4 ms·

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

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.
  - stcredzero 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 That item just on happens to be on the other side of my "line." By your logic, anyone who has a position on the wrong side of your "line" is "absolutist." I don't think that word means what you think it means. I think there are contexts in which authorities (EDIT: non-governmental authorities) can police speech in a way that is not oppressive. Sure. There's definitely a line. The point at which authority, even non-violence based non-governmental authority, can be used to suppress dissent through societal and/or economic coercion, there is a moral line which has been crossed. It's even built into human psychology. The psychological threat of exclusion from a group is very strong, because in the prehistoric past, exclusion from the group was tantamount to a sentence of slow, lingering death. An organization using such a fear to enforce a political view is crossing a moral line parallel and nearby the moral line crossed by an organization (or an informal association of "activists") using the fear of violence to do the same. 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. Sure. I wouldn't be "getting behind" that, but I wouldn't be "up in arms" against something like that, since it is temporary and non-exclusionary.

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.
- stcredzero 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 That item just on happens to be on the other side of my "line." By your logic, anyone who has a position on the wrong side of your "line" is "absolutist." I don't think that word means what you think it means. I think there are contexts in which authorities (EDIT: non-governmental authorities) can police speech in a way that is not oppressive. Sure. There's definitely a line. The point at which authority, even non-violence based non-governmental authority, can be used to suppress dissent through societal and/or economic coercion, there is a moral line which has been crossed. It's even built into human psychology. The psychological threat of exclusion from a group is very strong, because in the prehistoric past, exclusion from the group was tantamount to a sentence of slow, lingering death. An organization using such a fear to enforce a political view is crossing a moral line parallel and nearby the moral line crossed by an organization (or an informal association of "activists") using the fear of violence to do the same. 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. Sure. I wouldn't be "getting behind" that, but I wouldn't be "up in arms" against something like that, since it is temporary and non-exclusionary.