4 ms·

That does not qualify as a logical argument. Just a random impulse. A random impulse is not a logical argument. It's like saying the only act worth defending is

That does not qualify as a logical argument. Just a random impulse. A random impulse is not a logical argument. It's like saying the only act worth defending is the one you find offending.

imron 9y ago
It's not a random impulse at all. At the individual level you have very little choice over who will try to control your speech. Maybe today it's someone who agrees with you, but maybe tomorrow it will be someone who disagrees with you, and because you have limited control over that it's better to make sure that you don't allow people to limit speech - even speech you disagree with. And this is why you have the ACLU defending Milo: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/how-could-you-represent-someone-milo-yiannopoulos https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/how-could-you-represe...
- idibidiart 9y ago
  @Google did not take away Damore's right to free speech. They fired him for promoting his sexist thoughts b/c they're deeply offensive.
  - imron 9y ago
    I never claimed they did. If anything, they've given him a voice that he didn't have before (so congratulations to whichever person at Google disagreed with James and decided to leak the memo to Gizmodo. The law of unintended consequences strikes again). My comment was only in reference to your claim that 'sexism is not free speech'. Whatever you think of James and his memo, and whether it is sexist or not, there is nothing in there that wouldn't be protected as free speech if it came down to that.
    - idibidiart 9y ago
      Free speech is protected in that a person can share their thoughts. But my point is that the consequences of free speech in the case of sexism should not be free of punishment, i.e. no such thing as "free speech" when it comes to sexism, racism, etc except in the limited sense that the speech is allowed to happen. My point is that there should be consequences to sexist speech, which is why I said it's not free speech. I think the confusion is the definition of "free speech" I can say something racist or sexist or hateful but it does not mean that I will not be punished for it.
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        This not plain old sexist speech. This is a cogent argument that is supposed to be disproven and not shouted down as sexist. (Like some racist arguments were disproved reasonably well in the past.)
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      The real question is, what if he is right? And what would it take to prove him wrong? Blacklisting someone for "toxic atmosphere" or "spreading bad thinking" is essentially Orwellian or inquisition.

That does not qualify as a logical argument. Just a random impulse. A random impulse is not a logical argument. It's like saying the only act worth defending is the one you find offending.

imron 9y ago

It's not a random impulse at all. At the individual level you have very little choice over who will try to control your speech. Maybe today it's someone who agrees with you, but maybe tomorrow it will be someone who disagrees with you, and because you have limited control over that it's better to make sure that you don't allow people to limit speech - even speech you disagree with. And this is why you have the ACLU defending Milo: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/how-could-you-represent-someone-milo-yiannopoulos https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/how-could-you-represe...

idibidiart 9y ago
@Google did not take away Damore's right to free speech. They fired him for promoting his sexist thoughts b/c they're deeply offensive.
- imron 9y ago
  I never claimed they did. If anything, they've given him a voice that he didn't have before (so congratulations to whichever person at Google disagreed with James and decided to leak the memo to Gizmodo. The law of unintended consequences strikes again). My comment was only in reference to your claim that 'sexism is not free speech'. Whatever you think of James and his memo, and whether it is sexist or not, there is nothing in there that wouldn't be protected as free speech if it came down to that.
  - idibidiart 9y ago
    Free speech is protected in that a person can share their thoughts. But my point is that the consequences of free speech in the case of sexism should not be free of punishment, i.e. no such thing as "free speech" when it comes to sexism, racism, etc except in the limited sense that the speech is allowed to happen. My point is that there should be consequences to sexist speech, which is why I said it's not free speech. I think the confusion is the definition of "free speech" I can say something racist or sexist or hateful but it does not mean that I will not be punished for it.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      This not plain old sexist speech. This is a cogent argument that is supposed to be disproven and not shouted down as sexist. (Like some racist arguments were disproved reasonably well in the past.)
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    The real question is, what if he is right? And what would it take to prove him wrong? Blacklisting someone for "toxic atmosphere" or "spreading bad thinking" is essentially Orwellian or inquisition.