4 ms·

It has to apply to everyone. Dan Carlin did a few good pieces on this around the time of the charlie hebdo attacks, I could probably dig it out for you if you'r

It has to apply to everyone. Dan Carlin did a few good pieces on this around the time of the charlie hebdo attacks, I could probably dig it out for you if you're interested in it. His overall view (which I agree with) is that there should be no 'right to not be offended' and that applies to everyone.

eropple 10y ago
'dang banned 'hga, a long-time member, not too long ago for his advocacy of "excluding, if not eliminating" Jews from America. And he was right to do so: because no, your ability to speak does not provide proof against consequences. I'm not offended by 'hga posting that and I doubt 'dang was offended in the way that has the (overwhelmingly right-wing, if we're being honest) Concerned Citizens in a tilt. But it doesn't belong here. Spending a single moment entertaining it does nothing positive; there's literally no argument that can make that not reprehensible and not deserving of complete rejection. It does not and cannot exist. And so, no, it's not something to hear out, it's something to excise. Because they're not "just words," they have societal and individual impact that the advocates for these reprehensible positions wish you to believe can be ignored (in the hopes of gathering followers with similar brokenness in their heads 'til they have the numbers to murder those who disagree). You--we--need not give them further tools with which to harm our fellows and we are in no way made stronger by adhering to such pseudomorality.
- cyberpunk 10y ago
  There was a time where people made this sentiment about atheism and 'excised' people who claimed the earth orbited the sun. Don't you see that? This is a one way street, and we should not fear ideas. Today it's one you agree with supressing, tomorrow it might not be. (Edit: I'm not talking about hackernews here, any specific forum/group should be allowed to moderate and that's up to them alone, I'm talking more generally in society)
  - eropple 10y ago
    Oh, "don't I see?". Hmm. Let's see a little more: were atheists declaring that Jews should be thrown out of their homes for the crime of being Jewish? Or even anything remotely similar? No? Well, then, how strange that you would so readily bring up something wholly unlike the situation at hand. Providing air cover for literal-not-figurative fascists and their cheerleaders has an absolute and irrefutable difference of kind to it. Let's actually pay attention to what's being said instead of doing the chin-stroking, pince-nez-adjusting, context-only-matters-when-it-bolsters-my-argument thing.
    - cyberpunk 10y ago
      No need to get so agressive, can't we talk like adults? I don't think it's unlike the other because I've not been talking about the justification for wanting to supress/remove them instead the morality of doing so. However abhorrent we find someone else's views doesn't enable us to silence them. Isn't it relevant to point out that there were people (majorities, in fact) who had the same kind of reaction to things we find acceptible today as we do to these nasty racists? They too felt they were justifified.
      - eropple 10y ago
        When I'm being aggressive, I will be sure to let you know. I will underline it, if you'd like. I would consider standing by while others threaten to harm people based on their ethnicity to be as immature, as un-adult, a thing as can be done. Giving the playground bullies--and their adult counterparts in the ranks of the literal-not-figurative fascists--room to instill fear and to threaten the oppressed into silence is not what adults do. But it's interesting that you focus on adult rather than decent or just. Edifying, even.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    HN is not the town square. It's perfectly acceptable for there to be boundaries here on subject matter allowed.
- krapp 10y ago
  >Spending a single moment entertaining it does nothing positive; there's literally no argument that can make that not reprehensible and not deserving of complete rejection. It does not and cannot exist. And so, no, it's not something to hear out, it's something to excise. It can't be excised, though, only sent somewhere else, to gather power where you can no longer see it. Push it far enough into a dark corner and it looks tempting. People will say the "mainstream" is afraid of it, that the "system" is suppressing it, and cynics will find it all the more attractive for being forbidden fruit. The reason such speech should be permitted in the public sphere is not to entertain it, but to give the community the opportunity to reject it.
  - eropple 10y ago
    To be clear, I'm not saying that the government should suppress reprehensible speech. But I am saying that elements of the public choosing to protest it and no-platform it should not be criticized by the (maybe-)well-meaning peanut gallery on "free speech" grounds 'cause we're exercising ours. The easy (wrong (dumb)) rhetorical answer trotted out around here becomes "oh, delicate snowflakes!" because of the inexplicable unwillingness to wait until one's head is put to the curb and the boot is raised before resisting.
    - krapp 10y ago
      >But I am saying that elements of the public choosing to protest it and no-platform it should not be criticized by the (maybe-)well-meaning peanut gallery on "free speech" grounds 'cause we're exercising ours. I can't disagree with this, but it still doesn't win the fight. People can't reject a point of view until they're given the opportunity to understand it, and are exposed to the risk of accepting it first.

