9 ms·

I 100% agree with your premise that “the more voices the better” (i.e. the fewer voices that are silenced, the better). What you describe certainly covers much

I 100% agree with your premise that “the more voices the better” (i.e. the fewer voices that are silenced, the better). What you describe certainly covers much of what’s happening, but something else is happening too: Voices are being silenced. And to respond to your opening sentence, I don’t mean anyone is silenced physically (who does that?), but rather psychologically, culturally, and socially. That’s not a good thing. Giving everyone a voice is good precisely because it facilitates debate, such that good ideas rise to the surface and bad ideas sink. Silencing voices opposed to your own views may serve you in the short term, but as a principle it’s incredibly dangerous and almost certainly harmful in the long run. Edit: P.S. This doesn’t mean that bad ideas shouldn’t float down to a point where their advocation questions ones’ rational credibility, nor does it mean we should be entitled to say anything we want (no matter how extreme) without consequence. For example, if you blurted out “The earth is flat - it’s all a conspiracy!”, most people would shake their heads in pity and keep walking away. But if someone presents evidence or ideas to a claim so extreme, the degree of our interest must be proportionate to the credibility of the evidence and the logical consistency of the argument — not the social stigma attached to the topic. This is a subtle distinction, but so important. Social stigma can serve perhaps as a caching mechanism of consensus, but it is a tool we must wield with extreme caution.

