…

He said nothing like that.

The important thing is that you're here to tell us what everybody else is saying. The ironic thing is that nobody can be certain what you're saying.
Post reply on HN