5 ms·

What if your "controversial opinion" harasses and alienates other people? According to his logic that pain is collateral damage. And any innovation from the peo

What if your "controversial opinion" harasses and alienates other people? According to his logic that pain is collateral damage. And any innovation from the people who would have been productive except for that collateral alienation / harassment is now lost -- and this is a story as old as time in the valley particularly from women and PoC. But his writing indicates that he's only thought from the perspective of some innovator he's perceived to have been unfairly branded a heretic.

bthornbury 9y ago
Perhaps those other people can share their opinion that they feel harrassed and alienated and we can have a discussion on the matter (in some other form than branding the opposing party as a heretic)?
- kajecounterhack 9y ago
  The way you've formulated this makes it seem like people who think political correctness is important also must espouse branding people as heretics for no reason. That is not true, and obviously valid opinions deserve discussion. Sam's essay takes your comment's tack and extrapolates, saying in order for us to never accidentally brand people as heretics we should live in a society that has a higher level of tolerance for shitty things like "gay people are evil." That we should have a higher tolerance for all ideas so we can "discuss" them. But the consequences of "higher tolerance" for harassing and alienating speech is a chilling effect on another section of the population (people who get harassed and alienated). More "freedom" for one group comes at the cost of depriving another.
  - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
    > ...valid opinions deserve discussion. And, pray tell, who gets to decide which opinions are "valid"? How do we find out in advance which opinions we are permitted to discuss?
    - prepend 9y ago
      It’s easy. You just test it out and see if you get fired. If you get fired, then it’s invalid and the others can learn what not to say. This obviously leads to a productive and long lasting society.
    - kajecounterhack 9y ago
      > And, pray tell, who gets to decide which opinions are "valid"? Society decides what's valid by responding to what you say. If what you say is bad, you'll get mostly negative responses. If what you say is good, you'll get mostly positive. If you disagree with most of society, you can hang with your niche. If you give a shit about what society mostly agrees on, you get with the program. Seems like right now we mostly agree "be considerate of one another." It's not much to argue against. > How do we find out in advance which opinions we are permitted to discuss? This isn't rocket science. Some ideas for you: 1. Ask a friend. "Am I an asshole for saying this?" 2. Think critically. "Am I an asshole for saying this?" 3. Own mistakes. "Shit sorry I was an asshole, please forgive me." 4. General education. You learn from history, interacting with other members of society 1:1, stories of perspectives beyond your own, etc.
      - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
        > Society decides what's valid by responding to what you say. Is that really the heuristic you want to advocate? - If, a millennium ago, an individual had questioned the divine right of kings to rule, s/he would have been called an asshole. - If, 750 years ago, an individual had called into question the primacy of the dominant religion for his/her region, s/he would have been called an asshole. - If, 500 years ago, an individual had suggested women's suffrage, s/he would have been called an asshole. ...etc... In short, all your heuristic says is that the opinions that are "valid" are whatever the current status quo for your local societal norms happens to be. Forgive me for saying this, but that seems more like a conservative viewpoint than a liberal one.
        kajecounterhack 9y ago
        > all your heuristic says is that the opinions that are "valid" are whatever the current status quo for your local societal norms happens to be. I'm not advocating for a heuristic, I'm saying how functionally it works. Liberal / educated society has a different opinion than conservative society, for example. In your examples, societies of different time periods had different measuring sticks. Clearly we don't agree with the opinions of those societies but that's not surprising. If modern liberal/educated society agrees that flat earthing and anti-vaxxing beliefs are unfounded and dumb, then people who believe those things will find themselves better accepted in niche groups who share their views. Similarly