4 ms·

> 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 sor

> 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.
    - angry_octet 9y ago
      When they are watching Fox they are not being silenced, they are being programmed. They start to believe they are being silenced, but their views are just being opposed and offended and that they are (at long last) being told that other people think their positions are discriminatory. And without the visible and palpable sense that their views are not mainstream any longer, what is their incentive to change?
      - angry_octet 9y ago
        Predictably, I've offended you and you've downvoted. I win.
        cpitman 9y ago
        No, that wasn't me. I think you are incorrect, though. Fox was only an example, this story was carried by most national outlets. And I've never met anyone who changes their mind because the majority is against them and is silencing them. It just brews resentments and causes people to dig in. If people changed their minds just because everyone else disagrees with them loudly and violently, how would any previous social change have come about? New thoughts and perspectives always start as minority views. So majority consensus must not be enough to change someone's mind. Also, this really isn't about winning. We're all losing right now.
        angry_octet 9y ago
        Sorry I wasn't talking to, but the people not commenting, I should have made that clear. I don't mean angry disagreement and antifa, I mean social disapproval.
        dang 9y ago
        Would you please not post unsubstantive or flamebaity comments to HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ageofwant 9y ago
    Some of those that do not want to associate with the unpopular kid genuinely dislike him, or the way she acts or thinks. But most ostracise the bullied in fear of being bullied themselves. I have not learned much in highschool, but I do remember that.
  - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
    > Now, they faced consequences for what they said. And what of those who were incorrectly identified by the vigilantes? Do their fates not matter?
    - chasing 9y ago
      "Of course we shouldn't say people said things they never actually said. But that's not what we're talking about." - Abraham Lincoln
    - r00fus 9y ago
      [cite needed]
  - candiodari 9y ago
    By that standard Saudi Arabia has freedom of speech. There's just consequences - sometimes beheading. Getting fired is only marginally better. But glad you support repression when it supports you.
    - camel_Snake 9y ago
      Except there's a huge difference between being punished by the government for your opinions and being judged by your peers and coworkers for your opinions. If I were a huge proponent of NAMBLA I'd recognize that being a public advocate of such would negatively effect my social status as well as potentially attract negative attention to any brand I associate myself with. That doesn't mean I'm being silenced or censored.
      - candiodari 9y ago
        Let me ask it very directly then. If I report your comment to your employer, and convince them to fire you, would you consider that just ? I think we both know the answer.
ghostcluster 9y ago
So Stanford Medical School should retract this article about the overwhelming evidence of the biologically based cognitive differences between men and women then? http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-b... Science Denialism is just the new community norm, I guess.
- chasing 9y ago
  ? I'm not sure what you're responding to in my comment.
- aptwebapps 9y ago
  Why is CS different from other disciplines and why did that only emerge in the mid-80s? https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*H5PrnnEAD7GteRHf https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*H5PrnnEAD7GteRHf.
  - ghostcluster 9y ago
    It is the same as engineering, physics, and higher math
    - aptwebapps 9y ago
      No it isn't. Unfortunately, HN stripped the period off the end of that url. https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*H5PrnnEAD7GteRHf. Edit: Better graph off of twitter: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRIYIx7UQAEARX3.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRIYIx7UQAEARX3.jpg:large
      - ghostcluster 9y ago
        Look at your graph. It is is the same as engineering. And in that graph, Math and Physics don't separate out education degrees.
- angry_octet 9y ago
electrograv 9y ago
“Silenced” here means any manner of active suppression (shaming, ridiculing, verbal abuse, social bullying, even physical violence, etc) of an idea, rather than simply (1) ignoring it on a personal level, or (2) responding to it with argument via evidence and reason. If an idea we disagree with is rare or harmless, we often ignore it. If an idea we disagree with is more common and worth refuting, we should respond to it with debate. If all parties involved in a debate are reasonable, consensus is possible. In aggregate, humans are capable of being reasonable, thus society progresses over time (amortized). Sadly, there is often difficulty reaching consensus immediately — especially with deeply entrenched viewpoints. However, given time, history has proven over and over that truth prevails though patient use of rational argument. It is only through presentation of evidence and calm, rational argument that society progresses. Other, more heavy-handed means of ideological conquest have more often than not made the world a much worse place. In fact, more than just a few million deaths have resulted from what we could call “non-rational ideological conquest” (which inevitably manifests in progressively more violent ways).
- angry_octet 9y ago
  Rational argument doesn't scale, bots and memes scale. Blocklists do scale, and it's only because identity platforms (fb, twitter) are also locked down content control platforms that we haven't seen more global blocklists. I fully expect decentralised social behaviour blocklists to emerge in the near future. Who would want to (employ/socialise with/do business with) a (trumptard/libtard)? Why take the risk of employing someone with racist tendencies, etc. It might even use a distributed cryptographic ledger.
  - electrograv 9y ago
    Rational argument is difficult to scale (certainly more so than memes and propaganda bots), but not impossible. Real social progress takes real work, but it’s worth it. Your last two paragraphs sound an awful lot like the book 1984. If you haven’t read it, I recommend you check it out.
    - 9y ago

