5 ms·

Im more concerned with social censorship and the mob mentality that seems to be determining justice. If you say something that is not politically correct or ag

by 0x49 11y ago

Im more concerned with social censorship and the mob mentality that seems to be determining justice. If you say something that is not politically correct or against the current narrative, you will get fired/bullied/harrassed/silenced/all three. Without honesty, there will be no progress. I shouldnt be afraid of posting my opinions and expressing my freedom of speech because i might lose my livelihood. But its the sad reality.

task_queue 11y ago
You are in essence saying there shouldn't be social consequences for speech.
- mushtifaha 11y ago
  The consequences for speech should resemble an asymptote, always approaching zero.
  - task_queue 11y ago
    Consequences of speech are people's thoughts or reactions to speech. Where does someone's right to say what they want without consequence end and my right to have a thought or reaction to what I heard begin? Your right to speak your opinion coexists with people's right to have a reaction. This might be socially inconvenient, but that has always been the reality. Nothing has changed because the avenue expression is online, just the audience and availability of your speech.
- csandreasen 11y ago
  The internet has created a weird environment where repercussions for socially unacceptable speech (even if taken completely out of context) can be dramatically more severe than any harm that was caused by the original speaker. In general, a distasteful tweet or Facebook post shouldn't cost someone their job, make them a target for anonymous threats or make them fear interacting with society at large any more than it would have if the message had just been spoken. There was a good piece on NPR recently that explored a number of examples: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=440286008 http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?story...
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    What it should and should not do is a matter of opinion. The fact is, putting something in writing is permanent. Writing casually/carelessly can haunt you, like it always has. The confusion comes when regarding things like Twitter as 'speech' and calling the authors 'speakers'.
    - delinka 11y ago
      But it is speech in the legal sense. It's a usage that's been with the language for quite some time. If we mean literally "spoken," we should be clear about it.
  - DasIch 11y ago
    Generally it shouldn't, sometimes though it certainly should.
  - swang 11y ago
    There has always been repercussions for socially unacceptable speech. What the internet has affected is who can hear or read your speech. If I go into a supermarket and shout, "I hate black people and they shouldn't even be in America!" I am going to suffer the consequences, but probably only from the people who heard me. Everyone else will have heard it second-hand and may due to social circle pressure decide to sever ties with me. The only way I'll actually suffer long-term (other than being beat up by a mob) is if I was famous since people like it when famous people do things. The problem is, people continue to think that "The Internet" is just some kind of throwaway void where they can spout whatever they want. Justine Sacco probably isn't a racist, and was probably making a joke about "white privilege" or "white bubble". But she showed poor judgement in assuming that writing that in a public space would be benign. Even with her lack of followers. Text is not a good way to facilitate a joke that requires context. Her joke about AIDS and Africa and white people not being affected is based on some context no one but herself had. If _I_ am at the supermarket and I hear some old cranky dude yell that out. It's a story I'll probably tell my friends about. They in turn may decide to use that as an inside joke/catchphrase of our circle of friends. But there is no way I'll repeat that to someone else outside of the group of friends that know what the context is. I definitely won't post it on Twitter, not without at least having posted the story about the crazy old man in the supermarket. So I kinda laugh when people say they can't say anything that's not "PC" anymore. That to me just means they want to really spout some really offensive opinions to a public audience without paying the consequences of doing so. Then of course when there is kickback, they blame it on people being too "PC"
- hoorayimhelping 11y ago
  I didn't get that at all from the post. I read that GP is sad that the 'social consequences' for speech have created an environment where people are afraid of voicing benign, unpopular opinions.
- JanneVee 11y ago
  You are in essence saying that ad hominem is a valid debating technique.
  - task_queue 11y ago
    Go on
    - JanneVee 11y ago