political correctness arises out of a subset of society saying "wow we find some things to be hurtful" and contrary to how it's being painted in Sam's writing it's not some minefield of things that hinder free thought; it's just that there are ways we interact that can hurt and silence others. Being mindful of these things is, in some opinions including mine, a low bar and not much harder to achieve than observing what's going on and concluding "gee the world is round and we should be kind to one another." > In short, all your heuristic says is that the opinions that are "valid" are whatever the current status quo for your local societal norms happens to be. Again no espousing of any heuristic here, only a description of functionally how society works. The great thing is the the subject here is specifically _modern liberal silicon valley educated society_ and what it finds acceptable. The thread is mostly to discuss whether this specific society's net opinions today are chilling on innovation or beneficial for innovation. Sam thinks it's chilling; Anil and many others think it's beneficial / necessary.
  - bthornbury 9y ago
    > The way you've formulated this makes it seem like people who think political correctness is important also must espouse branding people as heretics for no reason. The "for no reason" part here is actually throwing me off. Not sure what you're implying. I've made the statement that discussion on the topic is preferable to branding, even in the case where people feel alienated.
    - kajecounterhack 9y ago
      > The "for no reason" part here is actually throwing me off. Not sure what you're implying. It implies that Harvey Weinstein should be branded and ostracized. That abusers are rightfully alienated. > I've made the statement that discussion on the topic is preferable to branding, even in the case where people feel alienated. Right. You made that statement in response to 'What if your "controversial opinion" harasses and alienates other people?' -- so it follows that you're OK with giving airtime to hateful views even at the expense of chilling others' free speech and/or you don't recognize that this chilling effect is real.
      - bthornbury 9y ago
        Resisting your attempts to slide or conflate my statement with unrelated viewpoints. My previous statement stands.
        kajecounterhack 9y ago
        I responded to you words in their context: as a response to something I wrote. There is no conflation. "Discussion" as mentioned in your statement isn't as neutral as you think.
hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
> What if your "controversial opinion" harasses and alienates other people? So then, as the victim, are you cleared to harass and smear whoever you please? > he's only thought from the perspective of some innovator he's perceived to have been unfairly branded a heretic Ah, so his identity as a wealthy man invalidates his opinion, and his writing should be disregarded?
- kajecounterhack 9y ago
  > So then, as the victim, are you cleared to harass and smear whoever you please? No, and that was not any part of what I wrote. However as a victim you ARE entitled to share your story. You are entitled to tell people "hey this person did something bad and it hurt me." And people can choose to respond to that. That's OK. > Ah, so his identity as a wealthy man invalidates his opinion, and his writing should be disregarded? Nowhere did I mention wealth or that it would invalidate his opinion. The quoted sentence merely indicates that the argument he made failed to consider other sides and nuances.
  - hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
    > What if your "controversial opinion" harasses and alienates other people? > as a victim you ARE entitled to share your story. You are entitled to tell people "hey this person did something bad and it hurt me." An employee at a SV company writes on a forum that he's not a fan of diversity quotas and equity. Then, someone reads it, and claims that they feel harassed and alienated by that quote. They tweet an angry message accompanied by a screenshot of the forum post. Then, a twitter mob forms, calling the employee a Nazi. He's conflated with real racism now, though he originally was talking about diversity quotas and equity. Because his language was "harmful", the victims have their justification; by any means necessary they must remove this hateful Nazi. The employee gets fired for PR reasons. Other employees stay away from those topics, self-silencing for fear of retaliation like the 1st employee received. Ideas are stifled; democracy is weakened. Can you see how your chain of logic leads to this?
    - prepend 9y ago

