12 ms·

Dystopian fiction has given so much terrorizing weight to the concept of "thoughtcrime" and "wrong think" that I think people forget how much positive effect a

Dystopian fiction has given so much terrorizing weight to the concept of "thoughtcrime" and "wrong think" that I think people forget how much positive effect a culture can have on widespread mindsets and stopping ignorance. Authorities, especially institutions of higher learning, shouldn't be in the business of policing their student's speech. That's not "culture." That's oppression. Using bad actions in the service of good is still a bad idea. If you think that some people are inherently "lesser" than others and can be treated as such, that's wrong. I sure think it's wrong. But policing that thought by policing speech that results from it is also wrong. If you think that it's OK to assault people, that's wrong. Is Harvard going after the "punch a Nazi" memers and advocates with as much vigor? As a liberal, I find that much more distrubing because in that case people are dressing up bad actions and teaching young people to think of them as somehow good and socially redeeming. Is that what we want? Jingoistic ideologues who can commit guiltless violence, supposedly in the name of your values and love? (Ironically, the most used word to describe an emotion at the Nuremberg rally filmed by Leni Reifensthal: Love.) that it has gone as far as being written and conveyed in ways that influence others makes it more than just thoughts. Yup. That's called speech. So what you want is authoritarian control of speech. In institutions of higher learning. Like Berkeley, maybe?

JoshTriplett 9y ago
> So what you want is authoritarian control of speech. Nope. Say anything you like. Learn to live with the consequences, which can and should include rejection by widespread parts of civilized society, and bask in the solitude. The crickets will surely enjoy your free speech. You shouldn't go to jail for it, but you can't demand that other people like it.
- throwanem 9y ago
  There's a bit of a difference between "I don't like this" and "I'm going to respond to this by attempting to destroy your social and professional life". It's disingenuous to pretend that your argument encompasses only the former, when identical contentions are so often deployed in support of the latter.
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    I think "rejection by widespread parts of civilized society" is a clear statement that I support both. Let me be explicit: racists and sexists should find it impossible to maintain a social and professional life, until they stop being racist and sexist. (And in the process, that also improves social and professional settings through their absence.) That's not a violent action, that's a highly effective non-violent action. And if it draws so much fire from the kinds of people it affects, perhaps that's because it works.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      Well, yes, certainly social and professional exclusion of one's political opponents has some historical evidence for its efficacy as a tactic, at least in the short term. Those of us who have qualms around consequentialism find this efficacy not reason enough to regard such behavior as exemplary of virtue. Those who do not have such qualms might be well advised to consider, from a utilitarian perspective, the ultimate outcomes which recent history has shown profligate use of this tactic to produce. And those who try to disclaim the grasp their political and cultural tendency has on power would do well to remember that this is, always and only, a tactic of hegemony, without which it cannot work at all. In any case, as I said before, I like the honesty.
      - JoshTriplett 9y ago
        > political opponents Framing bigots as "political opponents" has some efficacy as a tactic too, given people's allergy to politics. It's sad that this has, especially recently, become equated to politics. "How should we organize government", or "are certain functions better handled by government" are reasonable questions of politics. "Should we treat some people as less than other people" is not a question of politics, it's a question of humanity, that should be orthogonal to politics. It's possible to be toxic anywhere on the political spectrum, and it's possible to be decent anywhere on the political spectrum.
        throwanem 9y ago
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Nope. Say anything you like. Learn to live with the consequences Having found that much of the modern world has quite effective protections for free speech and free association, authoritarians have learned this "one weird trick" to hide their activities. Here's the dishonest trick: Just because it's not in the set of rules enforced by city, county, state, and federal officials, then it's not censorship. That's the same as saying that anything you do is OK, so long as it's not against the letter of the law somewhere. The whole point of free speech is to prevent authority from chilling dissent and coercing fake-agreement through fear and power. How does it matter if that sort of thing is happening through non-government organizations? Our country and most of the western world has a long history of oppressing groups largely through