5 ms·

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 reaso

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.

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.