      Expressing a dissenting opinion against the mainstream shouldn't have to the extent of threatening ones livelihood because it suppresses honest discussion. That is the point 0x49 is trying to make. You are inferring with your comment that dissenting from mainstream opinion should be allowed to have the equivalent social consequences of e.g. advocating genocide. But with that line of reasoning you are allowing people with unpopular opinions to argued by the character of the people making them.
      - task_queue 11y ago
        Everything isn't to be treated as a debate in good faith. It is very, very rare for a person to be making inflammatory comments in an earnest attempt to start a debate in good faith. I agree, if the platform is a debate-like context, it would be bad form to do that. But if you walk into a bar or post on Twitter talking about how much you dislike ___, don't be surprised if someone has a reaction. I certainly won't be inclined to start a Socratic dialogue exploring why you dislike ___ in an attempt to persuade you. You wouldn't spout a racist manifesto on a talk show, don't expect to be able to do it on a medium that everyone can see and think nothing will come of it. You need to be acutely aware of your audience and reach when you speak. In this context, do not be surprised if people cannot separate their judgment of the comment from the person making it. Especially when the context is "I just read this awful comment on my screen by a person I don't know and already dislike."
        JanneVee 11y ago
        >You need to be acutely aware of your audience and reach when you speak. The problem 0x49 referred to is the polarization of discussions, where any attempt of moderation and nuance of the arguments is punished immediately with personal attacks and accusations of siding with the enemy. So it isn't just audience and reach that you should be acutely aware, it is also if you should speak on some matters at all. If you step in and say something in a polarized issue that doesn't fit someone's sensibilities in the extremes it makes you a target.
- pkinsky 11y ago
  Is there a difference between social consequences for speech and harassment? I'm reminded of the old freedom fighter vs. terrorist debate.
  - task_queue 11y ago
    Yes. The first can simply be a reaction someone has to speech and the other is a criminal offense.
    - pkinsky 11y ago
      Online harassment is almost always a reaction to speech. If ten thousand people send hateful messages to someone because they tweeted something they found offensive, is that harassment or social consequence? How about some concrete examples: did Justine Sacco suffer social consequences for speech, or was she harassed by an online mob? How about Anita Sarkeesian?
- learning_still 11y ago
  The kind of people who are oversensitive to speech don't care about what's being said; they care about how it's being said. I don't think there should be social consequences for saying something that isn't PC. And I think OP falls into the same category. This is far from something so general as "consequences for speech" which would include things as abstract as judging the level of education of the speaker. I don't make this point lightly either. It is a phenomenon I've observed too many times in my life. There are people that are actually willing to listen to others, that actually try to get the context of who this person is that they're speaking with. But most people are not willing to listen to someone else within the context of who that person is, and are more than willing to run with their early assumptions of that person. Why is it that the people who are oversensitive always fall into the latter category? Being sensitive to political correctness is a way of being ignorant and pretentious to the world, to the billions of people who are not like yourself. Big Think - People Will Misjudge You Unless You Manipulate Them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX83nf6t6Vg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX83nf6t6Vg
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Its all about context. With your bro's after the game, sure. But in Twitter, where the whole world (anybody who cares to look anyway) can see it? Its expected to have a different voice there. Folks who get all chummy on Twitter are forgetting where they are.
    - learning_still 11y ago
      "Its expected to have a different voice there." Expected by who? The "expectation" you think everyone has, everyone does not have. In this discussion we're referring to this expectation as "PC" or "political correctness".
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Normal social conventions. You don't hum in church. You don't yell "Theatre!" in a crowded firehouse. Etc.
aluhut 11y ago
We had a guy fired basically because he was an islamophobe. He was annoying people with his "opinion" all the time. That did not work out pretty well with all the other colleges so he did not get jobs. Nobody wanted to work with him. His chargeability was messed up and then he was gone. I'm pretty OK with that. Generalizations never work.