ender7 9y ago
On the contrary, silencing voices is a necessary thing. All societies have to determine what speech is allowed and what isn't. There are lots of things you can say in general American society that will get you censured. Claiming that black people are biologically inferior to white people, for example. Claiming that women are biologically inferior to men, though? Some still seem fond of that one. This all boils down to the fact one group is trying to add a number of new entries to the list of censurable topics. It's fine to disagree with that, but then you have to state a) what topics you think shouldn't be added to the list and b). why. When people walk around loudly complaining about how they can't say anything anymore without being specific as to what they want to say, it suggests that perhaps they know that those positions are not really defensible. [EDIT: To explain things a little more. Societies must limit some forms of speech because some speech limits who can be a member of a society. "We should murder all Asian people" is not compatible with a society that contains Asian people. And no, it is not fair to expect Asian people to have to constantly defend their humanity to others who have nothing to lose in the argument. Much as it's nice to think about abstractly entertaining every possible idea, when some of those ideas actively push out or dehumanize members, the society is forced to choose between accepting debate on the idea or excluding those members. So yes, if you want to complain about how SV society shuns people for not wanting to experiment on human embryos or whatever, go ahead. But assuming that all ideas should be up for debate is ignoring the fact that some ideas are incompatible with your fellow society members. And you get to choose between debating those ideas or having those people in your society as equals. You do have a choice, but you can't have both.]
- electrograv 9y ago
  Wouldn’t it be far more effective (and safe) to defeat bad ideas with evidence and reason?
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    It would, unfortunately that doesn't work. If it did, no one would believe that the Earth is flat.
    - sn9 9y ago
      That's a completely insane counterargument. Care to bet what the historical trend has been for the percentage of the population that claim the earth is flat? If evidence didn't work it would be flat or random.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        Over what timescale?
        sn9 9y ago
        Centuries, since the Enlightenment.
  - rectang 9y ago
    That's what's happening: bad ideas are being defeated. But if those bad ideas are still near and dear to you even while society moves on, it feels bad. Not everyone has to be persuaded. Some will have to be left behind.
    - Veelox 9y ago
      I think part of the issue is the tactics. The original post was pointing out that the way that bad ideas are being defeated is through force, not through reason. If the law says "Be happy or else" everyone is "happy". The problem being pointed out is that SV is becoming a place where you must believe the right things or else. The or else part is what makes it McCarthyistic.
chasing 9y ago
> Voices are being silenced. I think we've got to be cautious in defining what "being silenced" means. Because I see a world in which people are saying all sorts of things out loud. There was a protest with a bunch of people waving Nazi flags in a public park in Virginia a few months ago. I don't think people are being silenced. I think community norms are shifting quickly in many parts of the country and, again, it's disorienting for certain people who have held certain views without problem for most of their lives. Suddenly they're being told it's not okay to say something and it feels like they're being silenced. They're not, of course. But I understand that it can feel like it. [Edit: This is in response to your original comment, which you edited.]
- cpitman 9y ago
  The White Nationalist march on Charlotte is actually an example of voices being silenced. Photos of people there were distributed, their names were found (sometimes incorrectly), and their places of work contacted. Then they were fired. If people see that people who share the same views are losing their livelihoods, they are more likely to be silent. Only the independently wealthy wouldn't consider losing their job risky. And just to be clear, I in no way support their views, desires, or actions. But claiming the goal isn't to silence them is disingenuous.
  - chasing 9y ago
    That's a good point to bring up. I don't think those people were silenced. They went to a public protest in a public place to make a statement. That statement was broadcast across the country and the world. The opposite of being silenced. Now, they faced consequences for what they said. But that's what happens when you say things. Words have meaning and you can say words which will cause people to no longer want to associate with you.
    - cpitman 9y ago
      It is not just those people being silenced though. It is people who stayed home, maybe their views are not quite as radical as someone who would protest, or maybe they tend to be more politically apathetic (ie most people). When those people watch Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/14/twitter-users-identify-white-supremacists-at-charlottesville-protests.html http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/14/twitter-users-identif...) and see what is happening to those people for their speech and actions, they are being silenced. These are also probably the people more amenable to changing their views. It's got be pretty hard to swing someone with a tiki torch marching down the street, but someone who feels sympathetic to their views could maybe be reasoned with if they would talk about it.
chasing 9y ago
> That’s not a good thing. It really depends on the context. For example, I think there's a certain kind of racist, sexist, and homophobic talk which simply adds nothing good to the world. I don't think it should be illegal necessarily, but I'm fine if people are ostracized for holding such views. I certainly don't want to be exposed to that kind of shit. And there are many situations which require learning and understanding to participate. A software developer would be appalled if they had to continue to have debates at work about software development with someone who had no idea how computers work -- especially if that person was adamant that their views much be heard and listened to. "Why is my opinion that we should write our iOS app in ActiveX being SILENCED?" Again, that dumb opinion shouldn't be made illegal. But maybe that person doesn't need to be invited to developer meetings any more. You get my point. Lots of subtlety when it comes to free speech. Not all controversial opinions are the same.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  Who decides what is the correct opinion and what is not? There is a reason why advanced societies are ruled by the rule of law and not the rule of the mob.
  - bostik 9y ago
    Since we're on the topic of questioning dogmas: is that the rule of law or the rules set by the biggest mob?
    - asabjorn 9y ago
      I don't see the analogy. In the rule of law you have a code of law, judges, juries and long deliberations. In criminal law the bar of evidence is preponderance of evidence, while in mob rule you need no evidence and you do not have to listen to both sides.
      - bostik 9y ago
        > you have a code of law Q.E.D.
mperham 9y ago
Let's be clear here. We're not talking about where to eat lunch or controversial scientific theories, a la Galileo or Darwin. We're talking about "is race X smarter than race Y", "is gender X smarter than Y". Bigoted ideas. Some have been comfortable espousing bigoted views. Now they are forced to think about what they say and how they say it. As a white man, this has affected my own behavior (for the better IMO): I've been forced to be more thoughtful of others. The Paradox of Tolerance shows we must be intolerant of such bigotry.
- ghostcluster 9y ago
  Evidence and scientific inquiry are not bigotry.
  - strangecasts 9y ago
    Conclusions can be.
- ThrowawayR2 9y ago
  > We're talking about "is race X smarter than race Y", "is gender X smarter than Y". Bigoted ideas. Let's hypothetically say that a sapient alien species, with the full range of emotions and thoughts a human being can have, was discovered that was also demonstrably not as smart as human beings after centuries of scientific study. Would saying "humans are smarter than these aliens" be bigoted? Flip it around. If different sapient aliens were demonstrated to be more intelligent than human beings by an order of magnitude, would it be bigoted to say "These other aliens are smarter than humans."? In other words, can facts be bigoted? > The Paradox of Tolerance shows we must be intolerant of such bigotry. Must we? If you've studied the paradox of tolerance, you should know that it has no universally agreed upon answer.
  - bobthechef 9y ago
    I don't have a dog in this fight, but what irks me is how, on the one hand, one can claim to accept evolution, a process that works precisely by variation and natural selection, and at the same time rule out, not the actuality, but the very possibility IN PRINCIPLE that there can ever be statistically significant sexual or ethnic variation. If you are of a secularist, materialist bent, you are absolutely bound to accept that possibility lest you fall into holding incoherent beliefs. To be clear, I am neither rejecting evolution nor advocating racism or sexism. I am merely pointing out that secularism-materialism binds you to accept the very real possibility of things being true about sex, race, ethnicity, etc, that those holding secularist, materialistic views categorically and in principle reject (at least verbally, if not in action) as a matter of principle even though they are bound BY THE VERY PRINCIPLES THEY CLAIM TO HOLD to accept these things as possibilities, if not present actualities. This is but one of many absurdities in vogue in circles like the SV circuit and its allies. You can't have your cake and eat it, too, and you can be sure that repeating mantras and going on the offensive only works for so long. You have to reexamine your foundational beliefs. The truth will, sooner or later, exact its revenge and come for its pound of flesh. The tension forces of contradiction will cause the facade to cave no matter how much stucco you use to conceal the growing cracks.