such non-government oppression. The manner in which homosexuals were oppressed is almost the same manner in which you would like your political views enforced. Do you know what people used to say about this? "You shouldn't go to jail for it, but you can't demand that other people like it." You shouldn't go to jail for it, but you can't demand that other people like it. There were laws against homosexuality in the western world, but the societal enforcement mechanisms were operating with far more frequency in the 20th century. There were laws suppressing black people, but the instances of societal enforcement mechanisms were far more frequent than arrests. Far more people read the posted sign or subtly got the funny vibe than were arrested. In many places where there were no specific laws against being Jewish, there were many, many instances of people being excluded from the best connected clubs and social circles on this basis. What you want are these kinds of societal enforcements operating, but on the basis of your particular ideas of what's right and wrong. So long as no one is being injured or killed, and no state "monopolizers of violence" are at play, then it's okay. It's not okay. If you are trying to force instead of convince then you are being a crappy, oppressive person. History is full of such people, most of whom thought they were doing right. In the same way, history is full of crappy violence, committed by people who thought they were fighting for justice. Thankfully, civilization has made progress, and we are now in the process of groups giving up violence as a means of enforcing their will. Similarly, we as a civilization are better understanding that groups of people using other forms of societal pressure to enforce their will short of violence are also oppressive. What you are advocating is that same kind of crappy non-consensual illusion of agreement, and justifying it because governments aren't doing it, and because in your mind, it's "might for right." Convince, not force. Consensuality should be at the core of any 21st century intellectual's morality, and true consensuality is never begrudging.
openasocket 9y ago
I dislike these absolutist arguments. It ignores any sort of context or nuance and generally shuts down discussion. In general, I understand and sympathize with your line of reasoning, and championing of free speech. However, I think you are going too far. Consider HN: we have down votes, comment flagging, and moderators. That is very much the policing of speech. Would you consider this oppression?
- stcredzero 9y ago
  I dislike these absolutist arguments. It ignores any sort of context or nuance and generally shuts down discussion. In general, I understand and sympathize with your line of reasoning, and championing of free speech. However, I think you are going too far. Absolutist argument? Where do you get that? Who's being absolutist? What evidence do you have that I don't have "a line?" Do you have any evidence that I support people yelling "fire" in a theater? Please provide your evidence, as I do take an absolute stand against people putting words and positions onto others on HN with no evidence. It ignores any sort of context or nuance and generally shuts down discussion. So are you basically saying it's okay to engage in partisan thought and speech policing of political viewpoints of graduating high school seniors by trolling through their social media? Consider HN: we have down votes, comment flagging, and moderators. That is very much the policing of speech. Would you consider this oppression? No. I don't get instantly excluded for voicing an opinion. Instead I get feedback. There's the difference. Is there a real flow of information? Is there a real marketplace of ideas? Or is it, "put up or shut up?" That's the difference.
  - openasocket 9y ago
    > Authorities, especially institutions of higher learning, shouldn't be in the business of policing their student's speech. That's not "culture." That's oppression. I considered that to be an absolutist argument. I think there are contexts in which authorities (EDIT: non-governmental authorities) can police speech in a way that is not oppressive. And not just the usual "shouting fire in a crowded theater" sense. If you are using a public forum to be disruptive and is detrimental to the other students, it can be appropriate to levy some sort of disciplinary action. If you start shouting racial epithets in a crowded theater, for example, I think it is appropriate for you to be thrown out. So the line is not clear cut, there is a level of subjectivity at play. > So are you basically saying it's okay to engage in partisan thought and speech policing of political viewpoints of graduating high school seniors by trolling through their social media? In this case, the students posted the offensive material on a public forum moderated by Harvard staff. I wouldn't consider this "trawling through social media". > I don't get instantly excluded for voicing an opinion. Instead I get feedback. There's the difference. So if Harvard had put these students on academic probation or something instead, you wouldn't necessarily have a problem? That's something I can get behind. I thought you were opposed to any action being taken against these students of any kind.

