4 ms·

Yeah https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_...

s73v3r_ 8y ago
There's a huge difference between signing a letter arguing against capitulating to state censorship, and authoring a memo using junk science and taking studies way out of context to say that half your coworkers don't deserve to be there.
- apatters 8y ago
  "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Which is a quote that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the current situation. Nobody said anything about free speech.
    - apatters 8y ago
      The quote is a reply to your statement about what Damore said. You make a distinction between "good" speech and "bad" speech. The point of the quote is that you are not really pro-free speech unless you support the speech that you don't like. I disagree with just about everything you've said here, but I think you should be able to say it.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Sorry, but no. You're not arguing for free speech. You're arguing for speech without consequences, which basically means that Damore would have gotten free speech, but no one else would be able to choose to not associate or otherwise rebuke him because of it. And again, he was fired because he basically said that half of his coworkers do not deserve to be there. So those coworkers then used their free speech to say they no longer wish to work with him, and they would leave the company. Google decided that the contributions of those other people were worth more than the contributions of Damore, exercised their freedom of speech, and chose no longer to associate with him. At no point whatsoever was Damore silenced or censored. He simply had to live with the consequences of his actions.
        lainga 8y ago
        basically statements are the devil's playthings...
        apatters 8y ago
        The argument for free speech is fundamentally the same regardless of whether you dislike the speech in question, or many people dislike it. The argument is that it's better for society when those who disagree engage in dialogue instead of retaliation. So in that sense, yes, free speech is about being able to say what's on your mind without consequences. We're not just talking about rights here, we're talking about principles. You do indeed have the right to walk away, or deny someone access to your platform, if you disagree with them. But it's not the principled thing to do. It leads to radicalization, the collapse of consensus, and the death of the middle ground. These are the defining features of American politics today, increasingly volatile and partisan, because for so long so many people have faced consequences just for saying what's on their mind. Free speech is fundamentally about recognizing that you disagree with someone, but at the end of the day, they're still human, they're still a fellow citizen with hopes and dreams just like you, and we can all be stronger if we find common ground and work together. Here is Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which is an aspirational statement, not a legally binding treaty. Nevertheless it is considered one of the most important documents of the 20th century. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        And once again, you are putting the burden of reaching out on those who have been attacked. You are saying that those Damore said in his memo should be the ones to accept him, that those constantly attacked for committing the sin of not being a straight white male in this industry, have to not only bear the slings and arrows of that, but now have to be the ones to reach out. No. From now on, it is the Damores of the world that have to reach out. They have to prove that they are the ones trying, instead of using junk science to claim that half their coworkers don't belong there. You want to talk about principles? Then start by reaching out to those you put so much burden on.
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  A huge difference? How so? Both modern liberals of your stripe and the Chinese government want the same thing: only people who are "good guys" are permitted to freely express themselves. All that differs is who the two think "the good guys" are; the principle is exactly the same.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Wrong. You're arguing that only the Damores of the world can express themselves, and no one else is allowed to express themselves in reaction to that. You're arguing not for free speech, but speech that's free from consequences.
    - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
      > You're arguing not for free speech, but speech that's free from consequences Ah, I'm delighted to see that I'm getting somewhere. Yes, I am indeed arguing for free speech that's also free from consequences; one of the core values of classical liberalism that sprang from the Enlightenment. Freedom of speech doesn't mean much if actually exercising it invites repression and it does not matter in the slightest whether that repression comes from a government or from an outraged public. An analogy with Jeanette Rankin comes to mind, though not precisely a speech issue; she was the sole member of the US Congress to vote against entry into WWII after the Pearl Harbor attack because of her staunch pacifist convications. After the vote she was forced to take shelter inside a phone booth until police could escort her home. According to modern liberals, she should have faced the "consequences" (your word, not mine), no matter how horrific, since they weren't coming from the government. Note that I don't even agree with her action but, as the old quote goes "I (may) disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "Yes, I am indeed arguing for speech that's free from consequences" Which boils down to you arguing that no one else should have free speech. "According to modern liberals, she should have faced the "consequences" (your word, not mine), no matter how horrific, since they weren't coming from the government." When you imply that I am advocating violence like that, then you have proven that you are not discussing in good faith. You are not trying to have a discussion, you are just trying to be "right".

