6 ms·

This was posted on the 18th of July. The Charlottesville rally is not relevant.

by lhnz 9y ago

matt4077 9y ago
Edit (previous, sarcastic comment below): I belief it is disingenuous to try to discuss such issues without addressing the elephant in the room. I also felt the imagery (angry mob/pitchforks/etc) more than subtly pointed in that direction. In addition, I feel there are two mechanisms in play here that undermine an honest debate: First, there's a glut of people insisting they're only defending "free speech" and not supporting people such as those at that rally. It reminds me of the "movement for ethics in game journalism" that had nothing to do with misogyny, no sir. Secondly, the debate is moved to some other subject where people will agree with the idea that it would be absurd to, for example, censor something like the Principia Mathematica. That agreement will then, in turn be used to defend things that are definitely not scientific masterpieces. The underlying idea is, once again, the slippery slope, or some sort of inability to differentiate things that are obviously different. (Previous reply mocking the objection regarding the timeline: "At the moment I posted, my post did not yet exist, nor did your objection to it. Therefore, I will refuse to take it into consideration.")
- Inconel 9y ago
  >First, there's a glut of people insisting they're only defending "free speech" and not supporting people such as those at that rally. I'm sorry but I'm really having a hard time understanding your reasoning here. Are you really suggesting that the majority of people on HN who are defending the right to free speech of the neo-Nazis we saw in Charlottesville are doing so because they actually agree with the message those neo-Nazis and white supremacists are spewing? If this is what you believe, then please just come out and say that anyone defending this type of speech is in fact a neo-Nazi. You talk about mechanisms that undermine an honest debate but in the very next sentence you essentially argue that anyone in support(I'm adding an edit here to clarify: I mean support for the right to this kind of speech, not support for it's actual content) of this kind of objectionable speech is a Nazi in disguise. That certainly seems like undermining the debate to me. I don't like this kind of character assassination in disguise. Either be willing to call people out as Nazis and white supremacists, and back up your assertions, or give them the courtesy that they might be taking a stand in defense of a principle they actually believe in regarding speech, even in cases where they disagree with contents of said speech. I personally don't believe a reasonable person can be a neo-Nazi and thus I have very little interest in arguing or engaging with these types of people. When it comes to free speech I tend to fall on the side of having fewer restrictions on speech, although even here my views aren't really set in stone and do change on occasion. With that being said, unlike my views on Nazism, I do think reasonable people can disagree on the issues of where to draw the line on speech. Again, while I personally fall into the less restrictions camp, I don't think its unreasonable for someone to want restrictions on certain types of speech and thus I don't automatically assume those arguing for these restrictions are authoritarians in disguise. If you think this makes me a neo-Nazi I would prefer you just come out and say it, this is of course in the interest of "honest debate". Edited for spelling and grammar.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > defending the right to free speech of the neo-Nazis we saw in Charlottesville I have become suspicious of which kinds of speech and which contexts people choose to become vocally defensive of. In the context of "what can you say without being fired by your employer", there are people fired every week for trying to organise unions at work. Somehow there isn't the same outrage from HN at those people having their free speech impaired. (Random example in case people claim this doesn't happen: https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-workers-allegedly-fired-union-activity-reach-settlement-seiu https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-workers-alleged... ) It's not that people supporting the free speech of Nazis are transitively Nazis, but people doing so ought to take a good hard look at themselves and why they choose to spend their time and energy on this cause rather than others. Not to mention that there really are a lot of dedicated Internet trolls constantly probing the velociraptor fences of exactly how close to Nazi ideology they can get on any given platform without being spotted.
    - belorn 9y ago
      Can you support the claim that there is no outrage from HN when people get fired for trying to organize unions at work? It seems similar to the claim that there is no outrage of the thousands children dieing to car crashes each day, but a single adult person getting killed in a submarine is world news. Does that mean that people do not care when children are killed?
    - lhnz 9y ago
      > But people doing so ought to take a good hard look > at themselves and why they choose to spend their time > and energy on this cause rather than others. I somewhat agree with this but I think it's generally due to people trying to protect their rights or political position in one area by fighting over another. There are situations where I think it's clear that people have ulterior motives but generally I think what we see are people sparring on political events ill-fit to their particular arguments. For example, people that dislike the moral righteousness, views and political violence of antifa generally have a similar or greater level of hatred for nazis, but yet when there is a clash between them they are desperate to say "antifa are also terrible". If they don't say this, they feel that it is tacit support for antifa and for political violence. It's the worst time to say this in terms of messaging (serious context/subtext issues), but there is a large audience watching and they feel that they must get their message out. We're in a strange situation where we have to continually distance ourselves from words and ideas. We can't say "there are two sides to this" because Trump said that and it is 'moral equivocation' [0]. We can't say we're 'centrists' because people call this tacit support of nazis and will point and laugh that we consider ourselves 'radical centrists' (a desperate attempt to seem cool while standing for nothing or whatever biases they are least conscious of). Pacifism has always been hated. And moderation was never cool. I think we should reclaim these words and perhaps try to convince people to pick their moments better when trying to persuade other people that these things are good. As the saying goes "Is this the hill you want to die on?" [0] I personally believe that the frame of good/evil is a childish "two-valued orientation" that closes the mind to deeper thinking and to finding a mutual understanding of the world.
- lhnz 9y ago
  Oh, sorry, I thought you believed the article was written about Charlottesville due to its chronology, but instead you think that the article literally implies support for Charlottesville through its content. Can you explain to us how an article that makes a case against 'speech codes' that hurt neurodiverse people within Universities relates to free-speech at a far-right rally? * * * Edit: > That agreement will then, in turn be used to defend > things that are definitely not scientific masterpieces. Okay, I partially agree with you here. I've actually written a comment about this very recently [0]. This doesn't mean I'm against free speech. I believe that in many cases 'speech codes' have created environments which have lowered the level of discourse and radicalised people. But 'absolute free-speech' creates terrible spaces. What I want is for people to look at the consequences of the environments they help to create, and make choices depending on the outcomes they wish to achieve rather than merely being ideological about principles like 'free speech'. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15037749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15037749
- ygaf 9y ago
  >I belief it is disingenuous to try to discuss such issues without addressing the elephant in the room. Anyone would agree. >I also felt the imagery (angry mob/pitchforks/etc) more than subtly pointed in that direction. This is HN - reply to what's written. I'm not saying people don't have agendas, it's just doesn't justify ridiculous derails. There's enough places outside HN (e.g. Twitter) where it's accepted that everyone is a shitflinger striking blows for team red and team blue, their actual messages being worthless.
- wvh 9y ago
  I used the torch-and-pitchfork expression because it is an idiomatic expression in my native language; and because PC overreaction to e.g. a bad word tends to come in the form of an angry higher-ground posse, as I have noticed since childhood. You seem upset about recent events in the US, but as a non-American it really isn't the first thing on my mind. Not only is the room different; my elephant is really quite different from your elephant altogether.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

