Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Against Xkcd 1357

defmacro.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#41

Post by defertoreptar »

Judgmentality wrote: post #3

This seems like a terrible article to me. The author makes sweeping generalizations about his audience, he doesn't clearly explain why the comic is bad (he makes accusations but they're never really deduced), and it's so hyperbolic it's just ridiculous but it's clearly not satire. And as far as I can tell he doesn't even understand the comic he's criticizing so harshly. It feels like something an enthusiastic reddito…

To me, the author is trying to express a feeling that I've also experienced before. It happens when someone in a discussion appeals to the spirit of freedom of speech, and the other guy shuts it down using the argument in the Xkcd comic.

I hate seeing that happen because it shows how little people value their ability to freely express their minds on a public forum. Or if they do value this, it shows how they're willing to disconnect that notion from the one that gave rise to encoding the freedom of speech into our constitution.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#42

Post by koheripbal »

Judgmentality wrote: post #3

This seems like a terrible article to me. The author makes sweeping generalizations about his audience, he doesn't clearly explain why the comic is bad (he makes accusations but they're never really deduced), and it's so hyperbolic it's just ridiculous but it's clearly not satire. And as far as I can tell he doesn't even understand the comic he's criticizing so harshly. It feels like something an enthusiastic reddito…

I think he summarizes his point very clearly...

> Freedom of speech isn't just a legal assurance that congress shall make no law abridging it. It is also a set of cultural norms rooted deeply in a long lineage of hard won ideas. It is Friedrich Nietzsche's dictum that only insecure societies are threatened by quirky characters with weird ideas. It is Evelyn Hall's principle "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It is my friend Daniel's observation that tolerance is the experience of suffering through unpleasant ideas.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#43

Post by pwinnski »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #38
cgrealy wrote: post #13

There are so many things wrong with that article, but let's start with this one: > Yet in many other countries— perhaps still in most of them— mob justice, unethical businesses behavior without complaint, and complete disregard for any rights of criminals is a normal daily occurrence. Their citizens know that far away silly Americans bother with fair trials and non-ironically litigating the temperature of coffee, but…

> What's truly amazing is that the author fundamentally misses the point of the article, that while you can say whatever you like, you are not shielded from the consequences of saying that. It's appropriate to share one of those memes just as stupid, harmful and widespread as that xkcd comic here. Maybe even more so, maybe this really does refute the author's premise. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would justify…

I think you are over-focusing on the word "consequences" here. Nobody is saying all consequences are fair play.

"you get thrown into a labor camp" seems to be a different kind of consequence than "others use their free speech to disagree with you."

I don't like it when my bad ideas or ignorant statements or heck, even my true but unpleasant statements are criticized by people who either know better than I do or worse, don't, but nobody is actually throwing me in a labor camp. I can continue to speak back to my critics and either accept their correction or continue to disagree with them.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#44

Post by koheripbal »

kthejoker2 wrote: post #18

This literally has nothing to do with "free speech." It is about using other people's private property to express your speech. Consider these in degrees: * Allowing anyone to write any message they please on someone else's face. * Allowing anyone at any time to drive through public streets with a megaphone announcing any message they would like. * Allowing anyone to burn a cross on someone else's private yard. * Allo…

If you read down, you'll see that he views Freedom of Speech as a cultural norm, not merely a law that restricts congress.

...and that unpopular speech, should be broadly tolerated even on private platforms, as a matter of culture - not law.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#45

Post by pwinnski »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #39
haltingproblem wrote: post #15

I think this is a poorly written article devoid of substantiative argument. The author's substack earned a unsubscribe based on it. It has become fashionable to argue the "I might disagree with you but I will defend to death your right to express it" to which is appended "in the NY Times, on Facebook, on Twitter, on Youtube and every private channel that exists." First, the disagreeable opinion part is wrong since ev…

"in the NY Times, on Facebook, on Twitter, on Youtube" One of these things is not like the others.

The NY Times prints the views of paid employees rather than every rando off the street (usually), but it is a private non-governmental organization, so it both is and is not like the others.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#46

Post by tehjoker »

cgrealy wrote: post #17
tehjoker wrote: post #10

Honestly, how many people outside of the college educated and software development set read XKCD? How would it even be possible for it to be as influential as claimed?

His "What if?" book reached the top of the NYT best seller list, so I'd say he has quite a large audience.

Forgot about that, good point.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#47

Post by ceceron »

koheripbal wrote: post #42
Judgmentality wrote: post #3

This seems like a terrible article to me. The author makes sweeping generalizations about his audience, he doesn't clearly explain why the comic is bad (he makes accusations but they're never really deduced), and it's so hyperbolic it's just ridiculous but it's clearly not satire. And as far as I can tell he doesn't even understand the comic he's criticizing so harshly. It feels like something an enthusiastic reddito…

I think he summarizes his point very clearly... > Freedom of speech isn't just a legal assurance that congress shall make no law abridging it. It is also a set of cultural norms rooted deeply in a long lineage of hard won ideas. It is Friedrich Nietzsche's dictum that only insecure societies are threatened by quirky characters with weird ideas. It is Evelyn Hall's principle "I disapprove of what you say, but I will d…

Yup, it's not a bad point of view, but it totally misses the point of the contested xkcd comic, which doesn't fight with the freedom of speech and doesn't reduce it to the dead law.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#48

Post by happytoexplain »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #38
cgrealy wrote: post #13

There are so many things wrong with that article, but let's start with this one: > Yet in many other countries— perhaps still in most of them— mob justice, unethical businesses behavior without complaint, and complete disregard for any rights of criminals is a normal daily occurrence. Their citizens know that far away silly Americans bother with fair trials and non-ironically litigating the temperature of coffee, but…

> What's truly amazing is that the author fundamentally misses the point of the article, that while you can say whatever you like, you are not shielded from the consequences of saying that. It's appropriate to share one of those memes just as stupid, harmful and widespread as that xkcd comic here. Maybe even more so, maybe this really does refute the author's premise. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would justify…

>Taken to its logical conclusion, it would justify any kind of punishment for speech.

The trajectory of the argument doesn't point anywhere near that conclusion.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#49

Post by happytoexplain »

pochamago wrote: post #35

I agree with the author. I think it's important for a country to have a set of shared beliefs, and that the idea that the Bill of Rights is more than just a legal document is a very good starting place for the US. This appears to be an unpopular opinion on HN, though.

While I think the author is very unreasonable, I think your framing of the argument is reasonable (though I disagree strongly that it would be good for society to extend the Bill of Rights beyond the legal realm, rather than addressing the problem via some other avenue). However, I think you should avoid couching your opinion in the passive aggressive armor of the brave underdog (your last sentence).

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#50

Post by slowmovintarget »

david38 wrote: post #16
readams wrote: post #5

The main error in this comic and that I see repeated many times is that because it is not illegal for Facebook, Reddit, or anyone else to censor their communication channels, that it is therefore a good idea that they do so. You have to ask the question why we think restrictions on speech for the government are a bad idea. Is it a fundamentally better idea that we have de facto restrictions on free speech because our…

So when malls started displacing downtowns, the courts recognized that malls needed to create free speech areas. I can imagine a court saying that FB has enough of the population on it to force it to follow similar laws. Sure, it might have some indication of “free speech”, like a red box, but it would still be viewable, like it or not. The comic also does two things. First, it implies that the canceled person is ind…

> So when malls started displacing downtowns, the courts recognized that malls needed to create free speech areas.

This. This is the crux of the issue. If the "public square" has moved to Facebook and Reddit, then the Constitution should apply there.

Post reply on HN