8 ms·

"she feared... she felt..." What actually happened to her?

by tsotha 11y ago

pron 11y ago
> What actually happened to her? She was intimidated. It is important to understand that those who have power rarely need to exert it over others physically. Intimidation is enough, and is common in nature, too. Any sort of physical struggle bears a lot of risk for both sides involved (even if it's leopard vs. gazelle), so animals try to avoid violence by communicating their strength both to rivals in their own group as well as to potential prey or predators. It is called signalling[1]. Obviously, being intimidated is not the same as being killed or wounded, but that doesn't mean that this form of signalling is not very real or not a very common form of exerting power over others, in humans as in other species. Intimidation is very common in man and in nature, and its goal is to save the intimidator's the chance of injury and the intimidatee's life -- if they learn their place. If it weren't very real, animals wouldn't have spend so much energy on it[2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle
- tsotha 11y ago
  She was... intimidated? Seriously? You think it's reasonable to curtail free speech in other people to prevent intimidation?
  - pron 11y ago
    What constitutes "reasonable" is a hard question. What I know is that all societies on this planet curtail speech to prevent intimidation. They only vary on the degree of intimidation they forbid. As a matter of fact, I am not aware of any single system of ethics where free speech is a higher value than preventing all forms of intimidation. I also, again, must take issue with the use of "free speech" in this context. It is not at all clear that it even applies to every sequence of letters a person types or every utterance a person makes. At its very core -- or consensus -- free speech means the freedom to express all ideas and opinions without fear of arrest. It is not at all clear that "I would like to rape Ellen Pao" is either an idea or an opinion, and therefore I don't mind discussing whether we should allow such things to be said, but I do mind including them under the umbrella of "free speech" (my objection is not on principal grounds but on aesthetic grounds). I do believe that every person should have the right to freely express his or her ideas in public without fear of arrest, and I think that this value is rather high in priority. But I agree with all other free societies (including the US[1]), which think that this freedom does not apply (and I'm not talking about various exceptions to that freedom based on offense) to certain combinations of words that constitute neither ideas nor opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
    - woodman 11y ago
      > ...I am not aware of any single system of ethics where free speech is a higher value than preventing all forms of intimidation. I'm not sure how you define "system of ethics", but systems that eschew relativity and focus on universal principles (as defined by the philosophy) are more likely to value freedom over prior restraint. I'd be surprised if you've never heard of anarcho-capitalism, that is the first such system that comes to mind.
      - pron 11y ago
        > but systems that eschew relativity and focus on universal principles (as defined by the philosophy) are more likely to value freedom over prior restraint. Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values (the alternative is having a single value or none) to decide how to act when values conflict. "Freedom" is not such a well-defined (single) value -- i.e. it contains internal contradictions -- and therefore requires finer-grained prioritization at the very least, because all it implies is a lack of restraint, which is impossible in a system with more than one principal (two individuals can't both be completely unrestrained as it yields a logical contradiction: one is either allowed to restrain the other or not, either choice contradicts lack of restraint). In short, anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely. It might have different relative priorities of different forms of speech vs. different forms or measures of intimidation. But this is just a difference in measure. An example that requires resolving the contradiction with prioritization is as follows: am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"? Prohibiting this speech is a restriction of speech, and allowing this speech is also a restriction of speech (and bear in mind that every kind of law requires intimidation for enforcement -- otherwise laws are not laws, but voluntary behavior -- so we have two options here, both involving intimidation, and both involving speech). This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values). The latter, BTW, is my personal preference, but short of that I prefer a socialist liberal democracy. Any system that places the limit at physical violence (basically all American-style libertarian thought) seems to me to be both arbitrary and not truly anarchic (i.e. far from free). And if we can't have true anarchy, we might as well prioritize freedoms in a more principled way. Drawing a single line at physical violence to me seems not only arbitrary but ignorant of how social systems work (both human and animal), where freedoms are often restrained but only rarely through physical violence (and commonly through intimidation). This can be easily observed empirically.
mwcampbell 11y ago
Why does fear not count as something happening to her? Her emotional state is just as real as her physical state.
- tsotha 11y ago
  Getting the police involved based on someone's emotional state seems like a mistake. How could you possibly measure such a thing with any objectivity?
  - pron 11y ago
    You don't need to. First, you hardly measure anything in the justice system objectively. That's why you have judges -- to use judgement. Second, you can measure the effects the distress has on one's life -- e.g. being unable to get out of the house, being startled by noises etc. -- and you get an expert opinion from a professional. There are harder things to measure in court cases.