This was posted on the 18th of July. The Charlottesville rally is not relevant.

by lhnz 9y ago

This was posted on the 18th of July. The Charlottesville rally is not relevant.

Edit (previous, sarcastic comment below): I belief it is disingenuous to try to discuss such issues without addressing the elephant in the room. I also felt the imagery (angry mob/pitchforks/etc) more than subtly pointed in that direction. In addition, I feel there are two mechanisms in play here that undermine an honest debate: First, there's a glut of people insisting they're only defending "free speech" and not supporting people such as those at that rally. It reminds me of the "movement for ethics in game journalism" that had nothing to do with misogyny, no sir. Secondly, the debate is moved to some other subject where people will agree with the idea that it would be absurd to, for example, censor something like the Principia Mathematica. That agreement will then, in turn be used to defend things that are definitely not scientific masterpieces. The underlying idea is, once again, the slippery slope, or some sort of inability to differentiate things that are obviously different. (Previous reply mocking the objection regarding the timeline: "At the moment I posted, my post did not yet exist, nor did your objection to it. Therefore, I will refuse to take it into consideration.")

Inconel 9y ago
>First, there's a glut of people insisting they're only defending "free speech" and not supporting people such as those at that rally. I'm sorry but I'm really having a hard time understanding your reasoning here. Are you really suggesting that the majority of people on HN who are defending the right to free speech of the neo-Nazis we saw in Charlottesville are doing so because they actually agree with the message those neo-Nazis and white supremacists are spewing? If this is what you believe, then please just come out and say that anyone defending this type of speech is in fact a neo-Nazi. You talk about mechanisms that undermine an honest debate but in the very next sentence you essentially argue that anyone in support(I'm adding an edit here to clarify: I mean support for the right to this kind of speech, not support for it's actual content) of this kind of objectionable speech is a Nazi in disguise. That certainly seems like undermining the debate to me. I don't like this kind of character assassination in disguise. Either be willing to call people out as Nazis and white supremacists, and back up your assertions, or give them the courtesy that they might be taking a stand in defense of a principle they actually believe in regarding speech, even in cases where they disagree with contents of said speech. I personally don't believe a reasonable person can be a neo-Nazi and thus I have very little interest in arguing or engaging with these types of people. When it comes to free speech I tend to fall on the side of having fewer restrictions on speech, although even here my views aren't really set in stone and do change on occasion. With that being said, unlike my views on Nazism, I do think reasonable people can disagree on the issues of where to draw the line on speech. Again, while I personally fall into the less restrictions camp, I don't think its unreasonable for someone to want restrictions on certain types of speech and thus I don't automatically assume those arguing for these restrictions are authoritarians in disguise. If you think this makes me a neo-Nazi I would prefer you just come out and say it, this is of course in the interest of "honest debate". Edited for spelling and grammar.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > defending the right to free speech of the neo-Nazis we saw in Charlottesville I have become suspicious of which kinds of speech and which contexts people choose to become vocally defensive of. In the context of "what can you say without being fired by your employer", there are people fired every week for trying to organise unions at work. Somehow there isn't the same outrage from HN at those people having their free speech impaired. (Random example in case people claim this doesn't happen: https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-workers-allegedly-fired-union-activity-reach-settlement-seiu https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-workers-alleged... ) It's not that people supporting the free speech of Nazis are transitively Nazis, but people doing so ought to take a good hard look at themselves and why they choose to spend their time and energy on this cause rather than others. Not to mention that there really are a lot of dedicated Internet trolls constantly probing the velociraptor fences of exactly how close to Nazi ideology they can get on any given platform without being spotted.
