5 ms·

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 busi

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?
  - anaptdemise 10y ago
    If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. (1978, 16) Such liberty should exist with every subject matter so that we have “absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological” (1978, 11). Mill claims that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push our arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. Such liberty of expression is necessary, he suggests, for the dignity of persons. If liberty of expression is stifled, the price paid is “a sort of intellectual pacification” that sacrifices “ the entire moral courage of the human mind” (1978, 31). [1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#JohStuMilHarPri http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#JohStuMilH... Also, throughout all your comments, it is more than critical analysis of Thiel, Altman, et al. You seem to be calling for social or economic punishments for a political view. I doubt Mill would agree that ba[c]king a major political party's candidate is grounds for the kind of societal justice you claim is warranted.
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.

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?
- anaptdemise 10y ago
  If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. (1978, 16) Such liberty should exist with every subject matter so that we have “absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological” (1978, 11). Mill claims that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push our arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. Such liberty of expression is necessary, he suggests, for the dignity of persons. If liberty of expression is stifled, the price paid is “a sort of intellectual pacification” that sacrifices “ the entire moral courage of the human mind” (1978, 31). [1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#JohStuMilHarPri http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#JohStuMilH... Also, throughout all your comments, it is more than critical analysis of Thiel, Altman, et al. You seem to be calling for social or economic punishments for a political view. I doubt Mill would agree that ba[c]king a major political party's candidate is grounds for the kind of societal justice you claim is warranted.

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.