5 ms·

So in your opinion is there any logically-possible situation in which it is morally acceptable to choose to cease associating with someone over incommensurable

So in your opinion is there any logically-possible situation in which it is morally acceptable to choose to cease associating with someone over incommensurable views? Have you ever done it yourself? Do you feel morally obligated to be a business partner of people who support Hillary Clinton, since to choose not to would "punish" and "silence" their speech?

jacquesm 10y ago
I'm perfectly ok with that, I'm just not ok with pushing others to do likewise.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  So it's OK to speak as long as you don't try to persuade someone of something? If somebody's up on a soapbox giving speeches about their views, and I disagree with their views, should I not get up on my own soapbox and explain why I disagree and think people shouldn't buy that other guy's arguments? If I think someone has a poor business history, should I keep silent when somebody else considers a partnership? Or should I speak up and say "I think that's a bad partnership" and try to persuade them? You seem to have a view of speech being allowed so long as the first speaker is privileged never to be disagreed with by a later speaker, and never to have anyone try to persuade others not to accept the first speaker's argument. That's not how free speech works.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    You are over-generalizing. Trying to persuade others in "something" is completely fine. Unless "something" happens to be "let's institute groupthink and shun anybody who dares to disagree with our views" and then it's terrible. Not the fact of persuading is terrible, but the content of this particular persuasion.
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      So... people with similar views can't congregate together, and people with irreconcilable views can't just decide to stay away from each other, in your world. Or is it a percentage thing? When 50.0000001% of a group of people share an opinion, would you like the police to swoop in and start forcibly preventing speech just in case more people might be persuaded of the idea and join the "groupthink"? (also, funny thing, there's a lot of diversity in the anti-Thiel/anti-Trump opinions, but a whole lot of "wow, these people all seem to be reading the same script" in the pro-Thiel/pro-Trump, so maybe consider carefully who you'd like to accuse of groupthink. Oh wait, crap, I just tried to persuade someone to take an action; never mind, I'll see myself off to the labor camp)
      - smsm42 10y ago
        > people with similar views can't congregate together, and people with irreconcilable views can't just decide to stay away from each other, in your world. Oh, surely they can. I just won't be a part of a groupthink community and would oppose the effort of turning whole technology community into such. If you want to organize "Trump haters of Silicon Valley" meetup, feel free to. As long as you are not going to demand that "Trump lovers of Silicon Valley" meetup is shut down and meetup.com deletes their account. See the difference? > Or is it a percentage thing? It's not a percentage thing, it's a mindset thing. The fact that you turn to police and coercion all the time is another sign. The point is that we need to be open to coexisting with people that disagree with us, and that's a good thing. The urge to run for a safe space and surround oneself with a warm fuzzy cloak of groupthink is a natural one, but it's not a good thing if you want a healthy and intellectually honest and vibrant community around you. > but a whole lot of "wow, these people all seem to be reading the same script" in the pro-Thiel/pro-Trump, Of course, people that agree with you are all independent intellectual powerhouses, and people that disagree with you are all mindless drones zombified by Evil Powers. Funny how it happens like that all the time, eh?
        ubernostrum 10y ago
        Funny. People suggest exercising their right to associate or not, freely as they choose, and exercising their right to use persuasive speech, and you equate it to the use of force, to censorship, to silencing. And double funny: it started with trying to persuade someone to disassociate from the campaign/supporters of a man who literally talks about wielding the law to silence journalism he doesn't like.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    You can try to persuade someone but I think public shaming and blackmail are across the line.
smsm42 10y ago
> it is morally acceptable to choose to cease associating with someone over incommensurable views For you? A lot of situations are morally acceptable. For you to demand others to do it, even though they clearly not inclined to? Very narrow set of situations, mostly involving heinous crimes.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Citizen! You have attempted to influence the thoughts or actions of another! Hold position and await the arrival of constables who will arrest you for violating the Anti-Groupthink Act 2016!
  - smsm42 10y ago
    Your thoughts jump to police and coercion all the time. Why is that? Nobody is trying to coerce you to anything, unless you see other individuals voluntarily associating as some kind of coercion on you.
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      People discussing with whom they will or will not associate is, in this very HN thread, referred to as "tyranny", "despotism", "blackmail", "extortion", and of course you yourself went for the oppression/"thoughtcrime" angle. Yet one satirical comment lampooning it is "jump to police and coercion all the time" and "why is that". I suggest you get checked out, you've got more projection going on than an overbooked IMAX theater.