ender7 9y ago

On the contrary, silencing voices is a necessary thing. All societies have to determine what speech is allowed and what isn't. There are lots of things you can say in general American society that will get you censured. Claiming that black people are biologically inferior to white people, for example. Claiming that women are biologically inferior to men, though? Some still seem fond of that one. This all boils down to the fact one group is trying to add a number of new entries to the list of censurable topics. It's fine to disagree with that, but then you have to state a) what topics you think shouldn't be added to the list and b). why. When people walk around loudly complaining about how they can't say anything anymore without being specific as to what they want to say, it suggests that perhaps they know that those positions are not really defensible. [EDIT: To explain things a little more. Societies must limit some forms of speech because some speech limits who can be a member of a society. "We should murder all Asian people" is not compatible with a society that contains Asian people. And no, it is not fair to expect Asian people to have to constantly defend their humanity to others who have nothing to lose in the argument. Much as it's nice to think about abstractly entertaining every possible idea, when some of those ideas actively push out or dehumanize members, the society is forced to choose between accepting debate on the idea or excluding those members. So yes, if you want to complain about how SV society shuns people for not wanting to experiment on human embryos or whatever, go ahead. But assuming that all ideas should be up for debate is ignoring the fact that some ideas are incompatible with your fellow society members. And you get to choose between debating those ideas or having those people in your society as equals. You do have a choice, but you can't have both.]

electrograv 9y ago
Wouldn’t it be far more effective (and safe) to defeat bad ideas with evidence and reason?
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  It would, unfortunately that doesn't work. If it did, no one would believe that the Earth is flat.
  - sn9 9y ago
    That's a completely insane counterargument. Care to bet what the historical trend has been for the percentage of the population that claim the earth is flat? If evidence didn't work it would be flat or random.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      Over what timescale?
      - sn9 9y ago
        Centuries, since the Enlightenment.
- rectang 9y ago
  That's what's happening: bad ideas are being defeated. But if those bad ideas are still near and dear to you even while society moves on, it feels bad. Not everyone has to be persuaded. Some will have to be left behind.
  - Veelox 9y ago
    I think part of the issue is the tactics. The original post was pointing out that the way that bad ideas are being defeated is through force, not through reason. If the law says "Be happy or else" everyone is "happy". The problem being pointed out is that SV is becoming a place where you must believe the right things or else. The or else part is what makes it McCarthyistic.

chasing 9y ago

> Voices are being silenced. I think we've got to be cautious in defining what "being silenced" means. Because I see a world in which people are saying all sorts of things out loud. There was a protest with a bunch of people waving Nazi flags in a public park in Virginia a few months ago. I don't think people are being silenced. I think community norms are shifting quickly in many parts of the country and, again, it's disorienting for certain people who have held certain views without problem for most of their lives. Suddenly they're being told it's not okay to say something and it feels like they're being silenced. They're not, of course. But I understand that it can feel like it. [Edit: This is in response to your original comment, which you edited.]

cpitman 9y ago
The White Nationalist march on Charlotte is actually an example of voices being silenced. Photos of people there were distributed, their names were found (sometimes incorrectly), and their places of work contacted. Then they were fired. If people see that people who share the same views are losing their livelihoods, they are more likely to be silent. Only the independently wealthy wouldn't consider losing their job risky. And just to be clear, I in no way support their views, desires, or actions. But claiming the goal isn't to silence them is disingenuous.
- chasing 9y ago
  That's a good point to bring up. I don't think those people were silenced. They went to a public protest in a public place to make a statement. That statement was broadcast across the country and the world. The opposite of being silenced. Now, they faced consequences for what they said. But that's what happens when you say things. Words have meaning and you can say words which will cause people to no longer want to associate with you.
  - cpitman 9y ago
    It is not just those people being silenced though. It is people who stayed home, maybe their views are not quite as radical as someone who would protest, or maybe they tend to be more politically apathetic (ie most people). When those people watch Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/14/twitter-users-identify-white-supremacists-at-charlottesville-protests.html http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/14/twitter-users-identif...) and see what is happening to those people for their speech and actions, they are being silenced. These are also probably the people more amenable to changing their views. It's got be pretty hard to swing someone with a tiki torch marching down the street, but someone who feels sympathetic to their views could maybe be reasoned with if they would talk about it.