bthornbury 9y ago

Perhaps those other people can share their opinion that they feel harrassed and alienated and we can have a discussion on the matter (in some other form than branding the opposing party as a heretic)?

kajecounterhack 9y ago
The way you've formulated this makes it seem like people who think political correctness is important also must espouse branding people as heretics for no reason. That is not true, and obviously valid opinions deserve discussion. Sam's essay takes your comment's tack and extrapolates, saying in order for us to never accidentally brand people as heretics we should live in a society that has a higher level of tolerance for shitty things like "gay people are evil." That we should have a higher tolerance for all ideas so we can "discuss" them. But the consequences of "higher tolerance" for harassing and alienating speech is a chilling effect on another section of the population (people who get harassed and alienated). More "freedom" for one group comes at the cost of depriving another.
- ThrowawayR2 9y ago
  > ...valid opinions deserve discussion. And, pray tell, who gets to decide which opinions are "valid"? How do we find out in advance which opinions we are permitted to discuss?
  - prepend 9y ago
    It’s easy. You just test it out and see if you get fired. If you get fired, then it’s invalid and the others can learn what not to say. This obviously leads to a productive and long lasting society.
  - kajecounterhack 9y ago
    > And, pray tell, who gets to decide which opinions are "valid"? Society decides what's valid by responding to what you say. If what you say is bad, you'll get mostly negative responses. If what you say is good, you'll get mostly positive. If you disagree with most of society, you can hang with your niche. If you give a shit about what society mostly agrees on, you get with the program. Seems like right now we mostly agree "be considerate of one another." It's not much to argue against. > How do we find out in advance which opinions we are permitted to discuss? This isn't rocket science. Some ideas for you: 1. Ask a friend. "Am I an asshole for saying this?" 2. Think critically. "Am I an asshole for saying this?" 3. Own mistakes. "Shit sorry I was an asshole, please forgive me." 4. General education. You learn from history, interacting with other members of society 1:1, stories of perspectives beyond your own, etc.
    - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
      > Society decides what's valid by responding to what you say. Is that really the heuristic you want to advocate? - If, a millennium ago, an individual had questioned the divine right of kings to rule, s/he would have been called an asshole. - If, 750 years ago, an individual had called into question the primacy of the dominant religion for his/her region, s/he would have been called an asshole. - If, 500 years ago, an individual had suggested women's suffrage, s/he would have been called an asshole. ...etc... In short, all your heuristic says is that the opinions that are "valid" are whatever the current status quo for your local societal norms happens to be. Forgive me for saying this, but that seems more like a conservative viewpoint than a liberal one.
      - kajecounterhack 9y ago
        > all your heuristic says is that the opinions that are "valid" are whatever the current status quo for your local societal norms happens to be. I'm not advocating for a heuristic, I'm saying how functionally it works. Liberal / educated society has a different opinion than conservative society, for example. In your examples, societies of different time periods had different measuring sticks. Clearly we don't agree with the opinions of those societies but that's not surprising. If modern liberal/educated society agrees that flat earthing and anti-vaxxing beliefs are unfounded and dumb, then people who believe those things will find themselves better accepted in niche groups who share their views. Similarly political correctness arises out of a subset of society saying "wow we find some things to be hurtful" and contrary to how it's being painted in Sam's writing it's not some minefield of things that hinder free thought; it's just that there are ways we interact that can hurt and silence others. Being mindful of these things is, in some opinions including mine, a low bar and not much harder to achieve than observing what's going on and concluding "gee the world is round and we should be kind to one another." > In short, all your heuristic says is that the opinions that are "valid" are whatever the current status quo for your local societal norms happens to be. Again no espousing of any heuristic here, only a description of functionally how society works. The great thing is the the subject here is specifically _modern liberal silicon valley educated society_ and what it finds acceptable. The thread is mostly to discuss whether this specific society's net opinions today are chilling on innovation or beneficial for innovation. Sam thinks it's chilling; Anil and many others think it's beneficial / necessary.
- bthornbury 9y ago
  > The way you've formulated this makes it seem like people who think political correctness is important also must espouse branding people as heretics for no reason. The "for no reason" part here is actually throwing me off. Not sure what you're implying. I've made the statement that discussion on the topic is preferable to branding, even in the case where people feel alienated.
  - kajecounterhack 9y ago
    > The "for no reason" part here is actually throwing me off. Not sure what you're implying. It implies that Harvey Weinstein should be branded and ostracized. That abusers are rightfully alienated. > I've made the statement that discussion on the topic is preferable to branding, even in the case where people feel alienated. Right. You made that statement in response to 'What if your "controversial opinion" harasses and alienates other people?' -- so it follows that you're OK with giving airtime to hateful views even at the expense of chilling others' free speech and/or you don't recognize that this chilling effect is real.
    - bthornbury 9y ago
      Resisting your attempts to slide or conflate my statement with unrelated viewpoints. My previous statement stands.
      - kajecounterhack 9y ago
        I responded to you words in their context: as a response to something I wrote. There is no conflation. "Discussion" as mentioned in your statement isn't as neutral as you think.

hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago

> What if your "controversial opinion" harasses and alienates other people? So then, as the victim, are you cleared to harass and smear whoever you please? > he's only thought from the perspective of some innovator he's perceived to have been unfairly branded a heretic Ah, so his identity as a wealthy man invalidates his opinion, and his writing should be disregarded?

kajecounterhack 9y ago
> So then, as the victim, are you cleared to harass and smear whoever you please? No, and that was not any part of what I wrote. However as a victim you ARE entitled to share your story. You are entitled to tell people "hey this person did something bad and it hurt me." And people can choose to respond to that. That's OK. > Ah, so his identity as a wealthy man invalidates his opinion, and his writing should be disregarded? Nowhere did I mention wealth or that it would invalidate his opinion. The quoted sentence merely indicates that the argument he made failed to consider other sides and nuances.
- hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
  > What if your "controversial opinion" harasses and alienates other people? > as a victim you ARE entitled to share your story. You are entitled to tell people "hey this person did something bad and it hurt me." An employee at a SV company writes on a forum that he's not a fan of diversity quotas and equity. Then, someone reads it, and claims that they feel harassed and alienated by that quote. They tweet an angry message accompanied by a screenshot of the forum post. Then, a twitter mob forms, calling the employee a Nazi. He's conflated with real racism now, though he originally was talking about diversity quotas and equity. Because his language was "harmful", the victims have their justification; by any means necessary they must remove this hateful Nazi. The employee gets fired for PR reasons. Other employees stay away from those topics, self-silencing for fear of retaliation like the 1st employee received. Ideas are stifled; democracy is weakened. Can you see how your chain of logic leads to this?
  - prepend 9y ago