3 ms·

I'm astounded that on HN, of all places, you've been downvoted for what was considered obvious a generation ago, and obvious to anyone who has lived under autho

I'm astounded that on HN, of all places, you've been downvoted for what was considered obvious a generation ago, and obvious to anyone who has lived under authoritarian rule.

KGIII 9y ago
Usually, as I've said much the same before, I get down votes and then someone comes along and actually reads what I wrote, as opposed to knee jerking to the idea that I support Nazis. In fact, I support basic human rights for everyone. Some people are uncomfortable with that idea. It's okay, I have karma to spare. I'm not in it for the points. I'm in it to express the idea of liberty. Many people only want liberty for themselves and those they approve of, or so it seems. Edited to add: See? It's back in the positives. It will bounce around a bit, but liberty is still popular. I think some people don't read what I wrote, so much as they insert ideas about what they think I wrote. Another post in this thread suffers similarly. It's all good.
- mcguire 9y ago
  On the other hand, where does speech stop and actions start? Where does liberty stop and mob assault start? Are death threats covered by freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is an important right and necessary part of true liberty, but the people in the situations in question aren't exactly engaging in reasoned debate. Speaking of which, "only want liberty for themselves and those they approve of"? Really?
  - KGIII 9y ago
    It becomes unlawful when there is credible threat explicitly stated, then there are libel and slander laws. Death threats, when credible, are illegal and justifiably so. See my first post. And yes, really. See the replies to my post. Note, specifically, the comment regarding votes. I stand by my assertion. The evidence supports it.
  - MrZongle2 9y ago
    "...but the people in the situations in question aren't exactly engaging in reasoned debate." In this case, I agree. But like "obscenity" or "pornography", determining what is reasonable or not is a slippery slope. Promoting concentration camps? Not reasonable. Protesting military action? Probably reasonable. What about protesting military action against a country that runs concentration camps? (As North Korea does run these types of prison camps, and the chance of military involvement with the DPRK seems higher than ever, this is not a completely academic scenario)
koenigdavidmj 9y ago
Since Charlottesville, there have been two changes in public discourse that I've noticed. First, free speech even for despicable positions is now equivalent to Nazism in the eyes of many. Second, Westboro-style language is now acceptable if the victims are the South. Plenty of people being unironically joyful over the hurricanes.

I'm astounded that on HN, of all places, you've been downvoted for what was considered obvious a generation ago, and obvious to anyone who has lived under authoritarian rule.

KGIII 9y ago

Usually, as I've said much the same before, I get down votes and then someone comes along and actually reads what I wrote, as opposed to knee jerking to the idea that I support Nazis. In fact, I support basic human rights for everyone. Some people are uncomfortable with that idea. It's okay, I have karma to spare. I'm not in it for the points. I'm in it to express the idea of liberty. Many people only want liberty for themselves and those they approve of, or so it seems. Edited to add: See? It's back in the positives. It will bounce around a bit, but liberty is still popular. I think some people don't read what I wrote, so much as they insert ideas about what they think I wrote. Another post in this thread suffers similarly. It's all good.

mcguire 9y ago
On the other hand, where does speech stop and actions start? Where does liberty stop and mob assault start? Are death threats covered by freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is an important right and necessary part of true liberty, but the people in the situations in question aren't exactly engaging in reasoned debate. Speaking of which, "only want liberty for themselves and those they approve of"? Really?
- KGIII 9y ago
  It becomes unlawful when there is credible threat explicitly stated, then there are libel and slander laws. Death threats, when credible, are illegal and justifiably so. See my first post. And yes, really. See the replies to my post. Note, specifically, the comment regarding votes. I stand by my assertion. The evidence supports it.
- MrZongle2 9y ago
  "...but the people in the situations in question aren't exactly engaging in reasoned debate." In this case, I agree. But like "obscenity" or "pornography", determining what is reasonable or not is a slippery slope. Promoting concentration camps? Not reasonable. Protesting military action? Probably reasonable. What about protesting military action against a country that runs concentration camps? (As North Korea does run these types of prison camps, and the chance of military involvement with the DPRK seems higher than ever, this is not a completely academic scenario)

koenigdavidmj 9y ago

Since Charlottesville, there have been two changes in public discourse that I've noticed. First, free speech even for despicable positions is now equivalent to Nazism in the eyes of many. Second, Westboro-style language is now acceptable if the victims are the South. Plenty of people being unironically joyful over the hurricanes.