3 ms·

1) Restriction of speech, as he put it, is not equal to the ability to criticize ideas. "When we move from strenuous debate about ideas to casting the people b

1) Restriction of speech, as he put it, is not equal to the ability to criticize ideas. "When we move from strenuous debate about ideas to casting the people behind the ideas as heretics, we gradually stop debate on all controversial ideas." It's the ability to even discuss them without being branded a heretic that he desires, rather than a lack of criticism. 2) He's saying that the people he knows in China were more willing to hear about his ideas than the people he knows in SF. He did not mention anything about privilege, nor do I think it is fair to assume that the Chinese are only more willing to accept his ideas based on his money. Many people do that, not just the Chinese. He's mentioning (anecdotally) that the people he spoke with in China were more open-minded than the people of SF. Perhaps we should take it as a wakeup call rather than an indication of Altman's privilege. 3) Hate speech != "driven out of companies, schools, education programs, and development communities by bigotry and sexism". How can you equate what is strictly speech with that of hateful action? 4) Would you like to pick a quote as an example for why you might feel that way? The common refrain in this essay to me seems to be "we can’t just call the person a heretic", which seems very focused on the individual rather than a theoretical corporation.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nv-vn 9y ago
3) Because "hate speech" has come to be a political tactic of censorship, just like "obscene speech"
tedivm 9y ago
1) I don't see people getting arrested for having ideas in the bay area. At worst they don't get funding, but that doesn't seem to be the topic here. Perhaps Sam needs to widen his social and professional circle a bit- there are 7.5 million people here, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who has found open minded ones. If anything he should be encouraging more diversity if he wants to bring in more ideas, not arguing for policies that will drive people away. 2) It is entirely anecdotal, and it completely skips over the fact that China does not have free speech. You know those NFL protests that are happening here? In china that would get you three years in prison[1]. Being an American in China alone is enough to grant privileges that don't exist to the people born there. Shoppinglifting is an offense that carries a minimum sentence of three years, maximum of ten, and the American college students caught there were let go.[2] It's naive to think that his experience was typical in any way. 3) If speech didn't have consequences we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the "anti gay" physicist wasn't hurt by the words directed at him then he would just ignore them and keep doing his thing. If the founders working on life extension weren't upset at being told there are environmental consequences to this then maybe the blog post would never have been written. If someone who is gay walks into a company and is told by another employee that they are deviants in the eyes of god then the gay person is likely to leave. If a woman is told to "go make us sandwiches", even in a joking way, she's not going to feel respected. Bigots who are given free reign drive away the minorities they target. 4) The simple fact that this blog did not discuss any of the consequences of the hate speech shows that he doesn't think they are legitimate. He argues that we need to be more lenient in allowing bigotry if it means that we also get more innovation. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/04/china-disrespect-national-anthem-criminal-offence-xi-jinping https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/04/china-disrespe... [2] https://newsone.com/3757629/china-shoplifting-laws-liangelo-ball-arrested-punishment/ https://newsone.com/3757629/china-shoplifting-laws-liangelo-...
- aestetix 9y ago
  I think getting arrested is only one way in which these consequences can occur. Remember, government is at least in theory a formalized reflection of social arrangements. Think more about what it was like during McCarthyism. If you were accused of being Communist, you became an outcast. You would no longer get invitations to events. If you were applying for a job, it would suddenly be filled already. If you wanted to get coffee with a friend, they would suddenly be busy. As a more recent example of this, look at what happened to Rachel Dolezal, the "trans-racial" woman who was born white and claimed she identifies as black. After the media fiasco, she couldn't get a job, and most recently I saw an article about her struggling to get by on food stamps, and about to be homeless. There was no government action against her, and yet, nobody would say she hasn't felt the consequences of what she did. Note: I'm not suggesting that Dolezal and Communism are related, just using them as two separate examples to support the larger point.
mcphage 9y ago
> How can you equate what is strictly speech with that of hateful action? How could you not consider speech an action?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

nv-vn 9y ago

3) Because "hate speech" has come to be a political tactic of censorship, just like "obscene speech"

tedivm 9y ago

1) I don't see people getting arrested for having ideas in the bay area. At worst they don't get funding, but that doesn't seem to be the topic here. Perhaps Sam needs to widen his social and professional circle a bit- there are 7.5 million people here, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who has found open minded ones. If anything he should be encouraging more diversity if he wants to bring in more ideas, not arguing for policies that will drive people away. 2) It is entirely anecdotal, and it completely skips over the fact that China does not have free speech. You know those NFL protests that are happening here? In china that would get you three years in prison[1]. Being an American in China alone is enough to grant privileges that don't exist to the people born there. Shoppinglifting is an offense that carries a minimum sentence of three years, maximum of ten, and the American college students caught there were let go.[2] It's naive to think that his experience was typical in any way. 3) If speech didn't have consequences we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the "anti gay" physicist wasn't hurt by the words directed at him then he would just ignore them and keep doing his thing. If the founders working on life extension weren't upset at being told there are environmental consequences to this then maybe the blog post would never have been written. If someone who is gay walks into a company and is told by another employee that they are deviants in the eyes of god then the gay person is likely to leave. If a woman is told to "go make us sandwiches", even in a joking way, she's not going to feel respected. Bigots who are given free reign drive away the minorities they target. 4) The simple fact that this blog did not discuss any of the consequences of the hate speech shows that he doesn't think they are legitimate. He argues that we need to be more lenient in allowing bigotry if it means that we also get more innovation. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/04/china-disrespect-national-anthem-criminal-offence-xi-jinping https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/04/china-disrespe... [2] https://newsone.com/3757629/china-shoplifting-laws-liangelo-ball-arrested-punishment/ https://newsone.com/3757629/china-shoplifting-laws-liangelo-...

aestetix 9y ago
I think getting arrested is only one way in which these consequences can occur. Remember, government is at least in theory a formalized reflection of social arrangements. Think more about what it was like during McCarthyism. If you were accused of being Communist, you became an outcast. You would no longer get invitations to events. If you were applying for a job, it would suddenly be filled already. If you wanted to get coffee with a friend, they would suddenly be busy. As a more recent example of this, look at what happened to Rachel Dolezal, the "trans-racial" woman who was born white and claimed she identifies as black. After the media fiasco, she couldn't get a job, and most recently I saw an article about her struggling to get by on food stamps, and about to be homeless. There was no government action against her, and yet, nobody would say she hasn't felt the consequences of what she did. Note: I'm not suggesting that Dolezal and Communism are related, just using them as two separate examples to support the larger point.

mcphage 9y ago

> How can you equate what is strictly speech with that of hateful action? How could you not consider speech an action?