eropple 10y ago

'dang banned 'hga, a long-time member, not too long ago for his advocacy of "excluding, if not eliminating" Jews from America. And he was right to do so: because no, your ability to speak does not provide proof against consequences. I'm not offended by 'hga posting that and I doubt 'dang was offended in the way that has the (overwhelmingly right-wing, if we're being honest) Concerned Citizens in a tilt. But it doesn't belong here. Spending a single moment entertaining it does nothing positive; there's literally no argument that can make that not reprehensible and not deserving of complete rejection. It does not and cannot exist. And so, no, it's not something to hear out, it's something to excise. Because they're not "just words," they have societal and individual impact that the advocates for these reprehensible positions wish you to believe can be ignored (in the hopes of gathering followers with similar brokenness in their heads 'til they have the numbers to murder those who disagree). You--we--need not give them further tools with which to harm our fellows and we are in no way made stronger by adhering to such pseudomorality.

cyberpunk 10y ago
There was a time where people made this sentiment about atheism and 'excised' people who claimed the earth orbited the sun. Don't you see that? This is a one way street, and we should not fear ideas. Today it's one you agree with supressing, tomorrow it might not be. (Edit: I'm not talking about hackernews here, any specific forum/group should be allowed to moderate and that's up to them alone, I'm talking more generally in society)
- eropple 10y ago
  Oh, "don't I see?". Hmm. Let's see a little more: were atheists declaring that Jews should be thrown out of their homes for the crime of being Jewish? Or even anything remotely similar? No? Well, then, how strange that you would so readily bring up something wholly unlike the situation at hand. Providing air cover for literal-not-figurative fascists and their cheerleaders has an absolute and irrefutable difference of kind to it. Let's actually pay attention to what's being said instead of doing the chin-stroking, pince-nez-adjusting, context-only-matters-when-it-bolsters-my-argument thing.
  - cyberpunk 10y ago
    No need to get so agressive, can't we talk like adults? I don't think it's unlike the other because I've not been talking about the justification for wanting to supress/remove them instead the morality of doing so. However abhorrent we find someone else's views doesn't enable us to silence them. Isn't it relevant to point out that there were people (majorities, in fact) who had the same kind of reaction to things we find acceptible today as we do to these nasty racists? They too felt they were justifified.
    - eropple 10y ago
      When I'm being aggressive, I will be sure to let you know. I will underline it, if you'd like. I would consider standing by while others threaten to harm people based on their ethnicity to be as immature, as un-adult, a thing as can be done. Giving the playground bullies--and their adult counterparts in the ranks of the literal-not-figurative fascists--room to instill fear and to threaten the oppressed into silence is not what adults do. But it's interesting that you focus on adult rather than decent or just. Edifying, even.
- ams6110 10y ago
  HN is not the town square. It's perfectly acceptable for there to be boundaries here on subject matter allowed.
krapp 10y ago
>Spending a single moment entertaining it does nothing positive; there's literally no argument that can make that not reprehensible and not deserving of complete rejection. It does not and cannot exist. And so, no, it's not something to hear out, it's something to excise. It can't be excised, though, only sent somewhere else, to gather power where you can no longer see it. Push it far enough into a dark corner and it looks tempting. People will say the "mainstream" is afraid of it, that the "system" is suppressing it, and cynics will find it all the more attractive for being forbidden fruit. The reason such speech should be permitted in the public sphere is not to entertain it, but to give the community the opportunity to reject it.
- eropple 10y ago
  To be clear, I'm not saying that the government should suppress reprehensible speech. But I am saying that elements of the public choosing to protest it and no-platform it should not be criticized by the (maybe-)well-meaning peanut gallery on "free speech" grounds 'cause we're exercising ours. The easy (wrong (dumb)) rhetorical answer trotted out around here becomes "oh, delicate snowflakes!" because of the inexplicable unwillingness to wait until one's head is put to the curb and the boot is raised before resisting.
  - krapp 10y ago
    >But I am saying that elements of the public choosing to protest it and no-platform it should not be criticized by the (maybe-)well-meaning peanut gallery on "free speech" grounds 'cause we're exercising ours. I can't disagree with this, but it still doesn't win the fight. People can't reject a point of view until they're given the opportunity to understand it, and are exposed to the risk of accepting it first.