Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive • Hacker News Board

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

#371

Post by marcus_holmes » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:55 PM UTC

lucaspm98 wrote: post #334

marcus_holmes wrote: post #236

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…

I agree with that. But like I said, that's a different problem. The "stricter to the point of being ridiculous" is a Purity Spiral, and that's a known phenomenom in human commnication that occurs in all sorts of settings. It's not new, and it's not restricted to online conversations. Also hard to escape.

The core reasoning behind Codes of Conduct is sound.

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

#372

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 1:58 PM UTC

Mangalor wrote: post #215

zarkov99 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. That is completely false and you should be ashamed if yourself for spreading such blatant lies. I urge anyone reading your comment to check for themselves and read Damore's essay, which was well researched, rational and compassionate, the exact opposite of the kind of libel th…

I often find that the usual so-called defenders of free speech do not hesitate for one moment with that libel charge whenever they encounter an opinion they happen to disagree with.

free speech gives you certain right to say what you want to say, and express your opinion. It even lets you give your opinion on other peoples opinions.

It doesn't allow you to state as fact that someone holds an opinion that they do not. You can express an opinion, but there are limits on stating falsehoods, especially wrt other people.

you say "encounter an opinion they happen to disagree with", implying your statement about the memo is just your opinion, but you didn't say it in any way that suggests it was that subjective; and, making any unsubstantiated claim about a person is on shaky ground even if you did make it clear it was just opinion.

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

#373

Post by marcus_holmes » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:04 PM UTC

TuringTest wrote: post #357

Chris2048 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This.

In any group you will need to agree on a set of rules about these things. A Code of Conduct doesn't change that, just makes it explicit.

The reason that Codes of Conduct are good is that it makes the life of an organiser so much easier. If Bob is being weird around the ladies (again), then an organiser can take him to one side and point to the "no being weird around the ladies" clause in the CoC. This is a massively easier discussion than without the CoC, where they would have to explain to Bob that his behaviour around the ladies was causing them distress, etc.

Yes, this includes "grey" areas, because it involves human feelings and emotions. Charles might behave in a similar manner to Bob, but not be "weird" about it, and people find him funny not creepy. Therefore he's not breaking the "don't be weird around the ladies" rule. That's down to human perception, unfortunately for Bob.

But that rule already existed, and was already "grey". Without the CoC, the organiser would still need to take Bob to one side and have the chat. Because weirding out the female members of the group is a dick move regardless. And Charles would still get a pass because he wasn't being weird. The CoC hasn't changed anything, just made it explicit.

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

#374

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:05 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #317

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, there was literally an official government policy called "Don't ask, don't tell".

Which was entirely reasonable. ...because the point of the military isn't to discuss your gender alignment. The unfairness of it became obvious when every other enlisted man would talk about their latest sex partner and the gay person had to just stand awkwardly silent. ...but the policy itself was rooted in a reasonable desire for soldiers to focus on soldiering.

I'd love to see the list of all the other mundane things you weren't allowed to talk about because they distracted from soldiering. It only seems reasonable if you only consider it in an idealized vacuum.

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

#375

Post by j-c-hewitt » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:07 PM UTC

vogre wrote: post #262

TuringTest wrote: post #104

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…

You basically describe Soviet "obkoms". The commitee of people who decided what is ok to say/sing/write, and what is not. Needless to say, they became corrupt very soon, because no one was allowed to say a word against them.

Having an obkom would be helpful -- it's really hard to tell what you are allowed to say. It'd be nice also to have a grace period so there is some fair warning when certain ideas or words will become banned. Orderly authoritarianism is preferable to random, chaotic outbursts of censorious violence. But even just an official obkom rather than unofficial 'volunteer' versions of it would really reduce confusion here.

The Saudi Arabian religious police enforcing public edicts are preferable to ISIS pulling you out of a truck, giving you a theology pop quiz, and then shooting you when you get some answers wrong. The Anglican sacramental Test Act is preferable to a fake regime of toleration.

