3 ms·

Places like this tend to show the hypocrisy of the average leftist when it comes to free speech, though. When free speech benefits them by weakening social norm

by Noos 10y ago

Places like this tend to show the hypocrisy of the average leftist when it comes to free speech, though. When free speech benefits them by weakening social norms (especially religious ones), they champion it, but the moment free speech starts to subvert the new liberal norms they put in to replace it, suddenly we get arguments about how free speech is a limited concept and pleas to rediscover civility and tolerance. So much of discourse honestly is bullshit, and no, this place isn't immune either. Replace "free speech" with "disruption" to get this place's hypocrisy too. Oh, let's trumpet the sharing economy, whose purpose is to disrupt and ignore law in order to give urban programmers benefit, but when some employer decides to disrupt employment law by discriminating against older techies or native born ones, and the same thing happens. It's all about self-interest in the end. I'd rather a reddit style community that tolerates all self-interest than one that claims to be encouraging civility when it's really something else.

matt4077 10y ago
To a large part the difference is what comedians call "punching up" vs. "punching down" – Making fun of born-again christians is a bit more legitimate because they're 40% of the (US) population and have an insane amount of power compared to the hardcore atheists insulting them. It's quite different from being a muslim in a predominantly christian country being subjected to abuse by the majority. It's also a bit more legitimate because those radical atheists usually come from within the society they're criticizing. Not always in the sense of having been devoted christians themselves, but just being white and born in the US means you're more of the "in-group" of a white christian than others. I'd also like to mention that you're operating from a stereotype of "average leftists" that I feel is overly broad. What you see on tumblr (or what you see when someone shares a screenshot that looks like tumblr) is far away from the average. Regarding uber, check this 500-comment threat to see that there are many people on HN critical of their business practices, especially in regards of drivers' rights and wellbeing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9731963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9731963
- veddox 10y ago
  > It's quite different from being a muslim in a predominantly christian country being subjected to abuse by the majority. Hm, interesting that you choose the example going that way. Not to deny that Muslims face discrimination in the West, but have you had a look at what life is like for Christians in Muslim countries?
  - mattlevan 10y ago
    Hell-- even some types of Muslims in places where the other type of Muslim dominates.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    I'd never deny the problems christians face in many countries. The Egyptian's use of the "pig flu" a few years ago as a cheap cover for slaughtering the christian minorities' pigs still makes me angry/sad. But I'd warn against using such (and greater) injustice as an excuse. The idiots responsible for them are not the muslims who live in western countries, and any sort of collective guilt is morally indefensible (especially considering many muslims are in the west precisely because they wanted to get away). It's also subject to what my father used to say when I tried to excuse a bad grade as "still pretty good considering how the rest did": "When did we start comparing us to others?" Also, using the example going that way is exactly what I meant with "it's more legitimate (effective...) to criticize your own group".
  - tdkl 10y ago
    Muslims face discrimination not because they're Muslims, but because they fail to integrate in the Western society as citizens first. Islam is a law and government doctrine.
  - paulmd 10y ago
    All you're pointing out here is that Muslims are capable of punching down when they're in power too. This is (a) not particularly insightful, and (b) irrelevant to his US-based examples of punching up vs punching down.
vectorpush 10y ago
There is just about nobody anywhere on the political spectrum that believes in absolute free speech, people simply support speech that falls within their ideological boundaries. The criteria for obscenity on the left is sexism and bigotry, the criteria for obscenity on the right is blasphemy and criticism of traditions. If someone takes a knee during the national anthem conservatives will say that person should be fired and naturally liberals defend that as free speech. If someone addresses a transgender woman as "he" liberals will say that person should be fired and naturally conservatives defend that as free speech. When it comes to the selective protection of free speech, accusing any particular side of hypocrisy only reveals the bias of your particular political perspective.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  >If someone takes a knee during the national anthem conservatives will say that person should be fired and naturally liberals defend that as free speech. If someone addresses a transgender woman as "he" liberals will say that person should be fired and naturally conservatives defend that as free speech. Isn't it possible to defend it as free speech AND say that person should be fired? Something like "its their right to say it/do it but it shows their "true character."? You can both support free speech and also want a person to accept the consequences of what they do or say. I mean, I wouldn't personally fire anyone for those social transgressions but I can see how if I had certain world views I would see each person as less trustworthy or less desirable as an employee or coworker.
  - vectorpush 10y ago
    Threatening someone's livelihood based on their speech is about as antithetical to the idea of free speech as you can get (short of suggesting they should be arrested or killed for it). It might be different in a situation where the speech reveals a critical incompetency for an important job (like a judge who suggests certain races deserve harsher punishments or an MD that suggests homeopathy is a viable alternative to chemotherapy etc), but in the general case, if we accept loss of livelihood as a consequence for uncomfortable speech it is a tacit endorsement of censorship.

