6 ms·

I am perfectly fine with private organizations banning whoever they like for posting racist shit. Racist shit is "wrong speech". If I have friends who start u

by Frondo 9y ago

I am perfectly fine with private organizations banning whoever they like for posting racist shit. Racist shit is "wrong speech". If I have friends who start uttering racist shit, and I can't talk them out of it, they are no longer my friends. (This has happened precisely once, no regrets. Thanks, Fox News, for poisoning an old man's mind.) Posting racist memes is wrong, saying racist things is wrong, thinking racist thoughts is wrong. How did we get here, that racism falls under the scare-quotes version of "wrong speech" and not actually wrong speech??

nxsynonym 9y ago
because free speech is universal. You can't cherry pick what topics/views/opinions are protected based on your world view.
- wehere1 9y ago
  every time these topics come up, someone always claims 'b-but muh freeze peach' - 'free speech' refers to the right to voice one's opinions without government retaliation or censorship. society and organizations still have the right to act accordingly. you can't walk into a wal-mart yelling racial slurs and claim 'free speech' as reason to not get kicked out
  - Cozumel 9y ago
    It's worth bearing in mind that these students were in a supposedly private Facebook group, it wasn't like they were publicly posting.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      No, there was a private group that required offensive material be posted to the main Harvard group to get access. The main group was private only inasmuch as you had to be an (incoming?) Harvard student. This is no different than students posting offensive material on a physical message board on some main through fare on campus. Edit: Actually, it's somewhat unclear to what degree and what material was required to be posted on the main chat, and what portion was in a separate private chat (still likely associated with Harvard in some way?). The article is unclear on these points. Harvard still has the right to gate admissions how they like (and they state that includes "moral character"), so if they are able to determine you are participating in actions they don't approve of, then they have grounds to reject you or revoke your prior acceptance. Just as if they Google'd you on your initial application and found verifiable and unsettling information.
- fao_ 9y ago
  People protecting the right of racists to spread racism, support racism. It cannot be any other way. You cannot claim that you dislike racism, and and also want to preserve it. Also, "Free speech" refers to the fact that the government cannot bust in to your house with a SWAT team and arrest you for speaking something that they don't like. Private companies can enforce whatever speech rules they like, and that doesn't interfere with the free speech of the individual. They can walk outside and state those things. There are already numerous hate speech laws covering the fact that the first amendment does not mean that you have a right to say whatever you want in a private space.
  - nxsynonym 9y ago
    As I said in another comment - I don't disagree with Harvard's decision, or any decision made by a private institution or person. I disagree with the notion that certain types of speech or thought are universally wrong. Personally - I believe racism is wrong - but I disagree with the notion that it's "wrong think". It's simply a different world view. To re-iterate: I don't agree with what the students said or did. I agree with Harvard's decision. I don't agree that protecting someone's right to speak freely and openly supports their agenda.
    - fao_ 9y ago
      > It's simply a different world view. One that states that people with more melatonin are fundamentally inferior and should be subservient to people with less melatonin. It is a point of view that is objectively and morally wrong. I wonder whether you would support the right of people to state that PoC should be sterilized, or the rights of people to call people to attack PoCs. Because that is what more and more people have been calling for in America. That is what Richard Spencer, one of the leaders of the alt-right, advocates. The problem with these 'different world views' is that even without directly stating that people should attack minorities, these statements lead to people beating up black people on the streets. The more these ideas and 'world views' are accepted, the more acceptable it will become to think and state such things, leading to a resurgence of people who think that PoCs should be murdered. That will then directly impact the probability of someone acting upon those beliefs. The reason why the rest of the world does have as bad a racism problem as America, is because they took steps to alienate people who had such views.
- calciphus 9y ago
  Free speech means the government won't arrest you for it. It does not mean private institutions and friend groups must endure it. Free speech does not mean speech without consequences. Relevant xkcd, as always! https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - TomatoTomato 9y ago
    There's a big difference between the right to free speech and the principle of free speech. Most especially when it comes to academia.
- yawaramin 9y ago
  No one is taking away their free speech. They're absolutely free to keep saying whatever they like (within the law of course). Booting someone for immoral conduct explicitly falls within Harvard's reserved rights as a private entity as plainly laid out in their terms of acceptance. Nothing to do with free speech.
- wvenable 9y ago
  Free speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. This seems to have gotten lost on the concept. The government can't arrest you but people can shun you.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
metaphorm 9y ago
I want to respond to you in good faith but I'm afraid to because I get the strong impression that you will not respond in kind. Therefore I choose to say nothing further.
- dsacco 9y ago
  Then maybe don't say anything at all.
  - metaphorm 9y ago
    in a conversation about chilling effects on speech, I find your comment to be an ironic form of validation.
khrm 9y ago
It's not easy to draw line. What about some light racist jokes? Or jokes demeaning wives(fairly common in India) or blonde women? Most seems fine with it but what happens when this line move a bit more further? In Hollywood movies, I have seen comedies doing all this and people applauding it. I believe we need a firm policy of no jokes with a hint of racism or sexism. Or have absolute free speech. You can't be cherry picking stuffs.
- elif 9y ago
  I think cherry-picking is far more reasonable of a proposal than somehow developing a black-and-white rule out of an infinite space of infinite dimensional speech or abandoning the pursuit of rational discourse by allowing absolutely everything in every context.
weberc2 9y ago
I can remember back to the early aughts when moral relativism and free speech we're anthems on the left...
- mason240 9y ago
  It's an easy way to ascertain what group is the dominant political power.
julianmarq 9y ago
> Posting racist memes is wrong, saying racist things is wrong, thinking racist thoughts is wrong. How did we get here, that racism falls under the scare-quotes version of "wrong speech" and not actually wrong speech?? There has never been, there never should be, and most likely there never will be (no matter how your crowd fights for it) such a thing as wrong speech. At least not outside of totalitarian states. As long as anyone accepts the concept of wrong speech, anything can be labelled that, and wars can explode over the littlest thing.

