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

Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#91

Post by djur »

indy wrote: post #70
djur wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is "deadnaming" an attack on free speech? It's always been considered discourteous to refer to people by a name they don't go by.

"deadnaming" someone is enough to get you banned from a number of social media sites, or to have stories about the "deadnamed" censored from news sites.

It's always been common for online communities to ban people for being intentionally rude. I think we're still in the process of figuring out the preferred etiquette for historical references to people who changed their names, but that will settle before long.

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#92

Post by jl6 »

karaterobot wrote: post #84
nsajko wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few months ago I was discussing due-process-related rights and principles with some twenty-something university student (mostly CS) acquaintances. Apart from the frightening fact that I was the only one strongly defending these rights, at one point someone associated my rhetoric with "Jordan Peterson's free speech arguments" in an attempt to dismiss my points. Apparently democracy and a free judiciary are now an al…

That was sort of the impression I got as well. Hating anything your opponent supports, regardless of its merits, feels like a bad strategy to follow.

It’s a symptom of the bipartisan mindrot that is polarization.

“You’re either with us or against us”. Thus disagreement is escalated to opposition, opposition is escalated to vilification. The culture warriors no longer hold viewpoints, they have identities, and identities are inviolable[0]. Challenge is thus perceived as an existential attack that must be defeated at all costs. Words are labelled as violence. Pushback is labelled as genocide. Suddenly everyone is either a Nazi or a pedophile.

[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#93

Post by diego_moita »

Towaway69 wrote: post #47
diego_moita wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I am saying is "this is a complex issue that should be deeply understood before rushing to easy ideological solutions". The problem is that, like my children doing math, no one wants to understand problems. Ideological solutions that fit in memes are much easier.

I do wonder how humans made it this far. 60000 years and speech seemed to work fine. Now it becomes a complex issue needing complicated laws that restrict instead of allowing more speech. One is constantly checking which terminology one is now allowed to use for minorities without offending. Humans have inbuilt biases that we won't be able to get rid off with more laws. Ironically if we look closely at AIs, they are…

Bullshit. For most of those 60000 years speech didn't work "fine" at all.

The majority of people that lived in those times where ruled by empires that had nothing resembling free speech or the rule of the law.

You wouldn't even think of bad things against the King or Church in Europe before the 19th century. Same goes to Middle Eastern Empires, Chinese dynasties, the Japanese emperors or Shoguns, etc. Even less than think you'd say anything to offend established powers. Yes, even the Roman Republic was not democratic or free for all.

And your "inbuilt biases" are just a justification for sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination created by specific historic circumstances. There is no "inbuilt" basis for discrimination.

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#94

Post by cubefox »

kallistisoft wrote: post #83
cubefox wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The so-called "systemic" racism is mostly a conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence. But even if it exists, your theory makes no sense here, since nobody doubts that racism was more prevalent in the past. So free speech can't be blamed to have caused it.

> The so-called "systemic" racism is mostly a conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence. I will give you far too much benefit of the doubt and assume that you are speaking from a privileged position of ignorance vs being willfully ignorant, or arguing in bad faith. I do not have the time, nor is it my responsibility to educate you on these matters, but here is a very easy place to start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…

The first thing you cited is totally irrelevant. That was an old racist law that has long ceased to be in effect.

The second example is confusing. It is completely normal for credit and insurance companies to provide their services based on judgements of risk assessment. Crime rates can factor into that decision. What is supposed to be racist about that? By the way, the article also says "Redlining was prevalent in Canada from the 1930s to 1950s in Ontario, although the practice has since been virtually eradicated due to progressive reforms."

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#95

Post by jl6 »

djur wrote: post #64
throw0101b wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What books were banned by "the left"? Not banning but altering would be one form of censorship, e.g., "Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive": * https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18/roald-dahl-boo... "Why I Decided to Update the Language in Ursula K. Le Guin’s Children’s Books": * https://lithub.com/why-i-decided-to-update-the-language-in-u... "D&D: WotC’s New Batch Of Errata Remov…

D&D has been revised dozens of times over the past few decades, and racial alignments have been more honored in the breach for nearly as long -- one of the most popular characters in the D&D books is a chaotic good drow, and such "good renegades" are an extremely common appearance at tables. The past is not being rewritten. This is WOTC being responsive to the desires of (some of) their customers. The Dahl publishers…

> Dahl himself authorized changes to his work to keep them marketable.

