4 ms·
> "Ask yourself who is behaving in a censorious fashion and trying to suppress real discourse." There are reasons members might flag a story other than to cens
by grzm 9y ago
> "Ask yourself who is behaving in a censorious fashion and trying to suppress real discourse."
There are reasons members might flag a story other than to censor it, including being tired of the current volume of political stories on HN, and recognizing that not every topic can constructively be discussed in every forum.
One reason HN may not be the appropriate forum for such discussions is due to the difficulty in imagining that those that disagree with you might be doing so for any reason other than nefarious reasons, just as you assume that it was flagged in an effort to suppress real discourse. Real discourse does not assume bad faith and seeks to understand just as much to be understood, and seeks common cause rather than increasing divisiveness.
Notice there is nothing in my comment that is directed at any one political position, as it applies to any and all. Ask yourself if you thought I was attacking you and must be supporting the "other side" when reading my comment. Do you think that's a useful and accurate representation? Upon reflection, do you stand by your claim that members who may have flagged the story must be on the other side and behaving badly? What are you actually doing to move the conversation forward? Do you think you're moving the needle in a constructive direction when you do?
Remember, those that already agree with you aren't really your audience, are they? How do you think you're being received by those who don't agree with you? Or don't they matter? Are they unreachable?
These are all very real problems, and it's incredibly frustrating to see people grapple with them in ways that alienate each other, that are unconstructive, and then when people don't want to listen any more, or understandably get their backs up when they're treating each other badly, claim that they're being censored or oppressed.
- stcredzero 9y agoReal discourse does not assume bad faith and seeks to understand just as much to be understood, and seeks common cause rather than increasing divisiveness. I wish more of our society's media examined Social Justice through this very lens. I would have much rather that James Damore had received such treatment at the hands of his peers, who now control the platforms of such a broad swath of online discourse.
- grzm 9y ago> "I wish more of our society's media examined Social Justice through this very lens." Set aside those things outside of your control. Do what you can. Stop placing the blame on others.
- stcredzero 9y agoSpecifically: Does Social Justice do that?
- grzm 9y agoCan you control those who you label as "Social Justice"? Can you control what "they" do? No. And it's pointless to continue to belabor the point; it's actively destructive to your own position. And what's your point anyway? Do you think it's a good idea? If others aren't doing something good or constructive, then you shouldn't, or shouldn't be expected to either? Take responsibility for making constructive change yourself, regardless of what others may be doing.
- stcredzero 9y agoCan you control those who you label as "Social Justice"? Honest and factually-based criticism is a good basis for society's self-correction. Can you control what "they" do? They can't control what they do. That's quite obvious. You can criticize people on a rational, factual basis, then see how they react. How they react will in turn tell volumes about their actual underlying motives, and how intellectually honest they are. Take responsibility for making constructive change yourself, regardless of what others may be doing. Sometimes, "making constructive change" is telling truth to power. It's the side which can execute the witch-hunts which has the power. It's the side which can intimidate others to keep their heads down and their mouths shut which is the side that has power. In fact, the historical record indicates that the above conditions are precisely when telling truth to power is for the good. So long as it's done on a rational and factual basis, it stands a good chance of being for the good. Here's another heuristic: You can evaluate side X, when someone "tells truth to power" to side X. How does side X react? If X are the good guys, they listen. If X are not good, then they seek to suppress and attack. Everyone who has been paying attention can now ask themselves: In the contexts where they have power, How does today's Social Justice act? (Answer: Often, they act very poorly, then deny they ever have power in any context.)