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

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)

stanfordlawreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)

#61

Post by fzeroracer »

RickJWagner wrote: post #59
fzeroracer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but it is deeply ironic for you of all people to be posting this given your statements on the ICE shooting not even 24 hours ago [1] [2]. You are quite literally the exact basis for this research in question. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46546310 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46546283

[flagged]

I do condemn Obama and think his actions were monstrous. Do you therefore condemn Trump and believe the actions of ICE here were monstrous? A simple question for you.

Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)

#62

Post by postflopclarity »

gruez wrote: post #56
postflopclarity wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if people can watch the same video and come to entirely different conclusions, how can you say it "... speak for themselves"? because a disappointingly large fraction of the public is unable to acknowledge facts of reality. the video is speaking, but some people just ain't listening.

>because a disappointingly large fraction of the public is unable to acknowledge facts of reality. the video is speaking, but some people just ain't listening. If something really does "speak for themselves", but also "disappointingly large fraction" (1%? 5%? 10%? 20%? 50%?) refuse to accept it, is that a meaningful statement? Is it the epistemic equivalent of "80% of the time, it works every time"?

I don't know what you want me to say.

"some people are wrong and dumb" is not an argument compelling enough to me to reject the evidence of my eyes and ears.

Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)

#63

Post by rayiner »

derbOac wrote: post #47
rayiner wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also why the era of pervasive videotaping of everything hasn’t ended disputes over basic facts of what happened.

I'm not sure how this intersects with the point of the paper, but part of the problem with the Renee Good case (or things like it) in my opinion is that the focus too often is on the actual events at a particular moment, and not what is surrounding it. I can see some argument, for example, that goes something like "Jonathan Ross was afraid he was going to get hit by a car and misperceived her as trying to ram him whe…

This may be related to your point, but I think another problem is that we focus on isolated events instead of applying systems thinking. Any large scale government system will result in accidental deaths. Amtrak has killed almost 600 people in the last four years. (This is not unique to Amtrak. It’s inherent in any rail system that has crossings at grade: https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-train-driver-talks-about-w....) But as a society we accept that a certain number of bystanders being killed is an acceptable consequence for performance of an important government function.

Law enforcement similarly is inherently dangerous. You can enforce various standards, but fundamentally you have to pick where the set the slider bar on the scale from maximizing law enforcement effectiveness to minimizing accidental casualties.

Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)

#64

Post by hypeatei »

fzeroracer wrote: post #61
RickJWagner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I do condemn Obama and think his actions were monstrous. Do you therefore condemn Trump and believe the actions of ICE here were monstrous? A simple question for you.

You've made a grave mistake conceding that because parent is bad faith and he basically just wants a screenshot of others saying Obama was bad.

It's a weird obsessions of his. Obama is a main stay in responses critical of Trump.

Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)

#65

Post by RickJWagner »

fzeroracer wrote: post #61
RickJWagner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I do condemn Obama and think his actions were monstrous. Do you therefore condemn Trump and believe the actions of ICE here were monstrous? A simple question for you.

That’s a great question.

I condemn neither Obama nor Trump. I believe letting people skip the legal immigration process is unfair to those that follow the rules, and it invites security problems and other issues.

To be clear, I am in favor of immigration, but greatly prefer legal immigration.

If you condemn both, I respect your integrity.

A good day to you.

Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)

#66

Post by fzeroracer »

hypeatei wrote: post #64
fzeroracer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do condemn Obama and think his actions were monstrous. Do you therefore condemn Trump and believe the actions of ICE here were monstrous? A simple question for you.

You've made a grave mistake conceding that because parent is bad faith and he basically just wants a screenshot of others saying Obama was bad. It's a weird obsessions of his. Obama is a main stay in responses critical of Trump.