- hoorayimhelping 11y ago
  Someone getting fired for annoying people with unprofessional opinions is vastly different than a guy making a dick joke to his friend loudly enough that someone else heard it, was offended by it, and told his employer she demanded his resignation.
- tomp 11y ago
  It sounds like that he would be fired even if he was annoying people in a different, politically-correct way. That doesn't sound as that much of a problem.
- SFLemonade 11y ago
  That sounds like a pretty standard HR situation. Can't do that shit at work. But your personal life should be different (no matter how inconvenient that is in some cases), and the social justice movement is looking to change that. They're causing people to lose their jobs over something that they did in their personal life; on their own time, separate from work. That's fundamentally different and it isn't justice. It isn't freedom. It's oppression.
  - _delirium 11y ago
    I'm not sure it's that they're looking to change it, vs. take advantage of something for their own political ends that already exists (and has for a long time). The traditional "rule" in the US is that you can do whatever you want on your own time, unless it's something that your employer finds out about, and finds sufficiently offensive, embarrassing, or inconvenient. Then, since employment is at-will, they can fire you for it, as long as it isn't from a specific list of things that would constitute unlawful termination. The main change, as I see it, is that using it as an organized tactic (compiling lists, contacting employers, etc.) has mainly been done by conservatives in the past, directed at communists, the LGBT movement, flag-burners, etc. Those more on the left using it (or at least, using it with any success) is a somewhat newer development in the US. To me the fundamental place to tackle this would be at the mechanism: the problem is that employers can and do fire people who have opinions they either dislike or find embarrassing. That will continue to be true, unless labor laws are changed to make it more difficult.
guelo 11y ago
It is incomprehensible to me that someone would be more concerned about being able to, for example, make fun of fat people without being treated as an asshole, than censorship of our mass media on issues of national security. Sorry but that's like first world dumb teenager problems to me.
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  That's not the argument he's making.
- JanneVee 11y ago
  That is some mental gymnastics you are displaying. It is not the argument 0x49 is making. It is allowing people to dissent from mainstream opinion in e.g. gay marriage without a threat to their livelihood.
  - 0x49 11y ago
    This is exactly correct. You arent allowed to disagree with pretty much anything mainstream these days publically without suffering huge consequences. The people that do successfully have the power, which means enough money that a firing doesnt matter.
- SFLemonade 11y ago
  You're talking about two different issues / results of censorship here, both of which are legitimate and need to be discussed. Don't silence one with the other.
- 0x49 11y ago
  You just arent thinking long-term. It starts with things like fat-shaming. Its also not just being treated like an 'asshole'. Its a complete destruction of ones personal life, abusive behavior such as harassment, and many times the mob moves to the persons place of employment and the business doesnt want the negative publicity, and fires the employee. Does a person deserve this sort of treatment? Arent we trying to stop online bullying? Mobs are fickle. While today, you are on the side of the mob...tomorrow the mob might be against you. At that point, it will be too late to protest because it is already an acceptable practice in our society. The government doesnt even really need to pass laws to control the people. The mobs will take care of it for them. Its the wet dream of the nsa and should scate you as much as it does me.
SFLemonade 11y ago
You and anyone interested in this should read Jon Ronson's book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed". An excellent, rational, balanced take on this issue. Also check out the works of Dr. Gad Saad. If you'd rather not take the time to read their work, they've both given speeches on this and participated in several big podcasts as well (just search their names on YouTube or iTunes). Awareness of this issue is dramatically increasing by the day and these public figures (among others) are leading the charge.
blfr 11y ago
There's a more straightforward censorship here as well: abusing the report functionality. Most of these are automatic so anyone with enough followers can easily exploit this mechanism and get other people locked out.

