Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

351–360 of 606 posts

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

#351

There's a disconnect that keeps running through a lot of the arguments from the conservative side which I don't understand. The examples given in this piece are a) the right of street protesters to be heard without being attacked by government officers vs b) the right of people to not get fired for what they say by private organizations like the New York Times. This disconnect keeps coming up, and it's extra weird be…

Yeah, but this is to some extent just an interesting side-note. At least I know several people who are liberals but don't agree with lacking "political correctness" being sufficient cause for "canceling."

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

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google did it to James Damore. People celebrated it, as it opposes their beliefs even though many psychologist publicly said that the gender difference identified in the memo are science backed.

> People celebrated it No, some people celebrated it. A noisy minority.

Backed by much of the media, and many spineless corps.

It was a convenient mistruth (for corps not wanting to threaten their bottom line with unwinnable controversy) that Damore is just a rabble-rouser;

You shouldn't pay too much attention to him, or read his actual memo, (or supporting links for context) - but if you are interested, we vox-plain the important stuff for you right here!..

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

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was always implicit in group discussions. As others have said, Codes of Conduct aren't creating new rules, they're just making them explicit instead of implicit. Let me give you an example: you have a group of friends. Two of your friends have recently experienced a miscarriage. The implicit rules in your group have now expanded to include "no dead baby jokes" (depending on how dark your group's humour was, this…

I agree that if there are rules, it's much better to make them explicit instead of implicit. I also think your example makes sense, but I'm not sure it applies to larger groups or public forums. There are simply too many people to avoid discussing every topic that could offend someone. I'm not saying overt racism or homophobia is okay, but especially when it comes to humor it's almost unavoidable that it can hit too…

> In public discussions there has to be some baseline ability by the reader to accept that they can be offended while the value of what was said to the rest of the audience may outweigh their own feelings. The implicit rules of what is acceptable to talk about, especially online, have been getting stricter to the point of being ridiculous in my experience.

Quite agree. Thus my proposal to create smaller, more controlled discussion groups. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to build a code of conduct that will satisfy all participants.

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

#354

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…

Is this "Black Market" in line with what people are talking about when saying offended? And I assure you, the slave trade will continue or discontinue with or without your efforts.

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

#355

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…

Genuine question - I hang around in some pretty seriously left-wing, often social-justice-obsessed circles and I've never heard anyone complain about the term black market, or want to pretend that slavery doesn't go on in the middle east. Have you got examples of this kind of thing being commonplace? I have heard people complain that people complain about these things, but never first-hand experienced people's compla…

While I don't know anyone who goes off the rails on someone who about terms like "black market," I do think there are academics studying terms like these [0] and how they effect culture and society as a whole. I also think they would communicate in such a way as to say "Hey it's not cool to use that word because it promotes institutional racism, can we use another term instead?"

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/

>This commentary addresses the widespread use of racist language in discussions concerning predatory publishing. Examples include terminology such as blacklists, whitelists, and black sheep. The use of such terms does not merely reflect a racist culture, but also serves to legitimize and perpetuate it.

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

#356
post #34

Shouting people down in public and on the internet doesn’t change opinions. People just talk more quietly or take more care with whom they share their thoughts and opinions. Cancel culture, outrage culture, and the general “social justice” movement is not much more than a wide scale attempt to silence dissenting thought. Build your own bubble, and shout down anyone who thinks or speaks differently. Yell and call it “…

I don't find it to be controversial that questioning someone's humanity or personhood isn't simply "offensive." I find it very surprising that people chanting anti-Semitic nonsense continue to find acceptance and defenders in the United States. To have a tolerant and open society you need to be intolerant to those who are intolerant. Why is this new or subject to debate?

> To have a tolerant and open society you need to be intolerant to those who are intolerant

Do you have any proof of that? From what I can see, the US has been, for the past 200 years, the most tolerant to intolerance, and also (one of) the most tolerant. Weimar Republic (pre-Nazi Germany), had prohibitions on anti-Semitism, yet it didn't help. I'm sure there are also counterexamples, but regardless your claim doesn't exactly follow.

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

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was always implicit in group discussions. As others have said, Codes of Conduct aren't creating new rules, they're just making them explicit instead of implicit. Let me give you an example: you have a group of friends. Two of your friends have recently experienced a miscarriage. The implicit rules in your group have now expanded to include "no dead baby jokes" (depending on how dark your group's humour was, this…

I think you are focusing on clear examples, and not the grey areas that can easily be abused. Should a CoC have a "no politics" rule? No profanity (in an 18+ group)?

It depends on the purpose of the group. There are lots of 18+ groups that discourage politics, and lots more where no profanity is expected. As long as there are other different groups where those are allowed, everything is OK.

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

#358

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…

First, good on you for helping the world be a better place. I have to ask, why use "Black Market"? It doesn't make sense whether you are involved in these issues or not. Modern day slavery is universally known as human trafficking within law enforcement, social justice and international peace groups. This isn't a word police thing, it's just not accurate or common. Seems like using "Black Market" just makes things co…

Because the words "Black Market" literally mean and describe the place which the GP was talking about every where in the world. This is not only an American or English thing, many of other languages use the same expression (black + market) to mean the same thing.

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

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other The trick is to create channels with limited audiences, where you can set an expectation of which ideas are acceptable and which are not.* It always has been, but the the arrival of new communication methods has disrupted the traditional channels, and now every idea is propagated to a much larger and looser audience, which aren't aware or don't…

Wouldn't it be better ti provide people the tools to create their own channels, through personalized filtering algorithms? The idea that a central authority gets to decide what is acceptable and what is not is, in my view, only acceptable in extreme cases which are already covered by law.

Yes, that's why it's important to have decentralised social networks. You can have authorities to decide what is acceptable, but only for small groups.

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

#360
post #326
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is somewhat revisionist I would say, She was cancelled by the left like many have been over the years, because while she was "anti-conservative" (though not really) she was far more moderate than the Extreme Authoritarian left accepts

You don't find it slightly ironic that you are defending her when she was "cancelled" for setting up a website with the express purpose of doxxing people who didn't want to be identified?[1] I think it was you who claimed this on the Scott Alexander story: > One of the biggest problems in modern society is the lack of respect for privacy and anonymous speech. anonymous speech has been a cornerstone of the advancement…

I dont believe I was defending her. i believe in facts and the statement was factually inaccurate, She moved more conservative and started her conservative persona after the left rejected or ejected her from their circle.

Not sure how correcting the record with facts is "defending" some one but I guess in times of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act

I absolutely am not a fan of her or her works on the doxxing site

Post reply on HN