JoshTriplett 9y ago

> So what you want is authoritarian control of speech. Nope. Say anything you like. Learn to live with the consequences, which can and should include rejection by widespread parts of civilized society, and bask in the solitude. The crickets will surely enjoy your free speech. You shouldn't go to jail for it, but you can't demand that other people like it.

throwanem 9y ago
There's a bit of a difference between "I don't like this" and "I'm going to respond to this by attempting to destroy your social and professional life". It's disingenuous to pretend that your argument encompasses only the former, when identical contentions are so often deployed in support of the latter.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  I think "rejection by widespread parts of civilized society" is a clear statement that I support both. Let me be explicit: racists and sexists should find it impossible to maintain a social and professional life, until they stop being racist and sexist. (And in the process, that also improves social and professional settings through their absence.) That's not a violent action, that's a highly effective non-violent action. And if it draws so much fire from the kinds of people it affects, perhaps that's because it works.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    Well, yes, certainly social and professional exclusion of one's political opponents has some historical evidence for its efficacy as a tactic, at least in the short term. Those of us who have qualms around consequentialism find this efficacy not reason enough to regard such behavior as exemplary of virtue. Those who do not have such qualms might be well advised to consider, from a utilitarian perspective, the ultimate outcomes which recent history has shown profligate use of this tactic to produce. And those who try to disclaim the grasp their political and cultural tendency has on power would do well to remember that this is, always and only, a tactic of hegemony, without which it cannot work at all. In any case, as I said before, I like the honesty.
    - JoshTriplett 9y ago
      > political opponents Framing bigots as "political opponents" has some efficacy as a tactic too, given people's allergy to politics. It's sad that this has, especially recently, become equated to politics. "How should we organize government", or "are certain functions better handled by government" are reasonable questions of politics. "Should we treat some people as less than other people" is not a question of politics, it's a question of humanity, that should be orthogonal to politics. It's possible to be toxic anywhere on the political spectrum, and it's possible to be decent anywhere on the political spectrum.
      - throwanem 9y ago
stcredzero 9y ago
Nope. Say anything you like. Learn to live with the consequences Having found that much of the modern world has quite effective protections for free speech and free association, authoritarians have learned this "one weird trick" to hide their activities. Here's the dishonest trick: Just because it's not in the set of rules enforced by city, county, state, and federal officials, then it's not censorship. That's the same as saying that anything you do is OK, so long as it's not against the letter of the law somewhere. The whole point of free speech is to prevent authority from chilling dissent and coercing fake-agreement through fear and power. How does it matter if that sort of thing is happening through non-government organizations? Our country and most of the western world has a long history of oppressing groups largely through such non-government oppression. The manner in which homosexuals were oppressed is almost the same manner in which you would like your political views enforced. Do you know what people used to say about this? "You shouldn't go to jail for it, but you can't demand that other people like it." You shouldn't go to jail for it, but you can't demand that other people like it. There were laws against homosexuality in the western world, but the societal enforcement mechanisms were operating with far more frequency in the 20th century. There were laws suppressing black people, but the instances of societal enforcement mechanisms were far more frequent than arrests. Far more people read the posted sign or subtly got the funny vibe than were arrested. In many places where there were no specific laws against being Jewish, there were many, many instances of people being excluded from the best connected clubs and social circles on this basis. What you want are these kinds of societal enforcements operating, but on the basis of your particular ideas of what's right and wrong. So long as no one is being injured or killed, and no state "monopolizers of violence" are at play, then it's okay. It's not okay. If you are trying to force instead of convince then you are being a crappy, oppressive person. History is full of such people, most of whom thought they were doing right. In the same way, history is full of crappy violence, committed by people who thought they were fighting for justice. Thankfully, civilization has made progress, and we are now in the process of groups giving up violence as a means of enforcing their will. Similarly, we as a civilization are better understanding that groups of people using other forms of societal pressure to enforce their will short of violence are also oppressive. What you are advocating is that same kind of crappy non-consensual illusion of agreement, and justifying it because governments aren't doing it, and because in your mind, it's "might for right." Convince, not force. Consensuality should be at the core of any 21st century intellectual's morality, and true consensuality is never begrudging.

openasocket 9y ago

I dislike these absolutist arguments. It ignores any sort of context or nuance and generally shuts down discussion. In general, I understand and sympathize with your line of reasoning, and championing of free speech. However, I think you are going too far. Consider HN: we have down votes, comment flagging, and moderators. That is very much the policing of speech. Would you consider this oppression?

stcredzero 9y ago
I dislike these absolutist arguments. It ignores any sort of context or nuance and generally shuts down discussion. In general, I understand and sympathize with your line of reasoning, and championing of free speech. However, I think you are going too far. Absolutist argument? Where do you get that? Who's being absolutist? What evidence do you have that I don't have "a line?" Do you have any evidence that I support people yelling "fire" in a theater? Please provide your evidence, as I do take an absolute stand against people putting words and positions onto others on HN with no evidence. It ignores any sort of context or nuance and generally shuts down discussion. So are you basically saying it's okay to engage in partisan thought and speech policing of political viewpoints of graduating high school seniors by trolling through their social media? Consider HN: we have down votes, comment flagging, and moderators. That is very much the policing of speech. Would you consider this oppression? No. I don't get instantly excluded for voicing an opinion. Instead I get feedback. There's the difference. Is there a real flow of information? Is there a real marketplace of ideas? Or is it, "put up or shut up?" That's the difference.
- openasocket 9y ago
  > Authorities, especially institutions of higher learning, shouldn't be in the business of policing their student's speech. That's not "culture." That's oppression. I considered that to be an absolutist argument. I think there are contexts in which authorities (EDIT: non-governmental authorities) can police speech in a way that is not oppressive. And not just the usual "shouting fire in a crowded theater" sense. If you are using a public forum to be disruptive and is detrimental to the other students, it can be appropriate to levy some sort of disciplinary action. If you start shouting racial epithets in a crowded theater, for example, I think it is appropriate for you to be thrown out. So the line is not clear cut, there is a level of subjectivity at play. > So are you basically saying it's okay to engage in partisan thought and speech policing of political viewpoints of graduating high school seniors by trolling through their social media? In this case, the students posted the offensive material on a public forum moderated by Harvard staff. I wouldn't consider this "trawling through social media". > I don't get instantly excluded for voicing an opinion. Instead I get feedback. There's the difference. So if Harvard had put these students on academic probation or something instead, you wouldn't necessarily have a problem? That's something I can get behind. I thought you were opposed to any action being taken against these students of any kind.