5 ms·

> There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions" Its called freedo

> There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions" Its called freedom of speech/expression. Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights uses very similar words "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference..." The idea is pretty traceable through the middle ages with also reference to ancient greece and rome often given. However it holds less weight now as it has been brought to bear by problematic issues of slander/libel and also threats of violence particularly but also by state issues (sedition/blasphemy/obscenity/state secrets etc.). Today even pure 'offense' is more and more considered outside of freedom of expression. Probably the truest implementation however is in english parliament which has had defined freedom of speech dating back to their middle ages bill of rights. This hasnt been fettered in the same way.

tptacek 10y ago
Criticism is not "interference".
jaegerpicker 10y ago
That's speaking of lack of interference from the government not from your fellow citizens. Everyone has the right to criticize whom ever they choose and do business with whom ever they choose, for any reason they choose. No government should have the right to enforce interference based on believes.
- twelvechairs 10y ago
  Certainly societal segregation is part of freedom of speech. John stuart mill is a key refefence to this. His general principle is that government should only step in to prevent harm but sometimes segregation based on belief can be that harm (his 'tyranny of the majority') Now nobody we are talking about is struggling to survive based on their beliefs but whether its right to start segregating people for their views is definitely a freedom of speech issue.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    John Stuart Mill did not believe that people should be shielded from criticism, even massed criticism, for fear that they might be victimized by their own bad feels. In fact: Mill believes that the preservation of free society and ordered democracy with equal access by citizens was one of the few reasons society has to limit freedom. As luck would have it, we're here today debating the very real candidacy of a person who proposes to strip Muslims of their citizenship rights, and of someone who stood on a debate stage and proclaimed that one of his first acts as President would be to ensure the imprisonment of his political rival. Thankfully, nobody here is suggesting that the state should limit anyone's freedom (for that, you have to go to a Trump rally). Instead, we're simply criticizing Sam Altman for endorsing Peter Thiel. There is no appeal you will be able to make to any liberal philosopher that people should be immunized from criticism.
    - twelvechairs 10y ago
      Im certainly not saying criticism is wrong but 'having to fear the repercussions' goes further - i assume from all sides this meant the articles reference to YC potentially severing ties with thiel. All im pointing out is that this is a freedom of speech issue - whatever side you want to weigh in on. Broadly i agree with your views on Trump and interpretation of Mill
      - tptacek 10y ago
        If Thiel were an employee of Altman's, I might agree with you. He's not, so I haven't had to pick this apart so much. Thiel's relationship with Altman is more akin to a large NASCAR decal's relationship with a a race car. I'm simply urging Altman to peel the sticker off, at least until he's successful in convincing his friend to stop supporting American Fascism.
    - ythl 10y ago
      > and proclaimed that one of his first acts as President would be to ensure the imprisonment of his political rival. Yeah, but he's saying that because HRC has used her power and wealth to evade punishment for the white collar crimes she has committed. Or are you saying HRC has never committed any white collar crimes and gotten off scot-free?
- athroawawayy 10y ago
  There's a rationalist proverb: a bad argument gets an argument in return, not a bullet. Using economic force in debate starts edging towards the "bullet" end of the spectrum. This shrinks the range of discourse and makes the collective brain more stupid. Call it "racism" or "fascism" or what you will, but every political movement that persecuted its opponents thought its opponents were worthy of persecution. This is called "demonization". You use current morality to turn your opponents into demons and justify raising the stakes against them. We'd all be better off with a precommitment to civil debate. This would include engaging with Trump's specific ideas instead of using mere labels to refute him.
jackmaney 10y ago
The First Amendment of the US Constitution (ie the relevant law at play here) mentions nothing about freedom of consequences from speech. And that is a good thing. The idea that such a freedom should exist is laughable.

tptacek 10y ago

Criticism is not "interference".

jaegerpicker 10y ago

That's speaking of lack of interference from the government not from your fellow citizens. Everyone has the right to criticize whom ever they choose and do business with whom ever they choose, for any reason they choose. No government should have the right to enforce interference based on believes.

twelvechairs 10y ago
Certainly societal segregation is part of freedom of speech. John stuart mill is a key refefence to this. His general principle is that government should only step in to prevent harm but sometimes segregation based on belief can be that harm (his 'tyranny of the majority') Now nobody we are talking about is struggling to survive based on their beliefs but whether its right to start segregating people for their views is definitely a freedom of speech issue.
- tptacek 10y ago
  John Stuart Mill did not believe that people should be shielded from criticism, even massed criticism, for fear that they might be victimized by their own bad feels. In fact: Mill believes that the preservation of free society and ordered democracy with equal access by citizens was one of the few reasons society has to limit freedom. As luck would have it, we're here today debating the very real candidacy of a person who proposes to strip Muslims of their citizenship rights, and of someone who stood on a debate stage and proclaimed that one of his first acts as President would be to ensure the imprisonment of his political rival. Thankfully, nobody here is suggesting that the state should limit anyone's freedom (for that, you have to go to a Trump rally). Instead, we're simply criticizing Sam Altman for endorsing Peter Thiel. There is no appeal you will be able to make to any liberal philosopher that people should be immunized from criticism.
  - twelvechairs 10y ago
    Im certainly not saying criticism is wrong but 'having to fear the repercussions' goes further - i assume from all sides this meant the articles reference to YC potentially severing ties with thiel. All im pointing out is that this is a freedom of speech issue - whatever side you want to weigh in on. Broadly i agree with your views on Trump and interpretation of Mill
    - tptacek 10y ago
      If Thiel were an employee of Altman's, I might agree with you. He's not, so I haven't had to pick this apart so much. Thiel's relationship with Altman is more akin to a large NASCAR decal's relationship with a a race car. I'm simply urging Altman to peel the sticker off, at least until he's successful in convincing his friend to stop supporting American Fascism.
  - ythl 10y ago
    > and proclaimed that one of his first acts as President would be to ensure the imprisonment of his political rival. Yeah, but he's saying that because HRC has used her power and wealth to evade punishment for the white collar crimes she has committed. Or are you saying HRC has never committed any white collar crimes and gotten off scot-free?
athroawawayy 10y ago
There's a rationalist proverb: a bad argument gets an argument in return, not a bullet. Using economic force in debate starts edging towards the "bullet" end of the spectrum. This shrinks the range of discourse and makes the collective brain more stupid. Call it "racism" or "fascism" or what you will, but every political movement that persecuted its opponents thought its opponents were worthy of persecution. This is called "demonization". You use current morality to turn your opponents into demons and justify raising the stakes against them. We'd all be better off with a precommitment to civil debate. This would include engaging with Trump's specific ideas instead of using mere labels to refute him.

jackmaney 10y ago

The First Amendment of the US Constitution (ie the relevant law at play here) mentions nothing about freedom of consequences from speech. And that is a good thing. The idea that such a freedom should exist is laughable.