4 ms·

There is a difference between not wanting to participate in a discussion because you believe it to be unfruitful/counterproductive, and trying to actively shut

There is a difference between not wanting to participate in a discussion because you believe it to be unfruitful/counterproductive, and trying to actively shut down other peoples discussions. I was criticizing people who do the latter. Does that address your issue with my assertion?

Certhas 9y ago
Maybe. I am arguing that one shouldn't participate in "rational discussions" with people who don't adhere to the standards of rational discussion themselves, especially in public. If you disagree with me, and want to enter into such discussions, I obviously can't stop you (and might aid you). But if I had a platform, I might not lend it to you to have your discussion in public. Would you count that as shutting down other people's discussion? If not then we have no significant disagreement. And for the record, I think shaming people into being silent about their opinions, even if they are demonstrably incorrect, instead of trying to change them, strikes me as a big mistake. So there is a difficult balancing act between not allowing people to propagate irrational believes that don't engage with the available evidence (and promote views that are actively harmful to a part of the population), and engaging with people to convince them of the evidence and the rational view.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > standards of rational discussion > views that are actively harmful to a part of the population Unless explicit clarified, these are too open to abuse and scope creep. Consider - one of the few "loopholes" to free speech is speech considered "hateful"; As such we see an active effort to expand what is considered "hateful", and any call to censorship will now begin with a justification of applying the label to its target, however contrived that link might be.
  - Certhas 9y ago
    First of all, this has nothing to do with free speech. Rational discussion is a very specific form of speech. It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be defended, it is not a natural or even inevitable outcome of free speech. Habermas for example studied in depth the conditions for speech to produce reason: E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality Secondly, yes, drawing the line is difficult, there are grey areas, and we should be careful, but refusing to draw a line is the opposite of being careful or rational. And it's not like free speech is the only value humanity ever came up by which to judge things. Taking for example the human rights declaration, freedom of expression is one of the basic rights. But sometimes rights are in conflict with each other. Then we have to make a choice how to weight the various rights. That's why we have libel and defamation laws everywhere.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      > It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be defended I agree, but in the context of an opponent capable of censoring you that doesn't appreciate this, all you can do is fall back on legal protections. In this case, the potential for a rational, productive discussion was cut short. A level of freedom to speech is required to promote rational debate. It's a necessary, bedrock requirement, even if not a sufficient one. > refusing to draw a line is the opposite of being careful or rational I don't think a line was drawn. The google rep alluded to "false assumptions" but didn't specify what they where, and even refused to link the memo. They clarified nothing but an atmosphere hostile to open discussion. > we have to make a choice how to weight the various rights True, but the rights are somewhat solidified. There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech". There is no such right "freedom to not be offended". Whatever right is being asserted here (by the offended parties) appears to be something new. > libel and defamation laws I think the author has been defamed - there are plenty articles "summarizing" the memo in ways that are not representative of it's content - even the label "anti-diversity". I was shocked to find a fairly sober article on the issue in the Atlantic, of all places: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-mos...
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        There'll no doubt be many responses along this line but... > There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech" ...is only true in certain limited circumstances, all pertaining to the government (fed, state, local), I believe. You do not, generally, even in the USA, have a right to "freedom of speech" wherever you are. And you definitely don't have "free (from consequences) speech" anywhere.
        Chris2048 9y ago
        Since I'm not American, I'll leave this one for others. But, I'd ask what "freedom from consequences" means? There are certain consequences arising from free speech that are, in some sense, protected. Can I (as a non-government entity) fire someone for choosing a certain religion, for example? Wouldn't that be a "consequence" of their choice?

Certhas 9y ago

Maybe. I am arguing that one shouldn't participate in "rational discussions" with people who don't adhere to the standards of rational discussion themselves, especially in public. If you disagree with me, and want to enter into such discussions, I obviously can't stop you (and might aid you). But if I had a platform, I might not lend it to you to have your discussion in public. Would you count that as shutting down other people's discussion? If not then we have no significant disagreement. And for the record, I think shaming people into being silent about their opinions, even if they are demonstrably incorrect, instead of trying to change them, strikes me as a big mistake. So there is a difficult balancing act between not allowing people to propagate irrational believes that don't engage with the available evidence (and promote views that are actively harmful to a part of the population), and engaging with people to convince them of the evidence and the rational view.

Chris2048 9y ago
> standards of rational discussion > views that are actively harmful to a part of the population Unless explicit clarified, these are too open to abuse and scope creep. Consider - one of the few "loopholes" to free speech is speech considered "hateful"; As such we see an active effort to expand what is considered "hateful", and any call to censorship will now begin with a justification of applying the label to its target, however contrived that link might be.
- Certhas 9y ago
  First of all, this has nothing to do with free speech. Rational discussion is a very specific form of speech. It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be defended, it is not a natural or even inevitable outcome of free speech. Habermas for example studied in depth the conditions for speech to produce reason: E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality Secondly, yes, drawing the line is difficult, there are grey areas, and we should be careful, but refusing to draw a line is the opposite of being careful or rational. And it's not like free speech is the only value humanity ever came up by which to judge things. Taking for example the human rights declaration, freedom of expression is one of the basic rights. But sometimes rights are in conflict with each other. Then we have to make a choice how to weight the various rights. That's why we have libel and defamation laws everywhere.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > It's a great cultural achievement that needs to be defended I agree, but in the context of an opponent capable of censoring you that doesn't appreciate this, all you can do is fall back on legal protections. In this case, the potential for a rational, productive discussion was cut short. A level of freedom to speech is required to promote rational debate. It's a necessary, bedrock requirement, even if not a sufficient one. > refusing to draw a line is the opposite of being careful or rational I don't think a line was drawn. The google rep alluded to "false assumptions" but didn't specify what they where, and even refused to link the memo. They clarified nothing but an atmosphere hostile to open discussion. > we have to make a choice how to weight the various rights True, but the rights are somewhat solidified. There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech". There is no such right "freedom to not be offended". Whatever right is being asserted here (by the offended parties) appears to be something new. > libel and defamation laws I think the author has been defamed - there are plenty articles "summarizing" the memo in ways that are not representative of it's content - even the label "anti-diversity". I was shocked to find a fairly sober article on the issue in the Atlantic, of all places: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-mos...
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      There'll no doubt be many responses along this line but... > There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech" ...is only true in certain limited circumstances, all pertaining to the government (fed, state, local), I believe. You do not, generally, even in the USA, have a right to "freedom of speech" wherever you are. And you definitely don't have "free (from consequences) speech" anywhere.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        Since I'm not American, I'll leave this one for others. But, I'd ask what "freedom from consequences" means? There are certain consequences arising from free speech that are, in some sense, protected. Can I (as a non-government entity) fire someone for choosing a certain religion, for example? Wouldn't that be a "consequence" of their choice?