jacquesm 10y ago

I'm perfectly ok with that, I'm just not ok with pushing others to do likewise.

ubernostrum 10y ago
So it's OK to speak as long as you don't try to persuade someone of something? If somebody's up on a soapbox giving speeches about their views, and I disagree with their views, should I not get up on my own soapbox and explain why I disagree and think people shouldn't buy that other guy's arguments? If I think someone has a poor business history, should I keep silent when somebody else considers a partnership? Or should I speak up and say "I think that's a bad partnership" and try to persuade them? You seem to have a view of speech being allowed so long as the first speaker is privileged never to be disagreed with by a later speaker, and never to have anyone try to persuade others not to accept the first speaker's argument. That's not how free speech works.
- smsm42 10y ago
  You are over-generalizing. Trying to persuade others in "something" is completely fine. Unless "something" happens to be "let's institute groupthink and shun anybody who dares to disagree with our views" and then it's terrible. Not the fact of persuading is terrible, but the content of this particular persuasion.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    So... people with similar views can't congregate together, and people with irreconcilable views can't just decide to stay away from each other, in your world. Or is it a percentage thing? When 50.0000001% of a group of people share an opinion, would you like the police to swoop in and start forcibly preventing speech just in case more people might be persuaded of the idea and join the "groupthink"? (also, funny thing, there's a lot of diversity in the anti-Thiel/anti-Trump opinions, but a whole lot of "wow, these people all seem to be reading the same script" in the pro-Thiel/pro-Trump, so maybe consider carefully who you'd like to accuse of groupthink. Oh wait, crap, I just tried to persuade someone to take an action; never mind, I'll see myself off to the labor camp)
    - smsm42 10y ago
      > people with similar views can't congregate together, and people with irreconcilable views can't just decide to stay away from each other, in your world. Oh, surely they can. I just won't be a part of a groupthink community and would oppose the effort of turning whole technology community into such. If you want to organize "Trump haters of Silicon Valley" meetup, feel free to. As long as you are not going to demand that "Trump lovers of Silicon Valley" meetup is shut down and meetup.com deletes their account. See the difference? > Or is it a percentage thing? It's not a percentage thing, it's a mindset thing. The fact that you turn to police and coercion all the time is another sign. The point is that we need to be open to coexisting with people that disagree with us, and that's a good thing. The urge to run for a safe space and surround oneself with a warm fuzzy cloak of groupthink is a natural one, but it's not a good thing if you want a healthy and intellectually honest and vibrant community around you. > but a whole lot of "wow, these people all seem to be reading the same script" in the pro-Thiel/pro-Trump, Of course, people that agree with you are all independent intellectual powerhouses, and people that disagree with you are all mindless drones zombified by Evil Powers. Funny how it happens like that all the time, eh?
      - ubernostrum 10y ago
        Funny. People suggest exercising their right to associate or not, freely as they choose, and exercising their right to use persuasive speech, and you equate it to the use of force, to censorship, to silencing. And double funny: it started with trying to persuade someone to disassociate from the campaign/supporters of a man who literally talks about wielding the law to silence journalism he doesn't like.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  You can try to persuade someone but I think public shaming and blackmail are across the line.

smsm42 10y ago

> it is morally acceptable to choose to cease associating with someone over incommensurable views For you? A lot of situations are morally acceptable. For you to demand others to do it, even though they clearly not inclined to? Very narrow set of situations, mostly involving heinous crimes.

ubernostrum 10y ago
Citizen! You have attempted to influence the thoughts or actions of another! Hold position and await the arrival of constables who will arrest you for violating the Anti-Groupthink Act 2016!
- smsm42 10y ago
  Your thoughts jump to police and coercion all the time. Why is that? Nobody is trying to coerce you to anything, unless you see other individuals voluntarily associating as some kind of coercion on you.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    People discussing with whom they will or will not associate is, in this very HN thread, referred to as "tyranny", "despotism", "blackmail", "extortion", and of course you yourself went for the oppression/"thoughtcrime" angle. Yet one satirical comment lampooning it is "jump to police and coercion all the time" and "why is that". I suggest you get checked out, you've got more projection going on than an overbooked IMAX theater.