4 ms·

Why is it that people who support Linus' tirades and mention freedom of speech, etc get so incredibly hurt when others exercise their own freedom of speech and

Why is it that people who support Linus' tirades and mention freedom of speech, etc get so incredibly hurt when others exercise their own freedom of speech and point out how abusive they are?

thomashabets2 11y ago
Because one is saying "what you are saying is wrong" and the other is saying "you should stop talking". That's a fundamental difference. If they get hurt (big "if"), then they are still not saying "and that means you are not allowed to talk". Are you seeing an inconsistency that I'm not?
- rylee 11y ago
  No one's saying "you are not allowed to talk"; they're saying "you're a jerk if you decide to be pointedly abusive".
- mikeash 11y ago
  OK, so "you should stop talking" is bad. How about, "you should stop talking about how that guy should stop talking"? Does that qualify too? Does every meta-level have the same problem, or is there a limit to how deep it goes?
- zzalpha 11y ago
  Because one is saying "what you are saying is wrong" and the other is saying "you should stop talking". No, they're saying stop being a jerk. The only way that translates to "you should stop talking" is if said person is incapable of communicating whilst not being a jerk.
  - thomashabets2 11y ago
    I'm sorry if my illustration of why there is no hypocrisy was unclear. There may be jerk behaviour. I'm not saying there isn't. I did not mean to address that part at all. I'm saying there's no hypocrisy.
MacsHeadroom 11y ago
>Why is it that people...get so incredibly hurt when others...point out how abusive they are? Because they don't think it's abusive. If it isn't (I personally think it is), then pointing "out how abusive they are" comes off as passive aggressively saying they shouldn't express themselves in a certain way. That is effectively telling them they can not speak certain things that they feel are an important part of their ability to express certain ideas. It may as well be needless censorship, in their minds. Clearly the best response would be to calmly explain why expressing themselves in that way is important. But they're on the defensive, and honestly think aggression is a good way to express themselves, so -in their minds- why should they be calm about it?
tehbeard 11y ago
So people aren't allowed to be offended by other people being offended of them?
Tomte 11y ago
You can lift that argument to the next level: Why do you get hurt about someone exercising his right to speak when he criticizes that you're exercising your right to speak to criticize someone who exercises his right to speak? And then to the next level. And the next. Ad infinitum. It's totally unproductive.

Why is it that people who support Linus' tirades and mention freedom of speech, etc get so incredibly hurt when others exercise their own freedom of speech and point out how abusive they are?

thomashabets2 11y ago

Because one is saying "what you are saying is wrong" and the other is saying "you should stop talking". That's a fundamental difference. If they get hurt (big "if"), then they are still not saying "and that means you are not allowed to talk". Are you seeing an inconsistency that I'm not?

rylee 11y ago
No one's saying "you are not allowed to talk"; they're saying "you're a jerk if you decide to be pointedly abusive".
mikeash 11y ago
OK, so "you should stop talking" is bad. How about, "you should stop talking about how that guy should stop talking"? Does that qualify too? Does every meta-level have the same problem, or is there a limit to how deep it goes?
zzalpha 11y ago
Because one is saying "what you are saying is wrong" and the other is saying "you should stop talking". No, they're saying stop being a jerk. The only way that translates to "you should stop talking" is if said person is incapable of communicating whilst not being a jerk.
- thomashabets2 11y ago
  I'm sorry if my illustration of why there is no hypocrisy was unclear. There may be jerk behaviour. I'm not saying there isn't. I did not mean to address that part at all. I'm saying there's no hypocrisy.

MacsHeadroom 11y ago

>Why is it that people...get so incredibly hurt when others...point out how abusive they are? Because they don't think it's abusive. If it isn't (I personally think it is), then pointing "out how abusive they are" comes off as passive aggressively saying they shouldn't express themselves in a certain way. That is effectively telling them they can not speak certain things that they feel are an important part of their ability to express certain ideas. It may as well be needless censorship, in their minds. Clearly the best response would be to calmly explain why expressing themselves in that way is important. But they're on the defensive, and honestly think aggression is a good way to express themselves, so -in their minds- why should they be calm about it?

tehbeard 11y ago

So people aren't allowed to be offended by other people being offended of them?

Tomte 11y ago

You can lift that argument to the next level: Why do you get hurt about someone exercising his right to speak when he criticizes that you're exercising your right to speak to criticize someone who exercises his right to speak? And then to the next level. And the next. Ad infinitum. It's totally unproductive.