"she feared... she felt..." What actually happened to her?

by tsotha 11y ago

"she feared... she felt..." What actually happened to her?

pron 11y ago

> What actually happened to her? She was intimidated. It is important to understand that those who have power rarely need to exert it over others physically. Intimidation is enough, and is common in nature, too. Any sort of physical struggle bears a lot of risk for both sides involved (even if it's leopard vs. gazelle), so animals try to avoid violence by communicating their strength both to rivals in their own group as well as to potential prey or predators. It is called signalling[1]. Obviously, being intimidated is not the same as being killed or wounded, but that doesn't mean that this form of signalling is not very real or not a very common form of exerting power over others, in humans as in other species. Intimidation is very common in man and in nature, and its goal is to save the intimidator's the chance of injury and the intimidatee's life -- if they learn their place. If it weren't very real, animals wouldn't have spend so much energy on it[2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle

tsotha 11y ago
She was... intimidated? Seriously? You think it's reasonable to curtail free speech in other people to prevent intimidation?
- pron 11y ago
  What constitutes "reasonable" is a hard question. What I know is that all societies on this planet curtail speech to prevent intimidation. They only vary on the degree of intimidation they forbid. As a matter of fact, I am not aware of any single system of ethics where free speech is a higher value than preventing all forms of intimidation. I also, again, must take issue with the use of "free speech" in this context. It is not at all clear that it even applies to every sequence of letters a person types or every utterance a person makes. At its very core -- or consensus -- free speech means the freedom to express all ideas and opinions without fear of arrest. It is not at all clear that "I would like to rape Ellen Pao" is either an idea or an opinion, and therefore I don't mind discussing whether we should allow such things to be said, but I do mind including them under the umbrella of "free speech" (my objection is not on principal grounds but on aesthetic grounds). I do believe that every person should have the right to freely express his or her ideas in public without fear of arrest, and I think that this value is rather high in priority. But I agree with all other free societies (including the US[1]), which think that this freedom does not apply (and I'm not talking about various exceptions to that freedom based on offense) to certain combinations of words that constitute neither ideas nor opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
  - woodman 11y ago
    > ...I am not aware of any single system of ethics where free speech is a higher value than preventing all forms of intimidation. I'm not sure how you define "system of ethics", but systems that eschew relativity and focus on universal principles (as defined by the philosophy) are more likely to value freedom over prior restraint. I'd be surprised if you've never heard of anarcho-capitalism, that is the first such system that comes to mind.
    - pron 11y ago
      > but systems that eschew relativity and focus on universal principles (as defined by the philosophy) are more likely to value freedom over prior restraint. Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values (the alternative is having a single value or none) to decide how to act when values conflict. "Freedom" is not such a well-defined (single) value -- i.e. it contains internal contradictions -- and therefore requires finer-grained prioritization at the very least, because all it implies is a lack of restraint, which is impossible in a system with more than one principal (two individuals can't both be completely unrestrained as it yields a logical contradiction: one is either allowed to restrain the other or not, either choice contradicts lack of restraint). In short, anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely. It might have different relative priorities of different forms of speech vs. different forms or measures of intimidation. But this is just a difference in measure. An example that requires resolving the contradiction with prioritization is as follows: am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"? Prohibiting this speech is a restriction of speech, and allowing this speech is also a restriction of speech (and bear in mind that every kind of law requires intimidation for enforcement -- otherwise laws are not laws, but voluntary behavior -- so we have two options here, both involving intimidation, and both involving speech). This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values). The latter, BTW, is my personal preference, but short of that I prefer a socialist liberal democracy. Any system that places the limit at physical violence (basically all American-style libertarian thought) seems to me to be both arbitrary and not truly anarchic (i.e. far from free). And if we can't have true anarchy, we might as well prioritize freedoms in a more principled way. Drawing a single line at physical violence to me seems not only arbitrary but ignorant of how social systems work (both human and animal), where freedoms are often restrained but only rarely through physical violence (and commonly through intimidation). This can be easily observed empirically.

mwcampbell 11y ago

Why does fear not count as something happening to her? Her emotional state is just as real as her physical state.

tsotha 11y ago
Getting the police involved based on someone's emotional state seems like a mistake. How could you possibly measure such a thing with any objectivity?
- pron 11y ago
  You don't need to. First, you hardly measure anything in the justice system objectively. That's why you have judges -- to use judgement. Second, you can measure the effects the distress has on one's life -- e.g. being unable to get out of the house, being startled by noises etc. -- and you get an expert opinion from a professional. There are harder things to measure in court cases.