4 ms·

That particular xkcd gets linked a lot in this debate. I really wonder what happened between when the author drew that comic and when he drew this one: https://

That particular xkcd gets linked a lot in this debate. I really wonder what happened between when the author drew that comic and when he drew this one: https://www.xkcd.com/137/ https://www.xkcd.com/137/

aninhumer 9y ago
Maybe he realised that speech has consequences beyond an employer not hiring him, and decided to take responsibility for those consequences? And that rather than "watering down" ones thoughts, understanding the implications of language and avoiding unintended ones actually expresses your ideas better? Or, in short, he grew up.
sudosteph 9y ago
I don't see any incompatibility there? Seems like in 137 he's saying that he doesn't want to sacrifice individuality and creativity for the sake of maintaining a banal existence that doesn't deviate from the norm out of fear. He's accepting the risks that come with making his opinions public, and challenging assumptions that he should just shut up, in part because he has confidence in the validity of his beliefs and a willingness to defend them. The more recent one is about people who publicize poorly constructed opinions with no consideration to the potential consequences it will create for their interpersonal and community relationships. Those folks are welcome to say "fuck that shit" like the character in 137 and go build their own forums or whatever to spread and defend those ideas. But most of these types would prefer to whine and call themselves victims.
- henryaj 9y ago
  > he doesn't want to sacrifice individuality and creativity for the sake of maintaining a banal existence that doesn't deviate from the norm out of fear Exactly. Just apply that to the fear of running afoul of draconian speech codes designed to reduce the amount of "offence" people experience.
  - sudosteph 9y ago
    "Don't be a jerk" doesn't seem draconian to me. The people I see whining about their speech having consequences (ie, Milo) are usually aiming to offend. They aren't running into obscure codes, they're being jerks for fun and profit.
    - sheepmullet 9y ago
      > "Don't be a jerk" doesn't seem draconian to me. And who gets to decide what is acceptable? My college had an atheist club that hung up a banner saying "Religion is for the feeble minded" - that's offensive to billions of people. Can we shut them down and boot them off campus? My college also had communist clubs with communist slogans - many of my extended family were killed by communists so that's obviously offensive. Can we shut them down and boot them off campus? > The people I see whining about their speech having consequences (ie, Milo) are usually aiming to offend. By the time people like Milo come along hundreds of legitimate speakers have already been silenced - that's how people like Milo realize it's an easy and lucrative market to take advantage of.
      - sudosteph 9y ago
        That's a bad comparison. Clubs like those, especially at a public college actually ARE protected by the 1st amendment. You can choose not to join, but cannot prevent them from meeting. The only thing the school can do is limit the non-student guests a club brings, and even that power is typically limited to in cases of security concerns, which can often be remedied if the club helps foot the costs for increased security (see: UW Milo visit where counter protestor was shot) Twitter and Reddit and the like are public platforms that belong to a private entity. So it's private property and the people who own it can curate or be selective if they choose. All that said, I'm no fan of "no-platforming", but it's not as prominent as you might think, at least on the public college level. I went to a college where random fire and brimstone preachers would stand in front of the library, bang on buckets and call women "whores" as they passed by. Nobody invited them, they just wanted an audience. And though I hated those guys, I understand their right to do that (with a permit) and to say whatever. Likewise, it was my right to laugh in his face, call him an asshole. Because he was being a jerk.

aninhumer 9y ago

Maybe he realised that speech has consequences beyond an employer not hiring him, and decided to take responsibility for those consequences? And that rather than "watering down" ones thoughts, understanding the implications of language and avoiding unintended ones actually expresses your ideas better? Or, in short, he grew up.

sudosteph 9y ago

I don't see any incompatibility there? Seems like in 137 he's saying that he doesn't want to sacrifice individuality and creativity for the sake of maintaining a banal existence that doesn't deviate from the norm out of fear. He's accepting the risks that come with making his opinions public, and challenging assumptions that he should just shut up, in part because he has confidence in the validity of his beliefs and a willingness to defend them. The more recent one is about people who publicize poorly constructed opinions with no consideration to the potential consequences it will create for their interpersonal and community relationships. Those folks are welcome to say "fuck that shit" like the character in 137 and go build their own forums or whatever to spread and defend those ideas. But most of these types would prefer to whine and call themselves victims.

henryaj 9y ago
> he doesn't want to sacrifice individuality and creativity for the sake of maintaining a banal existence that doesn't deviate from the norm out of fear Exactly. Just apply that to the fear of running afoul of draconian speech codes designed to reduce the amount of "offence" people experience.
- sudosteph 9y ago
  "Don't be a jerk" doesn't seem draconian to me. The people I see whining about their speech having consequences (ie, Milo) are usually aiming to offend. They aren't running into obscure codes, they're being jerks for fun and profit.
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    > "Don't be a jerk" doesn't seem draconian to me. And who gets to decide what is acceptable? My college had an atheist club that hung up a banner saying "Religion is for the feeble minded" - that's offensive to billions of people. Can we shut them down and boot them off campus? My college also had communist clubs with communist slogans - many of my extended family were killed by communists so that's obviously offensive. Can we shut them down and boot them off campus? > The people I see whining about their speech having consequences (ie, Milo) are usually aiming to offend. By the time people like Milo come along hundreds of legitimate speakers have already been silenced - that's how people like Milo realize it's an easy and lucrative market to take advantage of.
    - sudosteph 9y ago
      That's a bad comparison. Clubs like those, especially at a public college actually ARE protected by the 1st amendment. You can choose not to join, but cannot prevent them from meeting. The only thing the school can do is limit the non-student guests a club brings, and even that power is typically limited to in cases of security concerns, which can often be remedied if the club helps foot the costs for increased security (see: UW Milo visit where counter protestor was shot) Twitter and Reddit and the like are public platforms that belong to a private entity. So it's private property and the people who own it can curate or be selective if they choose. All that said, I'm no fan of "no-platforming", but it's not as prominent as you might think, at least on the public college level. I went to a college where random fire and brimstone preachers would stand in front of the library, bang on buckets and call women "whores" as they passed by. Nobody invited them, they just wanted an audience. And though I hated those guys, I understand their right to do that (with a permit) and to say whatever. Likewise, it was my right to laugh in his face, call him an asshole. Because he was being a jerk.