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.
  - angry_octet 9y ago
    When they are watching Fox they are not being silenced, they are being programmed. They start to believe they are being silenced, but their views are just being opposed and offended and that they are (at long last) being told that other people think their positions are discriminatory. And without the visible and palpable sense that their views are not mainstream any longer, what is their incentive to change?
    - angry_octet 9y ago
      Predictably, I've offended you and you've downvoted. I win.
      - cpitman 9y ago
        No, that wasn't me. I think you are incorrect, though. Fox was only an example, this story was carried by most national outlets. And I've never met anyone who changes their mind because the majority is against them and is silencing them. It just brews resentments and causes people to dig in. If people changed their minds just because everyone else disagrees with them loudly and violently, how would any previous social change have come about? New thoughts and perspectives always start as minority views. So majority consensus must not be enough to change someone's mind. Also, this really isn't about winning. We're all losing right now.
        angry_octet 9y ago
        Sorry I wasn't talking to, but the people not commenting, I should have made that clear. I don't mean angry disagreement and antifa, I mean social disapproval.
      - dang 9y ago
        Would you please not post unsubstantive or flamebaity comments to HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ageofwant 9y ago
  Some of those that do not want to associate with the unpopular kid genuinely dislike him, or the way she acts or thinks. But most ostracise the bullied in fear of being bullied themselves. I have not learned much in highschool, but I do remember that.
- ThrowawayR2 9y ago
  > Now, they faced consequences for what they said. And what of those who were incorrectly identified by the vigilantes? Do their fates not matter?
  - chasing 9y ago
    "Of course we shouldn't say people said things they never actually said. But that's not what we're talking about." - Abraham Lincoln
  - r00fus 9y ago
    [cite needed]
- candiodari 9y ago
  By that standard Saudi Arabia has freedom of speech. There's just consequences - sometimes beheading. Getting fired is only marginally better. But glad you support repression when it supports you.
  - camel_Snake 9y ago
    Except there's a huge difference between being punished by the government for your opinions and being judged by your peers and coworkers for your opinions. If I were a huge proponent of NAMBLA I'd recognize that being a public advocate of such would negatively effect my social status as well as potentially attract negative attention to any brand I associate myself with. That doesn't mean I'm being silenced or censored.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      Let me ask it very directly then. If I report your comment to your employer, and convince them to fire you, would you consider that just ? I think we both know the answer.

ghostcluster 9y ago

So Stanford Medical School should retract this article about the overwhelming evidence of the biologically based cognitive differences between men and women then? http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-b... Science Denialism is just the new community norm, I guess.

chasing 9y ago
? I'm not sure what you're responding to in my comment.
aptwebapps 9y ago
Why is CS different from other disciplines and why did that only emerge in the mid-80s? https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*H5PrnnEAD7GteRHf https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*H5PrnnEAD7GteRHf.
- ghostcluster 9y ago
  It is the same as engineering, physics, and higher math
  - aptwebapps 9y ago
    No it isn't. Unfortunately, HN stripped the period off the end of that url. https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*H5PrnnEAD7GteRHf. Edit: Better graph off of twitter: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRIYIx7UQAEARX3.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRIYIx7UQAEARX3.jpg:large
    - ghostcluster 9y ago
      Look at your graph. It is is the same as engineering. And in that graph, Math and Physics don't separate out education degrees.
angry_octet 9y ago

electrograv 9y ago

“Silenced” here means any manner of active suppression (shaming, ridiculing, verbal abuse, social bullying, even physical violence, etc) of an idea, rather than simply (1) ignoring it on a personal level, or (2) responding to it with argument via evidence and reason. If an idea we disagree with is rare or harmless, we often ignore it. If an idea we disagree with is more common and worth refuting, we should respond to it with debate. If all parties involved in a debate are reasonable, consensus is possible. In aggregate, humans are capable of being reasonable, thus society progresses over time (amortized). Sadly, there is often difficulty reaching consensus immediately — especially with deeply entrenched viewpoints. However, given time, history has proven over and over that truth prevails though patient use of rational argument. It is only through presentation of evidence and calm, rational argument that society progresses. Other, more heavy-handed means of ideological conquest have more often than not made the world a much worse place. In fact, more than just a few million deaths have resulted from what we could call “non-rational ideological conquest” (which inevitably manifests in progressively more violent ways).

angry_octet 9y ago
Rational argument doesn't scale, bots and memes scale. Blocklists do scale, and it's only because identity platforms (fb, twitter) are also locked down content control platforms that we haven't seen more global blocklists. I fully expect decentralised social behaviour blocklists to emerge in the near future. Who would want to (employ/socialise with/do business with) a (trumptard/libtard)? Why take the risk of employing someone with racist tendencies, etc. It might even use a distributed cryptographic ledger.
- electrograv 9y ago
  Rational argument is difficult to scale (certainly more so than memes and propaganda bots), but not impossible. Real social progress takes real work, but it’s worth it. Your last two paragraphs sound an awful lot like the book 1984. If you haven’t read it, I recommend you check it out.
  - 9y ago