chasing 9y ago

> That’s not a good thing. It really depends on the context. For example, I think there's a certain kind of racist, sexist, and homophobic talk which simply adds nothing good to the world. I don't think it should be illegal necessarily, but I'm fine if people are ostracized for holding such views. I certainly don't want to be exposed to that kind of shit. And there are many situations which require learning and understanding to participate. A software developer would be appalled if they had to continue to have debates at work about software development with someone who had no idea how computers work -- especially if that person was adamant that their views much be heard and listened to. "Why is my opinion that we should write our iOS app in ActiveX being SILENCED?" Again, that dumb opinion shouldn't be made illegal. But maybe that person doesn't need to be invited to developer meetings any more. You get my point. Lots of subtlety when it comes to free speech. Not all controversial opinions are the same.

asabjorn 9y ago
Who decides what is the correct opinion and what is not? There is a reason why advanced societies are ruled by the rule of law and not the rule of the mob.
- bostik 9y ago
  Since we're on the topic of questioning dogmas: is that the rule of law or the rules set by the biggest mob?
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    I don't see the analogy. In the rule of law you have a code of law, judges, juries and long deliberations. In criminal law the bar of evidence is preponderance of evidence, while in mob rule you need no evidence and you do not have to listen to both sides.
    - bostik 9y ago
      > you have a code of law Q.E.D.

mperham 9y ago

Let's be clear here. We're not talking about where to eat lunch or controversial scientific theories, a la Galileo or Darwin. We're talking about "is race X smarter than race Y", "is gender X smarter than Y". Bigoted ideas. Some have been comfortable espousing bigoted views. Now they are forced to think about what they say and how they say it. As a white man, this has affected my own behavior (for the better IMO): I've been forced to be more thoughtful of others. The Paradox of Tolerance shows we must be intolerant of such bigotry.

ghostcluster 9y ago
Evidence and scientific inquiry are not bigotry.
- strangecasts 9y ago
  Conclusions can be.
ThrowawayR2 9y ago
> We're talking about "is race X smarter than race Y", "is gender X smarter than Y". Bigoted ideas. Let's hypothetically say that a sapient alien species, with the full range of emotions and thoughts a human being can have, was discovered that was also demonstrably not as smart as human beings after centuries of scientific study. Would saying "humans are smarter than these aliens" be bigoted? Flip it around. If different sapient aliens were demonstrated to be more intelligent than human beings by an order of magnitude, would it be bigoted to say "These other aliens are smarter than humans."? In other words, can facts be bigoted? > The Paradox of Tolerance shows we must be intolerant of such bigotry. Must we? If you've studied the paradox of tolerance, you should know that it has no universally agreed upon answer.
- bobthechef 9y ago
  I don't have a dog in this fight, but what irks me is how, on the one hand, one can claim to accept evolution, a process that works precisely by variation and natural selection, and at the same time rule out, not the actuality, but the very possibility IN PRINCIPLE that there can ever be statistically significant sexual or ethnic variation. If you are of a secularist, materialist bent, you are absolutely bound to accept that possibility lest you fall into holding incoherent beliefs. To be clear, I am neither rejecting evolution nor advocating racism or sexism. I am merely pointing out that secularism-materialism binds you to accept the very real possibility of things being true about sex, race, ethnicity, etc, that those holding secularist, materialistic views categorically and in principle reject (at least verbally, if not in action) as a matter of principle even though they are bound BY THE VERY PRINCIPLES THEY CLAIM TO HOLD to accept these things as possibilities, if not present actualities. This is but one of many absurdities in vogue in circles like the SV circuit and its allies. You can't have your cake and eat it, too, and you can be sure that repeating mantras and going on the offensive only works for so long. You have to reexamine your foundational beliefs. The truth will, sooner or later, exact its revenge and come for its pound of flesh. The tension forces of contradiction will cause the facade to cave no matter how much stucco you use to conceal the growing cracks.