3 ms·

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

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.
- mandevil 9y ago
  The way that society is set up, of course most of the pressure is on minorities to be silent and just take abuse. That's why all of the "MeToo" movement was pent-up and then just now exploded, because so many women were afraid of saying something for fear of the response for so long. That is what is happening every single day, and has for millennia. What is happening now, for the first time in US History, is that the dominant group (meaning, in this particular case, white men who are good with computers and very well off) have to worry about what members of the non-dominant group thinks of them. As for your ideas on how to win over bigots, I've lived my entire life surrounded by them, and I have to say that respecting them does not work. Debating them and treating them as equals just encourages others that it's all okay. Forcing them to hide in the darkness does work, because it makes them less likely to express their ideas at other times, when you aren't around, and other people will then hear it and be more likely to say it themselves. Bigotry is a communicable disease.
  - sowbug 9y ago
    Do you see the nearly perfect asymmetry between the first two paragraphs in your reply? Why is it that Paragraph 1's suppression leads to an explosion of progress, but Paragraph 2's suppression is the only way to exterminate ideas you don't like?
    - mandevil 9y ago
      P1 is about suppression that has worked, very well, for pretty much all of human history. It is only losing a little bit of its effectiveness now. Which is why I'm so sure that P2 is an effective strategy- because I've observed how well it works.
      - sowbug 9y ago
        I think you overestimate your understanding of human history. I am especially sure of this because you think something just changed. I don't think you want a fairer game. You just want to win the current one. Best of luck.
ThrowawayR2 9y ago
> Try to make sure that they never say something like that again, because they are so socially embarrassed and isolated. Except that doesn't work, does it? If it did, right-wing movements wouldn't be burgeoning all across the globe. _You cannot threaten a human into sharing your beliefs._ All your stance does is buy a frightened silence through intimidation and in that silence grow the seeds of resentment and anger. It's so obviously self-sabotaging, not to mention morally repugnant, that it is nearly beyond belief that people calling themselves liberals would advocate it.
- mandevil 9y ago
  "in that silence grow the seeds of resentment and anger" You mean like women have felt for thousands of years? And look where it got them. Just ignoring it and hoping that the creepy guy would pick on someone else didn't work. What did work was standing up, saying what happened to them, and forcing people to stop groping them or making inappropriate comments to them for fear of losing their jobs. For damn sure no one like Judge Kozinski or Al Franken was going to be changed by reasoned, impassioned debate about the nature of personhood. What prevents future young women from being harassed by them and other creepy powerful men is seeing people like them losing their jobs. Seeing consequences for what they've done and said is what is protecting minorities from being hurt, and it is morally repugnant to allow other people to be hurt.
  - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
    > What prevents future young women from being harassed by them and other creepy powerful men is seeing people like them losing their jobs. Mmm-hmm. And what happens when your social movement loses steam over time or public attitudes toward it change and you lose your power to tear down these powerful men? Are those individuals going to remain enthusiastic supporters of your beliefs afterward? You know, deep down, what the answer is.
    - mandevil 9y ago
      Of course there will be backlash. There already is. That doesn't mean it doesn't lead to progress overall. The rights of black people were meaningfully better in 1930 than in 1830, even though they were better still in 1870, before the Redeemers took control and the backlash went into full gear.
Turing_Machine 9y ago
> Free speech protects you from the government restricting you from saying something No. The First Amendment (in the United States) protects you from the government suppressing your speech. Government suppression is far from the only free speech issue. > Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ Yeah, that was when I stopped reading XKCD.
- prepend 9y ago
  I really like XKCD, but that strip really irked me. Similarly to Louis CK’s “You can’t tell me if I hurt.” quote. Both had really quality work and clear thoughts and then the disingenuousness of these items made me rethink my own perception of them.

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.

mandevil 9y ago
The way that society is set up, of course most of the pressure is on minorities to be silent and just take abuse. That's why all of the "MeToo" movement was pent-up and then just now exploded, because so many women were afraid of saying something for fear of the response for so long. That is what is happening every single day, and has for millennia. What is happening now, for the first time in US History, is that the dominant group (meaning, in this particular case, white men who are good with computers and very well off) have to worry about what members of the non-dominant group thinks of them. As for your ideas on how to win over bigots, I've lived my entire life surrounded by them, and I have to say that respecting them does not work. Debating them and treating them as equals just encourages others that it's all okay. Forcing them to hide in the darkness does work, because it makes them less likely to express their ideas at other times, when you aren't around, and other people will then hear it and be more likely to say it themselves. Bigotry is a communicable disease.
- sowbug 9y ago
  Do you see the nearly perfect asymmetry between the first two paragraphs in your reply? Why is it that Paragraph 1's suppression leads to an explosion of progress, but Paragraph 2's suppression is the only way to exterminate ideas you don't like?
  - mandevil 9y ago
    P1 is about suppression that has worked, very well, for pretty much all of human history. It is only losing a little bit of its effectiveness now. Which is why I'm so sure that P2 is an effective strategy- because I've observed how well it works.
    - sowbug 9y ago
      I think you overestimate your understanding of human history. I am especially sure of this because you think something just changed. I don't think you want a fairer game. You just want to win the current one. Best of luck.

ThrowawayR2 9y ago

> Try to make sure that they never say something like that again, because they are so socially embarrassed and isolated. Except that doesn't work, does it? If it did, right-wing movements wouldn't be burgeoning all across the globe. _You cannot threaten a human into sharing your beliefs._ All your stance does is buy a frightened silence through intimidation and in that silence grow the seeds of resentment and anger. It's so obviously self-sabotaging, not to mention morally repugnant, that it is nearly beyond belief that people calling themselves liberals would advocate it.

mandevil 9y ago
"in that silence grow the seeds of resentment and anger" You mean like women have felt for thousands of years? And look where it got them. Just ignoring it and hoping that the creepy guy would pick on someone else didn't work. What did work was standing up, saying what happened to them, and forcing people to stop groping them or making inappropriate comments to them for fear of losing their jobs. For damn sure no one like Judge Kozinski or Al Franken was going to be changed by reasoned, impassioned debate about the nature of personhood. What prevents future young women from being harassed by them and other creepy powerful men is seeing people like them losing their jobs. Seeing consequences for what they've done and said is what is protecting minorities from being hurt, and it is morally repugnant to allow other people to be hurt.
- ThrowawayR2 9y ago
  > What prevents future young women from being harassed by them and other creepy powerful men is seeing people like them losing their jobs. Mmm-hmm. And what happens when your social movement loses steam over time or public attitudes toward it change and you lose your power to tear down these powerful men? Are those individuals going to remain enthusiastic supporters of your beliefs afterward? You know, deep down, what the answer is.
  - mandevil 9y ago
    Of course there will be backlash. There already is. That doesn't mean it doesn't lead to progress overall. The rights of black people were meaningfully better in 1930 than in 1830, even though they were better still in 1870, before the Redeemers took control and the backlash went into full gear.

Turing_Machine 9y ago

> Free speech protects you from the government restricting you from saying something No. The First Amendment (in the United States) protects you from the government suppressing your speech. Government suppression is far from the only free speech issue. > Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ Yeah, that was when I stopped reading XKCD.

prepend 9y ago
I really like XKCD, but that strip really irked me. Similarly to Louis CK’s “You can’t tell me if I hurt.” quote. Both had really quality work and clear thoughts and then the disingenuousness of these items made me rethink my own perception of them.