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

#376

Post by detaro » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:07 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #373

TuringTest wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This. In any group you will need to agree on a set of rules about these things. A Code of Conduct doesn't change that, just makes it explicit. The reason that Codes of Conduct are good is that it makes the life of an organiser so much easier. If Bob is being weird around the ladies (again), then an organiser can take him to one side and point to the "no being weird around the ladies" clause in the CoC. This is a mass…

It also makes an explicit commitment by the organizer that they'll react in some way to complaints covered by the CoC, and tells people how/where to make such complaints. I.e. if an organizer ignores something, they can be pointed to "but you committed to upholding these rules for your event".

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

#377

Post by geodel » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:08 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #236

high_derivative wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find codes of conduct meaningless. They will go on in very general terms about 'hate speech' which is just synonymous with 'anything that anyone feels offended by' now. I would argue that code of conducts were a symptom of the start of the problem. The strategy of the grievance class: - Propose a code of conduct which surely nobody can disagree with, it's great to have rules and be nice to each other. - Design the…

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 do not think so. A group of friends vs a group of people collaborating through internet is very different thing. I would be okay if rules simply say no discussion or talk outside of work we collaborate on.

But it is very likely same sensitive people will jump and say "how can one be quiet when XYZ minority group is getting harassed/attacked/bullied/doxxed ? Say something don't be quiet on grave injustice." By saying something most likely means always in favor of over sensitive folks. If one tries to bring in different POV which does not fit the offended person's worldview, the person who said something is now racist or some kinda anti-minority douchebag.

So to me COC have one main point that is to attack on people who you do not like.

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

#378

Post by CraigJPerry » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:08 PM UTC

AHappyCamper wrote: post #218

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you just say “slave market” or “illegal market”? Of course, black in this context refers to the transactions being performed in the shadows, and has nothing to do with the colour of the skin of the participants in the market. It’s all a bit absurd, but it’s also a trivial change to adopt. And now I’ve offended adopties. I jest.

Once you start with this type of thinking, it never stops, and instead of focussing on how to save slaves from a life of misery, you're instead having meetings on which words are less offensive in your posts, messages, and internal communiques. The amount of energy that this takes up is ENORMOUS, especially when you're dealing with something as difficult and dangerous as the slave trade. And what do you do when the n…

>> Once you start with this type of thinking, it never stops ... you're instead having meetings

Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy?

There was no meeting required, the idea and action were raised and taken in the same parent post. Parent poster started with that type of thinking and avoided the halting problem.

>> The amount of energy that this takes up is ENORMOUS

Is it possible that learning to use different words in many contexts is the same as the act of picking up a thesaurus? How commonly does it not take such a trivial amount of energy? How commonly do you need to expend an enourmous amount of energy to achieve this end?

>> especially when you're dealing with something as difficult and dangerous as the slave trade

There's a bigger point can be made here, what if you're dealing with a topic you don't know well enough to navigate possible sources of offence? If you don't know, then your 2 choices are learn or ignore, it's possible that both of these are valid choices depending on context.

>> no longer allowed

"Allowed" is quite a vague term for the concept you raise - are we saying law against particular words or are we saying social norm and convention that can be broken in art, in protest, in challenge to the status quo? If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words, then the rest of your sentence's argument is nullified.

>> Imagine

Or don't. Slippery slope fallacy is a real danger in itself to be avoided.

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

#379

Post by lucaspm98 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:08 PM UTC

TuringTest wrote: post #353

lucaspm98 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 control…

I think that's a great idea, at the very least it filters out a lot of spam and ideally gives you more context about each individual so if something controversial is said you can put it into context with them as a whole. I just worry that these smaller discussion groups are becoming more and more rare online, but maybe the current craziness will lead to their resurgence.

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

#380

Post by lucaspm98 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:12 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #371

lucaspm98 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with that. But like I said, that's a different problem. The "stricter to the point of being ridiculous" is a Purity Spiral, and that's a known phenomenom in human commnication that occurs in all sorts of settings. It's not new, and it's not restricted to online conversations. Also hard to escape. The core reasoning behind Codes of Conduct is sound.

I totally agree. What can taint the idea is having the Code of Conduct intentionally vague or selectively enforced, but the core idea is much better than unspoken norms.