by 0x49 11y ago

task_queue 11y ago

You are in essence saying there shouldn't be social consequences for speech.

mushtifaha 11y ago
The consequences for speech should resemble an asymptote, always approaching zero.
- task_queue 11y ago
  Consequences of speech are people's thoughts or reactions to speech. Where does someone's right to say what they want without consequence end and my right to have a thought or reaction to what I heard begin? Your right to speak your opinion coexists with people's right to have a reaction. This might be socially inconvenient, but that has always been the reality. Nothing has changed because the avenue expression is online, just the audience and availability of your speech.
csandreasen 11y ago
The internet has created a weird environment where repercussions for socially unacceptable speech (even if taken completely out of context) can be dramatically more severe than any harm that was caused by the original speaker. In general, a distasteful tweet or Facebook post shouldn't cost someone their job, make them a target for anonymous threats or make them fear interacting with society at large any more than it would have if the message had just been spoken. There was a good piece on NPR recently that explored a number of examples: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=440286008 http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?story...
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  What it should and should not do is a matter of opinion. The fact is, putting something in writing is permanent. Writing casually/carelessly can haunt you, like it always has. The confusion comes when regarding things like Twitter as 'speech' and calling the authors 'speakers'.
  - delinka 11y ago
    But it is speech in the legal sense. It's a usage that's been with the language for quite some time. If we mean literally "spoken," we should be clear about it.
- DasIch 11y ago
  Generally it shouldn't, sometimes though it certainly should.
- swang 11y ago
  There has always been repercussions for socially unacceptable speech. What the internet has affected is who can hear or read your speech. If I go into a supermarket and shout, "I hate black people and they shouldn't even be in America!" I am going to suffer the consequences, but probably only from the people who heard me. Everyone else will have heard it second-hand and may due to social circle pressure decide to sever ties with me. The only way I'll actually suffer long-term (other than being beat up by a mob) is if I was famous since people like it when famous people do things. The problem is, people continue to think that "The Internet" is just some kind of throwaway void where they can spout whatever they want. Justine Sacco probably isn't a racist, and was probably making a joke about "white privilege" or "white bubble". But she showed poor judgement in assuming that writing that in a public space would be benign. Even with her lack of followers. Text is not a good way to facilitate a joke that requires context. Her joke about AIDS and Africa and white people not being affected is based on some context no one but herself had. If _I_ am at the supermarket and I hear some old cranky dude yell that out. It's a story I'll probably tell my friends about. They in turn may decide to use that as an inside joke/catchphrase of our circle of friends. But there is no way I'll repeat that to someone else outside of the group of friends that know what the context is. I definitely won't post it on Twitter, not without at least having posted the story about the crazy old man in the supermarket. So I kinda laugh when people say they can't say anything that's not "PC" anymore. That to me just means they want to really spout some really offensive opinions to a public audience without paying the consequences of doing so. Then of course when there is kickback, they blame it on people being too "PC"
hoorayimhelping 11y ago
I didn't get that at all from the post. I read that GP is sad that the 'social consequences' for speech have created an environment where people are afraid of voicing benign, unpopular opinions.
JanneVee 11y ago
You are in essence saying that ad hominem is a valid debating technique.
- task_queue 11y ago
  Go on
  - JanneVee 11y ago
    Expressing a dissenting opinion against the mainstream shouldn't have to the extent of threatening ones livelihood because it suppresses honest discussion. That is the point 0x49 is trying to make. You are inferring with your comment that dissenting from mainstream opinion should be allowed to have the equivalent social consequences of e.g. advocating genocide. But with that line of reasoning you are allowing people with unpopular opinions to argued by the character of the people making them.
    - task_queue 11y ago
      Everything isn't to be treated as a debate in good faith. It is very, very rare for a person to be making inflammatory comments in an earnest attempt to start a debate in good faith. I agree, if the platform is a debate-like context, it would be bad form to do that. But if you walk into a bar or post on Twitter talking about how much you dislike ___, don't be surprised if someone has a reaction. I certainly won't be inclined to start a Socratic dialogue exploring why you dislike ___ in an attempt to persuade you. You wouldn't spout a racist manifesto on a talk show, don't expect to be able to do it on a medium that everyone can see and think nothing will come of it. You need to be acutely aware of your audience and reach when you speak. In this context, do not be surprised if people cannot separate their judgment of the comment from the person making it. Especially when the context is "I just read this awful comment on my screen by a person I don't know and already dislike."
      - JanneVee 11y ago
        >You need to be acutely aware of your audience and reach when you speak. The problem 0x49 referred to is the polarization of discussions, where any attempt of moderation and nuance of the arguments is punished immediately with personal attacks and accusations of siding with the enemy. So it isn't just audience and reach that you should be acutely aware, it is also if you should speak on some matters at all. If you step in and say something in a polarized issue that doesn't fit someone's sensibilities in the extremes it makes you a target.
pkinsky 11y ago
Is there a difference between social consequences for speech and harassment? I'm reminded of the old freedom fighter vs. terrorist debate.
- task_queue 11y ago
  Yes. The first can simply be a reaction someone has to speech and the other is a criminal offense.
  - pkinsky 11y ago
    Online harassment is almost always a reaction to speech. If ten thousand people send hateful messages to someone because they tweeted something they found offensive, is that harassment or social consequence? How about some concrete examples: did Justine Sacco suffer social consequences for speech, or was she harassed by an online mob? How about Anita Sarkeesian?
learning_still 11y ago
The kind of people who are oversensitive to speech don't care about what's being said; they care about how it's being said. I don't think there should be social consequences for saying something that isn't PC. And I think OP falls into the same category. This is far from something so general as "consequences for speech" which would include things as abstract as judging the level of education of the speaker. I don't make this point lightly either. It is a phenomenon I've observed too many times in my life. There are people that are actually willing to listen to others, that actually try to get the context of who this person is that they're speaking with. But most people are not willing to listen to someone else within the context of who that person is, and are more than willing to run with their early assumptions of that person. Why is it that the people who are oversensitive always fall into the latter category? Being sensitive to political correctness is a way of being ignorant and pretentious to the world, to the billions of people who are not like yourself. Big Think - People Will Misjudge You Unless You Manipulate Them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX83nf6t6Vg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX83nf6t6Vg
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Its all about context. With your bro's after the game, sure. But in Twitter, where the whole world (anybody who cares to look anyway) can see it? Its expected to have a different voice there. Folks who get all chummy on Twitter are forgetting where they are.
  - learning_still 11y ago
    "Its expected to have a different voice there." Expected by who? The "expectation" you think everyone has, everyone does not have. In this discussion we're referring to this expectation as "PC" or "political correctness".
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Normal social conventions. You don't hum in church. You don't yell "Theatre!" in a crowded firehouse. Etc.