It wasn't any sort of concession, it's something I genuinely have said before in the past and fully maintain. But it's a great and easy way to tear down that these folks don't have any sort of ideological basis beyond identity. They believe that the other side is just as tribalistic as them, that they can win by simply going ah but you believe Obama good. It's the same reason why they believe the murder was justified, not because of any factual basis but because she was 'the other'.

You can see in the other comment that rather than address the actual issue, they instead pivot to an entirely different justification. Because they know their position is truly indefensible and the only way they can win is by continuing to shift the debate. Rather than talk about the extrajudicial murder of an American citizen, you shift the debate to talking about how we need to curb illegal immigration. Because then you can avoid thinking about what happens when Americans are murdered by the state.

Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)

#67

Post by vacuity »

derbOac wrote: post #23
RandomTisk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a strange pattern of die hard obstinence, even in the face of basic and common facts that we as as society until fairly recently all agreed upon. The reason is that works, if you admit fault/guilt then the usual consequences follow. If they remain obstinate, there's a chance they can project their crime on someone else which doesn't really work except it does retain for them a certain level of public support,…

I think there's a real deficit in research on and understanding motivated cognition, and a lot of blurriness about attitudes versus belief versus perception. I don't just mean anything political, I mean things including physical pain and all sorts of things. When someone states something, it's very difficult to distinguish between "this is honestly what I saw or felt" versus "this is what I wanted to see or feel". Wh…

Before getting to research, I think a more honest attitude towards admitting motivated cognition in oneself and others is appropriate. I may give a spur-of-the-moment remark on a political situation, but at least if someone presses me, I will readily provide more insight on my biases and values. When I take the time to contemplate, I usually try to modify my eventual response to avoid undue bias altogether. Being reminded that motivated cognition is pervasive in all of us should reduce the unintentional-but-convenient faults in our cognition.

Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)

#68

Post by thrance »

RickJWagner wrote: post #60
thrance wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy has made half a dozen comments saying her murder was justified, but some views seem to be immune to moderation on here. I've had dang or tomhow come at me for waaay less (and I'm not saying I was in the right).

[flagged]

See, you're doing it again. For god's sake just stop. Pulling a gun and firing at someone is murder. Her vehicle escaped without harming any of the masked gestapo thugs going after her, she did her best to quickly get out of a life threatening situation from people who are known to resort to violence for no good reason.

Oh look, two more victims in Portland today. Will you also claim that they were terrorists and deserved immediate execution? Do you actually like living in a country where masked federal agents can arrest you whenever they feel like, and murder you just for annoying them?

Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)

#69

Post by bethekidyouwant »

baumy wrote: post #38
pcaharrier wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Questions, yes, but specifically questions about the facts in the video (not merely "what should happen to the protesters or police?"). "As one would expect, these differences in case-disposition judgments are mirrored in the subjects’ responses to the fact-perception items. Whereas only 39% of the hierarchical communitarians perceived that the protestors were blocking the pedestrians in the abortion clinic condition…

I think you have to be careful with this as well, the word "blocking" in particular reminds me of a protest over the Israel/Gaza war that happened at my alma mater a couple years ago. Protesters camped out at a central campus thoroughfare, and some protesters tried to stop people from walking through it. Not every protester did this and it wasn't done consistently by those who did, although some people avoided the ar…

I’m not sure what peoples feelings about have much to do with anything. A protest is not effective unless it impacts some kind of ‘violence against the state’. Usually, this is blocking roads at its lightest.

Re: "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction [pdf] (2012)

#70

Post by RickJWagner »

thrance wrote: post #68
RickJWagner wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

See, you're doing it again. For god's sake just stop. Pulling a gun and firing at someone is murder. Her vehicle escaped without harming any of the masked gestapo thugs going after her, she did her best to quickly get out of a life threatening situation from people who are known to resort to violence for no good reason. Oh look, two more victims in Portland today. Will you also claim that they were terrorists and des…

To be called a murder, it requires an investigation and consideration by the authorities.

You don’t get to just make things up. Be mature.

Post reply on HN