s73v3r_ 8y ago

There's a huge difference between signing a letter arguing against capitulating to state censorship, and authoring a memo using junk science and taking studies way out of context to say that half your coworkers don't deserve to be there.

apatters 8y ago
"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Which is a quote that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the current situation. Nobody said anything about free speech.
  - apatters 8y ago
    The quote is a reply to your statement about what Damore said. You make a distinction between "good" speech and "bad" speech. The point of the quote is that you are not really pro-free speech unless you support the speech that you don't like. I disagree with just about everything you've said here, but I think you should be able to say it.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Sorry, but no. You're not arguing for free speech. You're arguing for speech without consequences, which basically means that Damore would have gotten free speech, but no one else would be able to choose to not associate or otherwise rebuke him because of it. And again, he was fired because he basically said that half of his coworkers do not deserve to be there. So those coworkers then used their free speech to say they no longer wish to work with him, and they would leave the company. Google decided that the contributions of those other people were worth more than the contributions of Damore, exercised their freedom of speech, and chose no longer to associate with him. At no point whatsoever was Damore silenced or censored. He simply had to live with the consequences of his actions.
      - lainga 8y ago
        basically statements are the devil's playthings...
      - apatters 8y ago
        The argument for free speech is fundamentally the same regardless of whether you dislike the speech in question, or many people dislike it. The argument is that it's better for society when those who disagree engage in dialogue instead of retaliation. So in that sense, yes, free speech is about being able to say what's on your mind without consequences. We're not just talking about rights here, we're talking about principles. You do indeed have the right to walk away, or deny someone access to your platform, if you disagree with them. But it's not the principled thing to do. It leads to radicalization, the collapse of consensus, and the death of the middle ground. These are the defining features of American politics today, increasingly volatile and partisan, because for so long so many people have faced consequences just for saying what's on their mind. Free speech is fundamentally about recognizing that you disagree with someone, but at the end of the day, they're still human, they're still a fellow citizen with hopes and dreams just like you, and we can all be stronger if we find common ground and work together. Here is Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which is an aspirational statement, not a legally binding treaty. Nevertheless it is considered one of the most important documents of the 20th century. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        And once again, you are putting the burden of reaching out on those who have been attacked. You are saying that those Damore said in his memo should be the ones to accept him, that those constantly attacked for committing the sin of not being a straight white male in this industry, have to not only bear the slings and arrows of that, but now have to be the ones to reach out. No. From now on, it is the Damores of the world that have to reach out. They have to prove that they are the ones trying, instead of using junk science to claim that half their coworkers don't belong there. You want to talk about principles? Then start by reaching out to those you put so much burden on.
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
A huge difference? How so? Both modern liberals of your stripe and the Chinese government want the same thing: only people who are "good guys" are permitted to freely express themselves. All that differs is who the two think "the good guys" are; the principle is exactly the same.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Wrong. You're arguing that only the Damores of the world can express themselves, and no one else is allowed to express themselves in reaction to that. You're arguing not for free speech, but speech that's free from consequences.
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > You're arguing not for free speech, but speech that's free from consequences Ah, I'm delighted to see that I'm getting somewhere. Yes, I am indeed arguing for free speech that's also free from consequences; one of the core values of classical liberalism that sprang from the Enlightenment. Freedom of speech doesn't mean much if actually exercising it invites repression and it does not matter in the slightest whether that repression comes from a government or from an outraged public. An analogy with Jeanette Rankin comes to mind, though not precisely a speech issue; she was the sole member of the US Congress to vote against entry into WWII after the Pearl Harbor attack because of her staunch pacifist convications. After the vote she was forced to take shelter inside a phone booth until police could escort her home. According to modern liberals, she should have faced the "consequences" (your word, not mine), no matter how horrific, since they weren't coming from the government. Note that I don't even agree with her action but, as the old quote goes "I (may) disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "Yes, I am indeed arguing for speech that's free from consequences" Which boils down to you arguing that no one else should have free speech. "According to modern liberals, she should have faced the "consequences" (your word, not mine), no matter how horrific, since they weren't coming from the government." When you imply that I am advocating violence like that, then you have proven that you are not discussing in good faith. You are not trying to have a discussion, you are just trying to be "right".