5 ms·

Isn't Altman's argument ultimately about free speech? Surely my right to criticize Altman or Dash is the point Altman is making, and which Dash is exercising in

Isn't Altman's argument ultimately about free speech? Surely my right to criticize Altman or Dash is the point Altman is making, and which Dash is exercising in his rebuttal?

tunesmith 9y ago
If that's the correct interpretation, then Sam is complaining that there is too much free speech, not too little.
- olivermarks 9y ago
  @tunesmith How so? Quoting Altman http://blog.samaltman.com/e-pur-si-muove http://blog.samaltman.com/e-pur-si-muove 'It is bad for all of us when people can’t say that the world is a sphere, that evolution is real, or that the sun is at the center of the solar system.' It is therefore equally bad for all of us when people can’t say that the world is flat, question evolution, or argue the sun isn't at the center of the solar system...
  - rhizome 9y ago
    He has a problem with the concept of backlash. However, not all speech receives it.
  - mcny 9y ago
    Because we can't pick and choose. Some ideas are obviously wrong. Imagine people saying prison rape is part and parcel of the person sentence. Imagine people saying Holocaust denial never happened. Of course, we can't stop people from saying stupid things but to say that we can't criticize careless or even dangerous ideas is a violation of my free speech.
kenforthewin 9y ago
free speech is much different if you're talking about a human vs a corporation.
mandevil 9y ago
Altman's original essay is about how there is too much criticism of ideas in San Francisco right now. That people are saying things and then having other people mock them, or complain about them, so much that they are going silent. The reason that his essay sucked was that this isn't about free speech. Free speech protects you from the government restricting you from saying something, and he never once cites anything about an American government[1], it's always complaints from other regular old people. Other people judging you and finding you an asshole[2] is totally consistent with free speech. If someone says something bad about gay people (or women, or black people, or...), then by all means make them feel bad for saying something like that. Try to make sure that they never say something like that again, because they are so socially embarrassed and isolated. One of the lessons I've learned over the past two years is that people feel emboldened when they hear other people say something bad about some minority, and so if you make a big deal about one person doing it, you prevent other people from even trying to say something similar. 1: Other than starting out in China, where the government actually does limit your ability to say things, and does not have free speech. 2: Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- ddxxdd 9y ago
  Freedom of speech is a principle that outdates and transcends the 1st amendment.
- sowbug 9y ago
  Yes, sigh, there is a constitutional right to freedom of speech. That is not the only meaning of freedom of speech. "Try to make sure that they never say something like that again." Do you agree that this would restrict that person's freedom of speech? Again, we're not talking about whether First Amendment rights are being violated. We're talking about whether you are restricting that person's freedom of speech. If you're OK with your self-appointed right to restrict others' freedom of speech, then you also have to be OK with me suppressing your speech. And you'd better believe that this will be speech you care about. You have to be OK with the 1950s version of me ostracizing you for saying the positive things you believe about the protected groups you enumerate in your post. It does you no good to claim that you're one of the good guys. Freedom of speech means everyone is a good guy when it comes to expression of ideas. You don't get to pick which speech is free. Do you honestly want to live in a society where ideas you disagree with are withheld from expression because those who hold them are "so socially embarrassed and isolated"? Is that really your idea of a free society? Again, assume that the person being ostracized is you because of what you believe today. If you do want a genuinely free society, don't ostracize the bigots. Instead, respect them. Debate them. Change their minds if you're right. Nobody is saying you have to have them over for dinner or be friends; ignoring them is perfectly fine, as well. The price -- and in the long term the benefit -- of a free society is that people get to live normal, ordinary lives even if they have despicable, reprehensible, even dangerous beliefs.

Isn't Altman's argument ultimately about free speech? Surely my right to criticize Altman or Dash is the point Altman is making, and which Dash is exercising in his rebuttal?

tunesmith 9y ago

If that's the correct interpretation, then Sam is complaining that there is too much free speech, not too little.

olivermarks 9y ago
@tunesmith How so? Quoting Altman http://blog.samaltman.com/e-pur-si-muove http://blog.samaltman.com/e-pur-si-muove 'It is bad for all of us when people can’t say that the world is a sphere, that evolution is real, or that the sun is at the center of the solar system.' It is therefore equally bad for all of us when people can’t say that the world is flat, question evolution, or argue the sun isn't at the center of the solar system...
- rhizome 9y ago
  He has a problem with the concept of backlash. However, not all speech receives it.
- mcny 9y ago
  Because we can't pick and choose. Some ideas are obviously wrong. Imagine people saying prison rape is part and parcel of the person sentence. Imagine people saying Holocaust denial never happened. Of course, we can't stop people from saying stupid things but to say that we can't criticize careless or even dangerous ideas is a violation of my free speech.

kenforthewin 9y ago

free speech is much different if you're talking about a human vs a corporation.

mandevil 9y ago

Altman's original essay is about how there is too much criticism of ideas in San Francisco right now. That people are saying things and then having other people mock them, or complain about them, so much that they are going silent. The reason that his essay sucked was that this isn't about free speech. Free speech protects you from the government restricting you from saying something, and he never once cites anything about an American government[1], it's always complaints from other regular old people. Other people judging you and finding you an asshole[2] is totally consistent with free speech. If someone says something bad about gay people (or women, or black people, or...), then by all means make them feel bad for saying something like that. Try to make sure that they never say something like that again, because they are so socially embarrassed and isolated. One of the lessons I've learned over the past two years is that people feel emboldened when they hear other people say something bad about some minority, and so if you make a big deal about one person doing it, you prevent other people from even trying to say something similar. 1: Other than starting out in China, where the government actually does limit your ability to say things, and does not have free speech. 2: Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

ddxxdd 9y ago
Freedom of speech is a principle that outdates and transcends the 1st amendment.
sowbug 9y ago
Yes, sigh, there is a constitutional right to freedom of speech. That is not the only meaning of freedom of speech. "Try to make sure that they never say something like that again." Do you agree that this would restrict that person's freedom of speech? Again, we're not talking about whether First Amendment rights are being violated. We're talking about whether you are restricting that person's freedom of speech. If you're OK with your self-appointed right to restrict others' freedom of speech, then you also have to be OK with me suppressing your speech. And you'd better believe that this will be speech you care about. You have to be OK with the 1950s version of me ostracizing you for saying the positive things you believe about the protected groups you enumerate in your post. It does you no good to claim that you're one of the good guys. Freedom of speech means everyone is a good guy when it comes to expression of ideas. You don't get to pick which speech is free. Do you honestly want to live in a society where ideas you disagree with are withheld from expression because those who hold them are "so socially embarrassed and isolated"? Is that really your idea of a free society? Again, assume that the person being ostracized is you because of what you believe today. If you do want a genuinely free society, don't ostracize the bigots. Instead, respect them. Debate them. Change their minds if you're right. Nobody is saying you have to have them over for dinner or be friends; ignoring them is perfectly fine, as well. The price -- and in the long term the benefit -- of a free society is that people get to live normal, ordinary lives even if they have despicable, reprehensible, even dangerous beliefs.