5 ms·

Hate speech, bullying, none of that shit needs to be protected speech. It's not as delicate or complicated as people who generally aren't on the receiving end o

Hate speech, bullying, none of that shit needs to be protected speech. It's not as delicate or complicated as people who generally aren't on the receiving end of it try to make it out to be.

makomk 10y ago
I knew I recognized that username from somewhere. It is indeed neither delicate nor complicated so long as you define hate speech and bullying by whether one particular clique supports it or is against it, since by definition they're always going to have a firm indisputable conclusion on it and anyone who disagrees is the enemy. You don't even have to worry about that clique doxing, harassing or lying about others since they're obviously in the right by doing so. The hard part - and the part you failed at on Reddit - is actually stopping bullying, rather than crowning a gang of official bullies that you like and calling it a day.
- intortus 10y ago
  White hood wearing motherfuckers chomping at the bit to call black people "chimps" is not merely some alternative "clique", as you disingenuously suggest. The problem with tolerance of the intolerant is that you end up with an authoritarian monoculture where speech is much less free than it could have been.
  - makomk 10y ago
    You think that the only reason someone would disagree with you is because they're a literal KKK supporter, but this is somehow fighting against an authoritarian monoculture? Right. Had nothing to do with said clique's awful treatment of LGBT people, dubiously moral tactics, tendency to see anyone who disagrees as literal neo-Nazis, and utter refusal to brook any kind of internal dissent over anything at all, of course. All those times they went after gay and trans men for daring to claim to be oppressed were sure a-OK with me. The fact they could only claim to meet their own basic moral standards by banning anyone who held them to the same standard as the rest of Reddit over anything, as a matter of policy, has zero to do with my assertion that it's not that simple or easy. (Hell, the ex-Reddit CEO's since confirmed they had a history of IRL harassment campaigns against the families of Reddit admins who didn't go along with them.)
    - intortus 10y ago
      > You think that the only reason someone would disagree with you is because they're a literal KKK supporter, but this is somehow fighting against an authoritarian monoculture? This is a position that you've pulled straight out of your own ass. Is there any reason to believe that the rest of your loggorhea is any more truthful?
      - stefantalpalaru 10y ago
        > This is a position that you've pulled straight out of your own ass. Is there any reason to believe that the rest of your loggorhea is any more truthful? You should be hellbanned for violating this gratuitous HN guideline: "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity."
      - sctb 10y ago
        No matter what sort of threads we find ourselves in, the guidelines ask us not to comment uncivilly like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        intortus 10y ago
        In what way was I uncivil? They composed a strawman argument and attributed it to me, hence they pulled it out of their ass.
        dang 10y ago
        > straight out of your own ass > your loggorhea That is extremely uncivil (and a bannable offense here). If that isn't obvious to you, simply refraining from calling names and slinging personal pejoratives will get you a long way. The point is to post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
        10y ago
stefantalpalaru 10y ago
Hate speech is just free speech you disagree with. I'm sure you won't be condemning hatred towards paedophiles any time soon.
vivekd 10y ago
You're right, in many cases, hate speech and bullying are obvious and can be easily spotted. But there are always grey areas and disagreements where eradicating hate speech and bullying can also end up getting rid of speech with valid political dimensions. One sort of obvious case where important speech was classified as harmful is facebook's recent spat with the prime minister of Norwary over them censoring the famous photo of "Napalm girl," a young, naked Vietnamese girl running naked in the streets from a Napalm attack.
- intortus 10y ago
  The presence of grey areas does not invalidate the entire concept of "fuck off, nazis."
- cooper12 10y ago
  That was a historical photograph, not "hate speech or bullying". Also, how can you say "eradicating hate speech and bullying can also end up getting rid of speech with valid political dimensions" with a straight face?

Hate speech, bullying, none of that shit needs to be protected speech. It's not as delicate or complicated as people who generally aren't on the receiving end of it try to make it out to be.

makomk 10y ago

I knew I recognized that username from somewhere. It is indeed neither delicate nor complicated so long as you define hate speech and bullying by whether one particular clique supports it or is against it, since by definition they're always going to have a firm indisputable conclusion on it and anyone who disagrees is the enemy. You don't even have to worry about that clique doxing, harassing or lying about others since they're obviously in the right by doing so. The hard part - and the part you failed at on Reddit - is actually stopping bullying, rather than crowning a gang of official bullies that you like and calling it a day.

intortus 10y ago
White hood wearing motherfuckers chomping at the bit to call black people "chimps" is not merely some alternative "clique", as you disingenuously suggest. The problem with tolerance of the intolerant is that you end up with an authoritarian monoculture where speech is much less free than it could have been.
- makomk 10y ago
  You think that the only reason someone would disagree with you is because they're a literal KKK supporter, but this is somehow fighting against an authoritarian monoculture? Right. Had nothing to do with said clique's awful treatment of LGBT people, dubiously moral tactics, tendency to see anyone who disagrees as literal neo-Nazis, and utter refusal to brook any kind of internal dissent over anything at all, of course. All those times they went after gay and trans men for daring to claim to be oppressed were sure a-OK with me. The fact they could only claim to meet their own basic moral standards by banning anyone who held them to the same standard as the rest of Reddit over anything, as a matter of policy, has zero to do with my assertion that it's not that simple or easy. (Hell, the ex-Reddit CEO's since confirmed they had a history of IRL harassment campaigns against the families of Reddit admins who didn't go along with them.)
  - intortus 10y ago
    > You think that the only reason someone would disagree with you is because they're a literal KKK supporter, but this is somehow fighting against an authoritarian monoculture? This is a position that you've pulled straight out of your own ass. Is there any reason to believe that the rest of your loggorhea is any more truthful?
    - stefantalpalaru 10y ago
      > This is a position that you've pulled straight out of your own ass. Is there any reason to believe that the rest of your loggorhea is any more truthful? You should be hellbanned for violating this gratuitous HN guideline: "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity."
    - sctb 10y ago
      No matter what sort of threads we find ourselves in, the guidelines ask us not to comment uncivilly like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - intortus 10y ago
        In what way was I uncivil? They composed a strawman argument and attributed it to me, hence they pulled it out of their ass.
        dang 10y ago
        > straight out of your own ass > your loggorhea That is extremely uncivil (and a bannable offense here). If that isn't obvious to you, simply refraining from calling names and slinging personal pejoratives will get you a long way. The point is to post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
        10y ago

stefantalpalaru 10y ago

Hate speech is just free speech you disagree with. I'm sure you won't be condemning hatred towards paedophiles any time soon.

vivekd 10y ago

You're right, in many cases, hate speech and bullying are obvious and can be easily spotted. But there are always grey areas and disagreements where eradicating hate speech and bullying can also end up getting rid of speech with valid political dimensions. One sort of obvious case where important speech was classified as harmful is facebook's recent spat with the prime minister of Norwary over them censoring the famous photo of "Napalm girl," a young, naked Vietnamese girl running naked in the streets from a Napalm attack.

intortus 10y ago
The presence of grey areas does not invalidate the entire concept of "fuck off, nazis."
cooper12 10y ago
That was a historical photograph, not "hate speech or bullying". Also, how can you say "eradicating hate speech and bullying can also end up getting rid of speech with valid political dimensions" with a straight face?