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

71–80 of 83 posts

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

#71

Post by Izkata »

postflopclarity wrote: post #36
gruez wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>speak for themselves. You sure about that? It's not hard to find people using the same video to come to different conclusions. https://xcancel.com/doranmaul/status/2009308798159097922 https://xcancel.com/NewDayForNJ/status/2009395703634698358

it's also not hard to find people who think fluoride in the water is turning the frogs gay. doesn't make it true

Original context: He was reacting to a study about chemicals in the water triggering the natural sex-change ability of some frogs.

Sooo yeah, "they're turning the frogs trans" would have been more accurate, but would have sounded even more absurd.

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

#72

Post by [deleted] »

RickJWagner wrote: post #70
thrance wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#73

Post by anamax »

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #69
baumy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There seems to be an assumption that there's a right to an effective protest.

That said, impeding a college student who wants to walk through part of a college campus isn't "violence against the state."

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

#74

Post by hypeatei »

RickJWagner wrote: post #70
thrance wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What about calling her a domestic terrorist? Does that take an investigation? How about, instead of playing lawyer against a random on HN, you play lawyer against The President of the United States and hold our leadership to account.

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

#75

Post by cindyllm »

hypeatei wrote: post #74
RickJWagner wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What about calling her a domestic terrorist? Does that take an investigation? How about, instead of playing lawyer against a random on HN, you play lawyer against The President of the United States and hold our leadership to account.

[dead]

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

#76

Post by [deleted] »

hypeatei wrote: post #74
RickJWagner wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What about calling her a domestic terrorist? Does that take an investigation? How about, instead of playing lawyer against a random on HN, you play lawyer against The President of the United States and hold our leadership to account.

[deleted]

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

#77

Post by thrance »

RickJWagner wrote: post #70
thrance wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But confidently asserting she was trying to kill the ICE agent does not? Get real.

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

#78

Post by bethekidyouwant »

anamax wrote: post #73
bethekidyouwant wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There seems to be an assumption that there's a right to an effective protest. That said, impeding a college student who wants to walk through part of a college campus isn't "violence against the state."

I hope that you’re young or something… impeding a citizen is violence against the state, as the state gets his power from the work of it, citizens.. which is basically in the western world this describes most protests. Being granted the right to protest by your government is meaningless because if you took away the right to protest, then your people would just protest. The states options to quell unrest are: violent repression or negotiation. over the last 5000 years. We’ve determined that the best way to keep people in their place and the rulers in power is a mix of the two, hegemony look it up.

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

#79

Post by AlexeyBelov »

postflopclarity wrote: post #62
gruez wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The point is that "other people" use the same exact argument too. The evidence of _their_ eyes and ears. This is not meaningful.

I think "ok, I was wrong" is what you could've said.

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

#80

Post by boxed »

fzeroracer wrote: post #48
boxed wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The in-progress community notes are a shit show too. I saw the video and saw someone trying to avoid the ICE agent, but also being EXTREMELY reckless about driving a huge SUV close to people with guns. Everyone is at fault here imo.

For reference since I'm going to assume good faith here, I recommend watching the full videos [1] from multiple angles since there's been multiple edits, cuts and potential changes done if you've seen it elsewhere or on social media. These are the unedited and unmodified videos. [1] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gb_IkGVK7WvsTAXfMvQU...

I've seen them. The issue I think is that if you've got any political opinion before watching, you'll see something different. This thread is literally inside the comments about that!

If you're a total outsider and think both sides in the US sound like absolute crazy people, I would assume you can more easily see the crazy by everyone involved. Or maybe that's just another type of bias? I don't know...

Post reply on HN