aluhut 11y ago

We had a guy fired basically because he was an islamophobe. He was annoying people with his "opinion" all the time. That did not work out pretty well with all the other colleges so he did not get jobs. Nobody wanted to work with him. His chargeability was messed up and then he was gone. I'm pretty OK with that. Generalizations never work.

hoorayimhelping 11y ago
Someone getting fired for annoying people with unprofessional opinions is vastly different than a guy making a dick joke to his friend loudly enough that someone else heard it, was offended by it, and told his employer she demanded his resignation.
tomp 11y ago
It sounds like that he would be fired even if he was annoying people in a different, politically-correct way. That doesn't sound as that much of a problem.
SFLemonade 11y ago
That sounds like a pretty standard HR situation. Can't do that shit at work. But your personal life should be different (no matter how inconvenient that is in some cases), and the social justice movement is looking to change that. They're causing people to lose their jobs over something that they did in their personal life; on their own time, separate from work. That's fundamentally different and it isn't justice. It isn't freedom. It's oppression.
- _delirium 11y ago
  I'm not sure it's that they're looking to change it, vs. take advantage of something for their own political ends that already exists (and has for a long time). The traditional "rule" in the US is that you can do whatever you want on your own time, unless it's something that your employer finds out about, and finds sufficiently offensive, embarrassing, or inconvenient. Then, since employment is at-will, they can fire you for it, as long as it isn't from a specific list of things that would constitute unlawful termination. The main change, as I see it, is that using it as an organized tactic (compiling lists, contacting employers, etc.) has mainly been done by conservatives in the past, directed at communists, the LGBT movement, flag-burners, etc. Those more on the left using it (or at least, using it with any success) is a somewhat newer development in the US. To me the fundamental place to tackle this would be at the mechanism: the problem is that employers can and do fire people who have opinions they either dislike or find embarrassing. That will continue to be true, unless labor laws are changed to make it more difficult.

guelo 11y ago

It is incomprehensible to me that someone would be more concerned about being able to, for example, make fun of fat people without being treated as an asshole, than censorship of our mass media on issues of national security. Sorry but that's like first world dumb teenager problems to me.

TrevorJ 11y ago
That's not the argument he's making.
JanneVee 11y ago
That is some mental gymnastics you are displaying. It is not the argument 0x49 is making. It is allowing people to dissent from mainstream opinion in e.g. gay marriage without a threat to their livelihood.
- 0x49 11y ago
  This is exactly correct. You arent allowed to disagree with pretty much anything mainstream these days publically without suffering huge consequences. The people that do successfully have the power, which means enough money that a firing doesnt matter.
SFLemonade 11y ago
You're talking about two different issues / results of censorship here, both of which are legitimate and need to be discussed. Don't silence one with the other.
0x49 11y ago
You just arent thinking long-term. It starts with things like fat-shaming. Its also not just being treated like an 'asshole'. Its a complete destruction of ones personal life, abusive behavior such as harassment, and many times the mob moves to the persons place of employment and the business doesnt want the negative publicity, and fires the employee. Does a person deserve this sort of treatment? Arent we trying to stop online bullying? Mobs are fickle. While today, you are on the side of the mob...tomorrow the mob might be against you. At that point, it will be too late to protest because it is already an acceptable practice in our society. The government doesnt even really need to pass laws to control the people. The mobs will take care of it for them. Its the wet dream of the nsa and should scate you as much as it does me.

SFLemonade 11y ago

You and anyone interested in this should read Jon Ronson's book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed". An excellent, rational, balanced take on this issue. Also check out the works of Dr. Gad Saad. If you'd rather not take the time to read their work, they've both given speeches on this and participated in several big podcasts as well (just search their names on YouTube or iTunes). Awareness of this issue is dramatically increasing by the day and these public figures (among others) are leading the charge.

blfr 11y ago

There's a more straightforward censorship here as well: abusing the report functionality. Most of these are automatic so anyone with enough followers can easily exploit this mechanism and get other people locked out.