  - belorn 9y ago
    Can you support the claim that there is no outrage from HN when people get fired for trying to organize unions at work? It seems similar to the claim that there is no outrage of the thousands children dieing to car crashes each day, but a single adult person getting killed in a submarine is world news. Does that mean that people do not care when children are killed?
  - lhnz 9y ago
    > But people doing so ought to take a good hard look > at themselves and why they choose to spend their time > and energy on this cause rather than others. I somewhat agree with this but I think it's generally due to people trying to protect their rights or political position in one area by fighting over another. There are situations where I think it's clear that people have ulterior motives but generally I think what we see are people sparring on political events ill-fit to their particular arguments. For example, people that dislike the moral righteousness, views and political violence of antifa generally have a similar or greater level of hatred for nazis, but yet when there is a clash between them they are desperate to say "antifa are also terrible". If they don't say this, they feel that it is tacit support for antifa and for political violence. It's the worst time to say this in terms of messaging (serious context/subtext issues), but there is a large audience watching and they feel that they must get their message out. We're in a strange situation where we have to continually distance ourselves from words and ideas. We can't say "there are two sides to this" because Trump said that and it is 'moral equivocation' [0]. We can't say we're 'centrists' because people call this tacit support of nazis and will point and laugh that we consider ourselves 'radical centrists' (a desperate attempt to seem cool while standing for nothing or whatever biases they are least conscious of). Pacifism has always been hated. And moderation was never cool. I think we should reclaim these words and perhaps try to convince people to pick their moments better when trying to persuade other people that these things are good. As the saying goes "Is this the hill you want to die on?" [0] I personally believe that the frame of good/evil is a childish "two-valued orientation" that closes the mind to deeper thinking and to finding a mutual understanding of the world.
lhnz 9y ago
Oh, sorry, I thought you believed the article was written about Charlottesville due to its chronology, but instead you think that the article literally implies support for Charlottesville through its content. Can you explain to us how an article that makes a case against 'speech codes' that hurt neurodiverse people within Universities relates to free-speech at a far-right rally? * * * Edit: > That agreement will then, in turn be used to defend > things that are definitely not scientific masterpieces. Okay, I partially agree with you here. I've actually written a comment about this very recently [0]. This doesn't mean I'm against free speech. I believe that in many cases 'speech codes' have created environments which have lowered the level of discourse and radicalised people. But 'absolute free-speech' creates terrible spaces. What I want is for people to look at the consequences of the environments they help to create, and make choices depending on the outcomes they wish to achieve rather than merely being ideological about principles like 'free speech'. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15037749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15037749
ygaf 9y ago
>I belief it is disingenuous to try to discuss such issues without addressing the elephant in the room. Anyone would agree. >I also felt the imagery (angry mob/pitchforks/etc) more than subtly pointed in that direction. This is HN - reply to what's written. I'm not saying people don't have agendas, it's just doesn't justify ridiculous derails. There's enough places outside HN (e.g. Twitter) where it's accepted that everyone is a shitflinger striking blows for team red and team blue, their actual messages being worthless.
wvh 9y ago
I used the torch-and-pitchfork expression because it is an idiomatic expression in my native language; and because PC overreaction to e.g. a bad word tends to come in the form of an angry higher-ground posse, as I have noticed since childhood. You seem upset about recent events in the US, but as a non-American it really isn't the first thing on my mind. Not only is the room different; my elephant is really quite different from your elephant altogether.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]