by Frondo 9y ago

nxsynonym 9y ago

because free speech is universal. You can't cherry pick what topics/views/opinions are protected based on your world view.

wehere1 9y ago
every time these topics come up, someone always claims 'b-but muh freeze peach' - 'free speech' refers to the right to voice one's opinions without government retaliation or censorship. society and organizations still have the right to act accordingly. you can't walk into a wal-mart yelling racial slurs and claim 'free speech' as reason to not get kicked out
- Cozumel 9y ago
  It's worth bearing in mind that these students were in a supposedly private Facebook group, it wasn't like they were publicly posting.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    No, there was a private group that required offensive material be posted to the main Harvard group to get access. The main group was private only inasmuch as you had to be an (incoming?) Harvard student. This is no different than students posting offensive material on a physical message board on some main through fare on campus. Edit: Actually, it's somewhat unclear to what degree and what material was required to be posted on the main chat, and what portion was in a separate private chat (still likely associated with Harvard in some way?). The article is unclear on these points. Harvard still has the right to gate admissions how they like (and they state that includes "moral character"), so if they are able to determine you are participating in actions they don't approve of, then they have grounds to reject you or revoke your prior acceptance. Just as if they Google'd you on your initial application and found verifiable and unsettling information.
fao_ 9y ago
People protecting the right of racists to spread racism, support racism. It cannot be any other way. You cannot claim that you dislike racism, and and also want to preserve it. Also, "Free speech" refers to the fact that the government cannot bust in to your house with a SWAT team and arrest you for speaking something that they don't like. Private companies can enforce whatever speech rules they like, and that doesn't interfere with the free speech of the individual. They can walk outside and state those things. There are already numerous hate speech laws covering the fact that the first amendment does not mean that you have a right to say whatever you want in a private space.
- nxsynonym 9y ago
  As I said in another comment - I don't disagree with Harvard's decision, or any decision made by a private institution or person. I disagree with the notion that certain types of speech or thought are universally wrong. Personally - I believe racism is wrong - but I disagree with the notion that it's "wrong think". It's simply a different world view. To re-iterate: I don't agree with what the students said or did. I agree with Harvard's decision. I don't agree that protecting someone's right to speak freely and openly supports their agenda.
  - fao_ 9y ago
    > It's simply a different world view. One that states that people with more melatonin are fundamentally inferior and should be subservient to people with less melatonin. It is a point of view that is objectively and morally wrong. I wonder whether you would support the right of people to state that PoC should be sterilized, or the rights of people to call people to attack PoCs. Because that is what more and more people have been calling for in America. That is what Richard Spencer, one of the leaders of the alt-right, advocates. The problem with these 'different world views' is that even without directly stating that people should attack minorities, these statements lead to people beating up black people on the streets. The more these ideas and 'world views' are accepted, the more acceptable it will become to think and state such things, leading to a resurgence of people who think that PoCs should be murdered. That will then directly impact the probability of someone acting upon those beliefs. The reason why the rest of the world does have as bad a racism problem as America, is because they took steps to alienate people who had such views.
calciphus 9y ago
Free speech means the government won't arrest you for it. It does not mean private institutions and friend groups must endure it. Free speech does not mean speech without consequences. Relevant xkcd, as always! https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- TomatoTomato 9y ago
  There's a big difference between the right to free speech and the principle of free speech. Most especially when it comes to academia.
yawaramin 9y ago
No one is taking away their free speech. They're absolutely free to keep saying whatever they like (within the law of course). Booting someone for immoral conduct explicitly falls within Harvard's reserved rights as a private entity as plainly laid out in their terms of acceptance. Nothing to do with free speech.
wvenable 9y ago
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. This seems to have gotten lost on the concept. The government can't arrest you but people can shun you.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

metaphorm 9y ago

I want to respond to you in good faith but I'm afraid to because I get the strong impression that you will not respond in kind. Therefore I choose to say nothing further.

dsacco 9y ago
Then maybe don't say anything at all.
- metaphorm 9y ago
  in a conversation about chilling effects on speech, I find your comment to be an ironic form of validation.

khrm 9y ago

It's not easy to draw line. What about some light racist jokes? Or jokes demeaning wives(fairly common in India) or blonde women? Most seems fine with it but what happens when this line move a bit more further? In Hollywood movies, I have seen comedies doing all this and people applauding it. I believe we need a firm policy of no jokes with a hint of racism or sexism. Or have absolute free speech. You can't be cherry picking stuffs.

elif 9y ago
I think cherry-picking is far more reasonable of a proposal than somehow developing a black-and-white rule out of an infinite space of infinite dimensional speech or abandoning the pursuit of rational discourse by allowing absolutely everything in every context.

weberc2 9y ago

I can remember back to the early aughts when moral relativism and free speech we're anthems on the left...

mason240 9y ago
It's an easy way to ascertain what group is the dominant political power.

julianmarq 9y ago

> Posting racist memes is wrong, saying racist things is wrong, thinking racist thoughts is wrong. How did we get here, that racism falls under the scare-quotes version of "wrong speech" and not actually wrong speech?? There has never been, there never should be, and most likely there never will be (no matter how your crowd fights for it) such a thing as wrong speech. At least not outside of totalitarian states. As long as anyone accepts the concept of wrong speech, anything can be labelled that, and wars can explode over the littlest thing.