by Noos 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

To a large part the difference is what comedians call "punching up" vs. "punching down" – Making fun of born-again christians is a bit more legitimate because they're 40% of the (US) population and have an insane amount of power compared to the hardcore atheists insulting them. It's quite different from being a muslim in a predominantly christian country being subjected to abuse by the majority. It's also a bit more legitimate because those radical atheists usually come from within the society they're criticizing. Not always in the sense of having been devoted christians themselves, but just being white and born in the US means you're more of the "in-group" of a white christian than others. I'd also like to mention that you're operating from a stereotype of "average leftists" that I feel is overly broad. What you see on tumblr (or what you see when someone shares a screenshot that looks like tumblr) is far away from the average. Regarding uber, check this 500-comment threat to see that there are many people on HN critical of their business practices, especially in regards of drivers' rights and wellbeing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9731963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9731963

veddox 10y ago
> It's quite different from being a muslim in a predominantly christian country being subjected to abuse by the majority. Hm, interesting that you choose the example going that way. Not to deny that Muslims face discrimination in the West, but have you had a look at what life is like for Christians in Muslim countries?
- mattlevan 10y ago
  Hell-- even some types of Muslims in places where the other type of Muslim dominates.
- matt4077 10y ago
  I'd never deny the problems christians face in many countries. The Egyptian's use of the "pig flu" a few years ago as a cheap cover for slaughtering the christian minorities' pigs still makes me angry/sad. But I'd warn against using such (and greater) injustice as an excuse. The idiots responsible for them are not the muslims who live in western countries, and any sort of collective guilt is morally indefensible (especially considering many muslims are in the west precisely because they wanted to get away). It's also subject to what my father used to say when I tried to excuse a bad grade as "still pretty good considering how the rest did": "When did we start comparing us to others?" Also, using the example going that way is exactly what I meant with "it's more legitimate (effective...) to criticize your own group".
- tdkl 10y ago
  Muslims face discrimination not because they're Muslims, but because they fail to integrate in the Western society as citizens first. Islam is a law and government doctrine.
- paulmd 10y ago
  All you're pointing out here is that Muslims are capable of punching down when they're in power too. This is (a) not particularly insightful, and (b) irrelevant to his US-based examples of punching up vs punching down.

vectorpush 10y ago

There is just about nobody anywhere on the political spectrum that believes in absolute free speech, people simply support speech that falls within their ideological boundaries. The criteria for obscenity on the left is sexism and bigotry, the criteria for obscenity on the right is blasphemy and criticism of traditions. If someone takes a knee during the national anthem conservatives will say that person should be fired and naturally liberals defend that as free speech. If someone addresses a transgender woman as "he" liberals will say that person should be fired and naturally conservatives defend that as free speech. When it comes to the selective protection of free speech, accusing any particular side of hypocrisy only reveals the bias of your particular political perspective.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
>If someone takes a knee during the national anthem conservatives will say that person should be fired and naturally liberals defend that as free speech. If someone addresses a transgender woman as "he" liberals will say that person should be fired and naturally conservatives defend that as free speech. Isn't it possible to defend it as free speech AND say that person should be fired? Something like "its their right to say it/do it but it shows their "true character."? You can both support free speech and also want a person to accept the consequences of what they do or say. I mean, I wouldn't personally fire anyone for those social transgressions but I can see how if I had certain world views I would see each person as less trustworthy or less desirable as an employee or coworker.
- vectorpush 10y ago
  Threatening someone's livelihood based on their speech is about as antithetical to the idea of free speech as you can get (short of suggesting they should be arrested or killed for it). It might be different in a situation where the speech reveals a critical incompetency for an important job (like a judge who suggests certain races deserve harsher punishments or an MD that suggests homeopathy is a viable alternative to chemotherapy etc), but in the general case, if we accept loss of livelihood as a consequence for uncomfortable speech it is a tacit endorsement of censorship.