5 ms·

No, you're being pointed out that you're wrong. That "more speech" doesn't help, and can actually get people killed.

ddingus 8y ago
I have no complaints about the discussion I can see. I have no desire to go through Karma on people who would just rather down vote because they don't like what they read. Personally, I almost never downvote, would much rather engage and have a chat about things. Most of the time that happens here, on this topic it's obviously not. And the whole thing is by no means definitive. I happen to have a very significant amount of experience with this. If the speech is Criminal, then it can get people killed, (among other non trivial harm) so apply the law. Secondly, apply the law where it needs to be applied. Using a bludgeon, where Precision Instruments are more effective, only makes a bigger mess than intended. There is a huge difference between, "fuck this guy we're done", and we're removing these because you're over the line. Even worse, what was done to Jones, is the bludgeon. And it was done without the precision, and consistent action needed to give the feedback necessary to justify and help people understand what just happened. There will be negative and severe implications from all of that. It may seem fine now, but some precedents were just set, lines crossed. I'm not sure people thought that all through. Some important trust was just lost. That stuff is different from speech that isn't Criminal, where the answer is more speech. It is also a matter of people learning to use all the tools they have, not just righteous indignation. I'm not wrong at all. However, I can tell the dominant mode here is some people think they can control other people. They also happen to think they know best for others, neither of which is true. At the same time, recognizing our own personal agency in conversation, and educating people about that, and all the good it can do, is being near completely ignored in this discussion. That's an error. And they are just going to have to learn the hard way. I'll Stand By and Watch. Wrote this on voice, sorry for the various spelling and other errors in this comment.
- throwaway-hn123 8y ago
  Bye!!!!
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  None of this is the slightest bit responsive to the point I made that some people;s response to losing an argument is to engage in violence. There's no law to enforce here, nobody suggested that Lane Davis should be arrested for the holding Nazi opinions. It's a simple observation that the solution to bad speech is not always more speech because people who are engaging in bad speech in bad faith often aren't interested in making progress through dialog. That's why online trolls often make arguments that are empty of meaning but cling to a posture of superiority - they are not interested in winning an objective argument, but in having the appearance of controlling the conversation, so that if the honest interlocutor gets exasperated by the trollish arguments, the troll claims victory. Provocateurs at real life demonstrations engage in the same tactics. Supporters of authoritarian rulers revel in the discomfiture of their political opponents rather than any objective improvement in their own conditions. Now, if you want to make general policy points and articulate your views that's fine, but if you're going to simply ignore your conversation partners and beat down straw man arguments of your own creation, why should anyone take your nostrums seriously?
  - ddingus 8y ago
    As a general policy, we could return basic critical thinking to primary education. Mine included First Amendment issues along with the following: Recognition of propaganda forms. Done in the context of ADS at first, then later political media. Agency in conversation. How to weigh words. Being called an ass by a clown, for example. The most common, basic response is righteous indignation. However, a better response is, "meh", or laughter to better identify the laughable. This was done in the context of ordinary conflict and media reported events. Bias. There is always bias in media. Objectivity is something expensive and it takes time and people working together to actualize. Is that bias honestly represented? Secondly, how does that bias color conclusions or advocacy present? This was done in the context of news media. Was it from labor point of view or business, other? (Economic) For social, similar questions were asked and material identified. Today, for example, few Americans realize there is almost no reporting from the labor point of view. There used to be. What jas changed? Reasoning, fallacies, etc... the basics like what one may find at critical thinking dot org sites today. My own kids did not get any of that. I provided it. Regulating speech based on ehat could happen, or blanket assumptions about people being feeble, or some other condition will not end well. I will leave it there.

I have no complaints about the discussion I can see. I have no desire to go through Karma on people who would just rather down vote because they don't like what they read. Personally, I almost never downvote, would much rather engage and have a chat about things. Most of the time that happens here, on this topic it's obviously not. And the whole thing is by no means definitive. I happen to have a very significant amount of experience with this. If the speech is Criminal, then it can get people killed, (among other non trivial harm) so apply the law. Secondly, apply the law where it needs to be applied. Using a bludgeon, where Precision Instruments are more effective, only makes a bigger mess than intended. There is a huge difference between, "fuck this guy we're done", and we're removing these because you're over the line. Even worse, what was done to Jones, is the bludgeon. And it was done without the precision, and consistent action needed to give the feedback necessary to justify and help people understand what just happened. There will be negative and severe implications from all of that. It may seem fine now, but some precedents were just set, lines crossed. I'm not sure people thought that all through. Some important trust was just lost. That stuff is different from speech that isn't Criminal, where the answer is more speech. It is also a matter of people learning to use all the tools they have, not just righteous indignation. I'm not wrong at all. However, I can tell the dominant mode here is some people think they can control other people. They also happen to think they know best for others, neither of which is true. At the same time, recognizing our own personal agency in conversation, and educating people about that, and all the good it can do, is being near completely ignored in this discussion. That's an error. And they are just going to have to learn the hard way. I'll Stand By and Watch. Wrote this on voice, sorry for the various spelling and other errors in this comment.

throwaway-hn123 8y ago
Bye!!!!
anigbrowl 8y ago
None of this is the slightest bit responsive to the point I made that some people;s response to losing an argument is to engage in violence. There's no law to enforce here, nobody suggested that Lane Davis should be arrested for the holding Nazi opinions. It's a simple observation that the solution to bad speech is not always more speech because people who are engaging in bad speech in bad faith often aren't interested in making progress through dialog. That's why online trolls often make arguments that are empty of meaning but cling to a posture of superiority - they are not interested in winning an objective argument, but in having the appearance of controlling the conversation, so that if the honest interlocutor gets exasperated by the trollish arguments, the troll claims victory. Provocateurs at real life demonstrations engage in the same tactics. Supporters of authoritarian rulers revel in the discomfiture of their political opponents rather than any objective improvement in their own conditions. Now, if you want to make general policy points and articulate your views that's fine, but if you're going to simply ignore your conversation partners and beat down straw man arguments of your own creation, why should anyone take your nostrums seriously?
- ddingus 8y ago
  As a general policy, we could return basic critical thinking to primary education. Mine included First Amendment issues along with the following: Recognition of propaganda forms. Done in the context of ADS at first, then later political media. Agency in conversation. How to weigh words. Being called an ass by a clown, for example. The most common, basic response is righteous indignation. However, a better response is, "meh", or laughter to better identify the laughable. This was done in the context of ordinary conflict and media reported events. Bias. There is always bias in media. Objectivity is something expensive and it takes time and people working together to actualize. Is that bias honestly represented? Secondly, how does that bias color conclusions or advocacy present? This was done in the context of news media. Was it from labor point of view or business, other? (Economic) For social, similar questions were asked and material identified. Today, for example, few Americans realize there is almost no reporting from the labor point of view. There used to be. What jas changed? Reasoning, fallacies, etc... the basics like what one may find at critical thinking dot org sites today. My own kids did not get any of that. I provided it. Regulating speech based on ehat could happen, or blanket assumptions about people being feeble, or some other condition will not end well. I will leave it there.