Is that the same Dahl that said:

“I’ve warned my publishers that if they later on so much as change a single comma in one of my books, they will never see another word from me. Never! Ever!”

“When I am gone, if that happens, then I’ll wish mighty Thor knocks very hard on their heads with his Mjolnir. Or I will send along the ‘enormous crocodile’ to gobble them up.”

He was referring to his Norwegian roots and to his earlier story of “the greediest croc” in talking to Bacon, who apparently felt just as strongly about the subject, telling him: “There must be no changes to an artist’s original work when he is dead for any reason whatsoever.” Crossing himself in jest, Dahl replied: “I just hope to God that will never happen to any of my writings as I am lying comfortably in my Viking grave.”

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/25/roald-dahl-thr...

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#96

Post by mansion7 »

spondylosaurus wrote: post #68
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'd even argue that the wave of anti-drag legislation hitting the US right now is an attack on free expression akin to free speech. (What gives state legislature the right to ban me from putting on too much makeup and lip syncing to Madonna?)

It's the very peculiar, very strenuous insistence that children watch, and participate, as men cavort in women's clothes in a sexually charged manner.

Followed by the vilification of people with quite reasonable concerns as "transphobes" (a fireable, deplatformable, censorable offense) and "Nazis" (who have been deemed acceptable targets of unprovoked violence).

But for that, most Americans would go back to not caring. Regrettably, some don't understand the concept of boundaries or restraint, or think it doesn't apply to them. Possibly because we have many in the media/entertainment industry, government, and education system telling them that they're right.

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#97

Post by lostlogin »

indy wrote: post #40
dmbche wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What books were banned by "the left"?

"the left" is perhaps too broad a group, but definitely amongst the progressive liberal left there are now examples of editing particular books to remove problematic terms. I'd consider this an even more insidious attack on free speech than outright banning books.

> “the left" is perhaps too broad a group

When a political system has two parties, this is exactly what one would expect.

The book ban proponents and book editors are likely a tiny fraction of the population.

However in a two party system, they are part of their party.

This is what you get.

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#98

Post by andrewflnr »

mellosouls wrote: post #15
fugalfervor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book banning and restrictions on content in classrooms in Florida are further examples of people being fine with restrictions on speech. At this point it's pretty disingenuous to lay the blame entirely on the left, or the young.

No, the overwhelming dominance in cancel culture over the last few years has been from the left. Sure, the right has also been up to its old tricks in tired corners (it dominated in previous times like the McCarthy era), but lets be realistic about who the modern problem is mainly with in the West or we won't solve it.

[flagged]

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#99

Post by djur »

jl6 wrote: post #95
djur wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

D&D has been revised dozens of times over the past few decades, and racial alignments have been more honored in the breach for nearly as long -- one of the most popular characters in the D&D books is a chaotic good drow, and such "good renegades" are an extremely common appearance at tables. The past is not being rewritten. This is WOTC being responsive to the desires of (some of) their customers. The Dahl publishers…

> Dahl himself authorized changes to his work to keep them marketable. Is that the same Dahl that said: “I’ve warned my publishers that if they later on so much as change a single comma in one of my books, they will never see another word from me. Never! Ever!” “When I am gone, if that happens, then I’ll wish mighty Thor knocks very hard on their heads with his Mjolnir. Or I will send along the ‘enormous crocodile’ t…

Well, he's right that his publishers will never see another word from him.

A decade before that quote, Dahl was convinced by the NAACP and others to revise the Oompa-Loompas to avoid the implications of their being "black pygmies".

Re: Rowan Atkinson on free speech (2012) [video]

#100

Post by tshaddox »

throw0101b wrote: post #54
tshaddox wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren’t all of those changes done willingly by the publishers/copyright holders of those works?

Maybe, maybe not; it's hard to tell: how many folks are willing to stake their livelihood on saying "no" to a potential mob of progressives that will 'cancel' them? Saying to them " what is written is written; make your own (new) stories with the words you want ".

Then it sounds like you’re just describing normal persuasion, rather than using state power or violence. At that point, the heart of the disagreement isn’t over methodology (“censorship is bad”) or broad human rights (“freedom of speech is good”), but simply over whether you personally like the first version of the book or the new version.
Post reply on HN