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

Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

ceadserv1.nku.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 122 posts

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#91

Post by UncleMeat »

Veen wrote: post #87
UncleMeat wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other way around. What I want is to see a Nazi free speech absolutist defending the rights of Jewish people.

There are no Nazi free speech absolutists, even if some Nazis pretend they are for pragmatic reasons. Freedom of speech is not valued highly in fascist belief systems relative to nationalism, social cohesion, etc. That's rather the point, though. There are many who hold it essential to defend free speech for Nazis, even though Nazis would remove their freedom to speak. If you balk at that thought, then you don't supp…

I conclude something of the opposite. I question the effectiveness of our current approach to free speech to actually protect people's lives. Mass violence can absolutely be enacted by fascist groups without ever crossing 1st amendment protections. And I would not expect to be granted the right to speak out against a fascist regime should it ever have a legislative majority.

Hate speech scales more effectively than individual threats of violence. The 1st amendment will do nothing to protect me.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#93

Post by Y_Y »

nl wrote: post #46
fctorial wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can add infinite to both sides No you can't, it's illegal.

It's legal for both cardinal and ordinal numbers, as well as slightly more exotic number types. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_plus_one

What if the Pope has appointed the number a cardinal only in pectore?

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#94

Post by Veen »

UncleMeat wrote: post #91
Veen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no Nazi free speech absolutists, even if some Nazis pretend they are for pragmatic reasons. Freedom of speech is not valued highly in fascist belief systems relative to nationalism, social cohesion, etc. That's rather the point, though. There are many who hold it essential to defend free speech for Nazis, even though Nazis would remove their freedom to speak. If you balk at that thought, then you don't supp…

I conclude something of the opposite. I question the effectiveness of our current approach to free speech to actually protect people's lives. Mass violence can absolutely be enacted by fascist groups without ever crossing 1st amendment protections. And I would not expect to be granted the right to speak out against a fascist regime should it ever have a legislative majority. Hate speech scales more effectively than i…

> Mass violence can absolutely be enacted by fascist groups without ever crossing 1st amendment protections.

But there are many other laws that prevent people from "enacting mass violence". Speech is not violence. Violence is violence.

Plus, the same laws that would lock-up fascists for inciting violence could be used against BLM and other left-wing groups. The 1st amendment ensures everyone can say what they like. Speech limiting laws can be abused to suit the preferences of whoever is in power.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#95

Post by ta988 »

coldtea wrote: post #88
andrepd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's depressing how bad early 20th century China fucked it up

Compared to some paradise that was 19th century China? If anything, they improved a lot, in sovereignity, wealth, education, infrastructure, commerce, science, and tons of other fields besides...

As well as concentration camps.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#96

Post by yaml-ops-guy »

lmarcos wrote: post #61
UweSchmidt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...

> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Paradox: if I say: "I don't want freedom of speech for anybody but myself". Why would anyone defend my point of view? I don't think all ideas are defendable, but then I cannot make a list of what ideas deserve to be defended are what not: this always seemed to me like the notion of love (you don't know how to define it, besides the…

This is a remarkably disingenuous distortion of what the phrase actually states: disapproving with a statement should not in good faith be equated with denying one the agency to express it--unless one is hiding cards up their sleeves about their motives.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#97

Post by coldtea »

ta988 wrote: post #95
coldtea wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to some paradise that was 19th century China? If anything, they improved a lot, in sovereignity, wealth, education, infrastructure, commerce, science, and tons of other fields besides...

As well as concentration camps.

If we are to believe the same "enemy of the day" embedded reporting that gave us WMDs, the Nayirah testimony, the Steele Dossier, and other such truths...

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#98

Post by andrepd »

coldtea wrote: post #97
ta988 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As well as concentration camps.

If we are to believe the same "enemy of the day" embedded reporting that gave us WMDs, the Nayirah testimony, the Steele Dossier, and other such truths...

The evidence is overwhelming, unlike the case with Iraq's WMDs.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#99

Post by andrepd »

coldtea wrote: post #88
andrepd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's depressing how bad early 20th century China fucked it up

Compared to some paradise that was 19th century China? If anything, they improved a lot, in sovereignity, wealth, education, infrastructure, commerce, science, and tons of other fields besides...

I hear that a lot. Wealth, science, infrastructure are better ergo the political system and decisions were good. I hear that from such diverse sides as Bill Gates and capitalism apologists as well as Soviet apologists.

The truth is things improved in general in the last century because technology improved in the entire world in the last century. More efficient production, better medicide, massively more know-how in all fields of human endeavour. Yeah things got better in the entire world, but probably despite the system, not because of it.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#100

Post by antattack »

Veen wrote: post #94
UncleMeat wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I conclude something of the opposite. I question the effectiveness of our current approach to free speech to actually protect people's lives. Mass violence can absolutely be enacted by fascist groups without ever crossing 1st amendment protections. And I would not expect to be granted the right to speak out against a fascist regime should it ever have a legislative majority. Hate speech scales more effectively than i…

> Mass violence can absolutely be enacted by fascist groups without ever crossing 1st amendment protections. But there are many other laws that prevent people from "enacting mass violence". Speech is not violence. Violence is violence. Plus, the same laws that would lock-up fascists for inciting violence could be used against BLM and other left-wing groups. The 1st amendment ensures everyone can say what they like. S…

Prospect of violence is enough to keep people in check.
Post reply on HN