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

421–430 of 480 posts

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

#421

Post by mikrotikker »

TMWNN wrote: post #320
breadbreadbread wrote: post #144

I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics. Everyday on the internet I see trans…

>I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do Why? >Some speech suppresses the speech of others. No speech can ever suppress that of others, except in the literal sense of talking over someone. >it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table So, how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy ? How do you feel…

Hasanabi refuses to stream Hogwarts game because he doesn't want to be bullied off twitch.

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

#422

Post by mikrotikker »

breadbreadbread wrote: post #395
TMWNN wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do Why? >Some speech suppresses the speech of others. No speech can ever suppress that of others, except in the literal sense of talking over someone. >it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table So, how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy ? How do you feel…

> Why? why are you compelled to respond to me? why do you listen to anyone? why speak at all? > No speech can ever suppress that of others Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat. Or if you want a more subtle example, try talking to a minority group about microaggressions and what situations they feel safe to speak freely in. If you are in a minority group but do…

> Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat.

That is weakness and the 2nd amendment is a tool to fight back and secure ones self against death threats.

Get strapped, stand up and say "try it mother fucker".

Defy your oppressor, or be crushed under their tyranny.

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

#423

Post by cmh89 »

wonderwonder wrote: post #392
cmh89 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's already a crime friend. Conspiracy. Yes it is, because the State decided to censor and restrict 'free speech' in that case. >I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder. Sure, I'm very open to my belief we should censor and punish some speech. I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let th…

Never claimed to be an absolutist. In other posts I specifically say: "My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence." There are likely other crime related caveats. Now with that said I am not advocating for freedom from social consequences just preventing the state from using its lock on violence to implement those consequences.…

>Never claimed to be an absolutist.

You're whole premise is that the government shouldn't regulate speech, as it "leads to dictatorship"

>In other posts I specifically say: "My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence."

That's fine if that's what you believe. 'Believable threats of violence' is a completely ambiguous and meaningless term in regards to actual regulation and laws.

>e. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives.

The focus is on people who have their loved ones massacred because of people who were riled up online.

>If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares?

Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might.

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

#424

Post by petodo »

Judging by Reddit it definitely is, I am always shocked to see Reddit hivemind approving violent attacks on some racist spouting slurs, as if violence was appriopriate response to words. I don't expect anyhing better from HN crowd, they are not that different after all despite HN thinking they are on high horse.

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

#426

Post by anon7725 »

realjhol wrote: post #244
pugets wrote: post #205

Being liberal in the 90’s meant defending controversial or disruptive speech on the premises of the mantra, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it.” This principle operated as a liberal self-preservation tactic. The Church had more influence in society than it does today, and if anyone was going to challenge the status quo, it had to be liberals. Hip hop music, feminist art, raunchy…

Indeed. Every single sacred universalist principle liberals claimed to hold sacred is simply a cudgel to get you to do what they want. Appeals to democracy, rule of law, freedom of association, freedom of speech, equal rights, human rights, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, bodily autonomy etc. - all of these things vanish like a mist if the left decide that they hate you, and you deserve it.

Liberals and “the left” are two different things.

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

#427

Post by Swenrekcah »

devmor wrote: post #388
Swenrekcah wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two distinct things people often confuse on either side of this issue. Say a stupid/offending/violent thing and you’ll face consequences from 1) other people listening in the form of shunning/shouting/lost opportunities/laughing. 2) the government in form of fines or even imprisonment. People on both sides get all hot and bothered when they receive 1) and complain that they have freedom of speech or that th…

The problem is that people keep getting upset at 1) and use 2) as a justification for why it's "morally wrong" for 1) to be happening to them. I have genuinely never seen anyone calling for 2) outside of nations run by theocracies and dictators, with the exception of the UK.

I see numerous calls for hate speech laws to be used against all sorts of people every year in many democratic countries.

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

#428

Post by aidenn0 »

tootie wrote: post #409
aidenn0 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

About what? Universities are supposed to educate. Hosting people with objectively wrong viewpoints isn't edifying. A history department isn't going to host a speaker who denied the Holocaust because they want a diversity of opinions. They are by their very nature going to be very selective about who speaks.

But should they expel students who are Holocaust deniers?

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

#429

Post by docdeek »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #312
kneebonian wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Nobody is calling for anything remotely extreme as your post seems to be hinting at in a tongue-in-cheek manner. From the perspective of someone who sits in the middle with a leaning to the left, it looks to me like the left doesn’t have problems with others holding differing views, so long as following those views doesn’t result in the harm or impediment of liberty of others. Nobody is saying it’s wrong to be be a c…

> the left doesn’t have problems with others holding differing views, so long as following those views doesn’t result in the harm or impediment of liberty of others

A lot comes down to the definition of “harm”. If harm includes making people feel uncomfortable, unhappy, offended, annoyed, or even just having their world view challenged, then I can see how a problem can emerge.

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

#430

Post by anigbrowl »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #340
anigbrowl wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I think you understand me just fine.
Post reply on HN