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

#411

Post by Balgair » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

ngngngng wrote: post #177

I argued with a family member about this just the other day. She was trying to get a faculty member at a local university fired for saying something offensive on Twitter. I asked her what happens after we get him fired? Can he earn back the worthiness to again feed his family? Will he need to denounce his views or just stop spewing them publicly? Will he just need to collect unemployment for the rest of his life now…

> She was trying to get a faculty member at a local university fired ...

> ... he'll just have to work a job making far less like "the rest of us."

How much do they think PIs make anyways? It depends on school, but adjuncts only make ~$1250/credit and typically have no health insurance [0]. They all have side gigs to make ends meet.

[0] https://work.chron.com/adjunct-vs-fulltime-professor-8553.ht...

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

#412

Post by syshum » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #363

syshum wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do. Where do you draw this conclusion from? What government restrictions do you believe liberty minded people are calling for? >>Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence the debate actually comes…

> What government restrictions do you believe liberty minded people are calling for? People claiming that people shouldn't be sacked for expressing certain views also claim their actions are motivated by the imperative of protecting freedom of conscience and individuals' essential liberty. People firing people for expressing those views are often openly stating the belief those views are 'incorrect' and that enforcem…

>>People firing people for expressing those views are often openly stating the belief those views are 'incorrect' and that enforcement action must be taken against those with incorrect views.

No that is absolutely not the case, companies today are responding to the Mob not their own self determination on the issue.

Which is what I and others have a problem with, not the a company on their own, of their own free will choose to fire someone but because the mob demanded it or their head

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

#413

Post by marcus_holmes » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:26 PM UTC

cglace wrote: post #386

bluntfang wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to know the meaning of the words you use. I can't believe I have to say that.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? There is a difference in knowing the meaning of a word and knowing the myriad of ways a word can be perceived by your audience. One is very easy the other is a gargantuan task.

All communication is an attempt to create meaning in the mind of the listener. If you use words that the listener perceives to have a certain meaning, but that is not the meaning you intended to create, then your message will not communicate your meaning correctly.

In other words, all words are given meaning by the listener, not the speaker. Your intentions when saying something are irrelevant (but are usually taken into consideration because no communication is perfect).

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

#414

Post by marcus_holmes » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:27 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #376

marcus_holmes wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

yes, good point :)

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

#415

Post by marcus_holmes » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:32 PM UTC

geodel wrote: post #377

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 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 sayin…

Like I said, CoC's are being weaponised by Purity Spirals. It doesn't make CoC's useless.

Try organising an event without one and with one, and you'll see. They an extremely useful tool. The fact that (like most tools) you can also weaponise them doesn't make them not useful.

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

#416

Post by cglace » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #413

cglace wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? There is a difference in knowing the meaning of a word and knowing the myriad of ways a word can be perceived by your audience. One is very easy the other is a gargantuan task.

All communication is an attempt to create meaning in the mind of the listener. If you use words that the listener perceives to have a certain meaning, but that is not the meaning you intended to create, then your message will not communicate your meaning correctly. In other words, all words are given meaning by the listener, not the speaker. Your intentions when saying something are irrelevant (but are usually taken…

If my intent does not matter and my words can be construed to mean anything then where do we go from here?

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

#417

Post by CraigJPerry » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:42 PM UTC

julianmarq wrote: post #400

CraigJPerry wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 dif…

> Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy? Is it? It doesn't seem like it is because... > There was no meeting required ... GGP's comment started a discussion on this very matter, still ongoing, instead of merely accepting that the term "black market" isn't offensive... Which it isn't. > Is it possible that learning to use different words in many contexts is the same as the act of picking up a thesaurus? How…

> still ongoing

It's not. The parent and grandparent conversation stopped where they did. Our discussion isn't theirs. We're not pursuing the slippery slope on their behalf, we're not debating the merits of particular word choices.

> whole discussion exhausting? I do, it's entirely asinine

And yet, you of your own free will continue to engage it. Something doesn't stack up between what you say and what you choose to do but it's your affair, i have no cause to dig deeper so i stop here on this particular avenue.

> The argument is not nullified just because you try to will it so.

Agreed. Your argument

>>> it becomes almost impossible to talk and convey ideas

was nullified by:

>> If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words

A law doesn't make it impossible for me to use the words - i can choose to use the words but only at the cost of breaking the law. It's fair to characterise that as "almost impossible".

No construct exists with lesser severity than a law which exceeds the "almost impossible" test. QED.

Someone once said "Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you realise the pig likes it."

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

#418

Post by AHappyCamper » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:44 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #369

AHappyCamper wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course - and thank you for asking. One of my friends is a paramedic who primarily works in ambulances in LA. One day, he arrives at a scene after a passer-by called 911. A homeless man is lying on the street on top of garbage and cardboard boxes. There is urine and feces everywhere - it's a bad situation - and there are used needles lying next to the man. The man is obviously in medical distress, and is unable to…

Radio protocol is extremely specific. As is medical terminology. If they're required to use a term for a person, but haven't been briefed on what term to use, then I think there are bigger problems there and "political correctness" is not the problem. Basic communication is. They will also not be penalised for using the wrong term when there's no briefing on what the correct term is. If they can't remember what term…

I don't understand. Why does it matter if it's a specific communication protocol? If you have to filter your language when you're in a life and death situation with a potentially dangerous person who has used needles lying around, you've used up precious processing power that could otherwise be used to keep yourself safe and the sick person alive.

For the record - I checked with them - and they told me they were asked to take a test to check if they harbored "unknown biases". They were then sent to diversity and inclusion training, and came out totally confused about what to do and say, but they were assured that the hospital and the ambulance services were monitoring comms and wouldn't look favorably on "potentially offensive" terms.

Trying to describe a homeless man sleeping on rotten cardboard boxes who is covered in urine and feces with needles strewn around everywhere, who is both asking for help and attacking them is VERY HARD to do without using a term that someone could potentially find offensive.

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

#419

Post by randcraw » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

Free speech != hate speech. There's a big difference between stating a reasoned point of view that some might find offensive and stating something that's intended only to offend. The first is essential to a free society and deserves our enthusiastic protection. The second is only destructive and should be shunned.

Behaving offensively is not strictly in the eye of the beholder. If you hate something/someone, do not share your opinion unless you're willing to provide a reasoned argument to support your conclusion. If you're not willing to do that, then we're done listening. That's not free speech.

Free speech should always be constructive, never just opinion -- especially a destructive one. The purpose of free speech is to make a positive contribution, support your assertion with facts and logic (and emotion, if you like), and then always be willing to discuss to the merits and demerits of your argument using civil discourse. Absent facts AND logic AND civil exchange... THAT'S NOT FREE SPEECH. It's just one person sounding off, often motivated by hate. That's not just offensive, that's intended only to offend. It's an assault on others. And assault is a crime.

Yes, the US First Amendment defends the free exchange of ideas. But if you're not willing to listen as well, to think, discuss, and consider alternative points of view, then protected Free Speech should not apply to you. Take your lust to offend and go away. You're not welcome here.

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

#420

Post by AHappyCamper » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:57 PM UTC

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #354

AHappyCamper wrote: post #78

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.

Wait, are you saying that we shouldn't be trying to save slaves and stop slavery? That's like saying we should close down hospitals and stop all surgeries because death will continue with or without our efforts...

I don't understand your first sentence. Please re-iterate.