4 ms·

Enable "showdead" in your profile and you will see that anything that moves beyond the left is promptly flagged and, sometimes, the account gets banned for "sta

by haha99 8y ago

Enable "showdead" in your profile and you will see that anything that moves beyond the left is promptly flagged and, sometimes, the account gets banned for "starting flames".

dang 8y ago
That's quite untrue. Anyone who looks through the moderation comments sctb and I post can see that we ban accounts that break HN's rules regardless of ideology. And you can read this very thread (or many others) to see plenty of comments which "move beyond the left", whatever that means, which are neither flagged nor banned.
JBReefer 8y ago
But absolute freedom of speech IS A LEFT WING OPINION! Is no one here old enough to remember the fight over pornography or offensive language in art/music/movies? That was the right trying to shut down speech they disagreed with via corporate power! These people are _not_ liberals, they're something else that's new and terrifying
- topspin 8y ago
  "But absolute freedom of speech IS A LEFT WING OPINION" That only holds if you're willing to perform enough mental gymnastics to somehow transmogrify the gulags, mass graves, firing squads and famines that the USSR, Mao Zedong, Cuba, Pol Pot, etc. employed to deal with dissenters into features of right wing governance. Or just pretend these things don't count...
  - BadassFractal 8y ago
    One could argue they were "punching a nazi" of their time. The establishment of a dictatorship of the working class was a mission for which no human sacrifice was too great. Obviously we're nowhere near that in modern US, BUT the hints of "violence in exchange for a dissenting opinion" and "what I don't agree with is Nazism" are unpleasant to say the least.
    - happytoexplain 8y ago
      >the hints of "violence in exchange for a dissenting opinion" I couldn't agree more. I've seen both actual violence and extreme glorification of violence against people of the opposite political affiliation more and more over the past couple years. Many people seem to dismiss the calls to violence as "trolls", which is actually probably true, but I have to wonder if there is much of a difference between a troll who calls for violence and loves to see people get attacked at rallies, and a person who would actually be happy about these things if they became worse than they are now. I feel like there used to be a solid distinction, but I'm not sure any longer that there's really a hard line between all "trolls" and people who would actually enact these things, given the power (and given no significant threat to themselves, of course).
      - BadassFractal 8y ago
        In addition to the violence aspect, there's also total power asymmetry in bigoteering. Calling someone a Nazi, a white supremacist, a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, a xenophobe, a misogynist, a transphobe, a cultural appropriator, whatever other trendy moral shortcoming du jour, with no need for supporting evidence whatsoever, has no downside to the accuser. Accuse away. You're doing a service to society. The entirety of the burden is always on the accused.
    - topspin 8y ago
      > One could argue they were "punching a nazi" of their time. One could. One would have to forego any claim to "absolute freedom of speech," however.
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  I think you've convinced yourself of something horrific for reasons that I'm not seeing from what you're writing. "Absolute freedom of speech" is a satisfying way to describe a righteous movement like the one you mentioned, but it's not a real thing. Nobody is for "absolute" anything, though they may shout as much from a podium. I think it would not at all be a contradiction if many of the same people who fought against censorship of "offensive" material in the arts would opt not to fight for the right to incite direct violence. On the other hand, would they be against whatever it is these employees are upset about? Possibly - the details are fuzzy - but if it's general political workplace hostility, then that seems to happen just as much in conservative workplaces, where I've personally seen people express a shocking degree of public hatred for other people based on the perceived liberal nature of their opinions, to the point of destroying working relationships. The things that scare ME are: A. Some people seem to be practically unable to engage with dissenting opinions without claiming to have been "shouted down". B. There seems to be less disagreement about the how to achieve what's right (i.e. we both agree on what's right, but disagree on how to get there), which can realistically be argued about in good faith, and more disagreement about what's right in the first place (e.g. person X thinks gay marriage, abortion, etc should be legally prohibited, and person Y does not), about which good-faith arguments are vanishingly rare for perhaps unavoidable reasons.
- taneq 8y ago
  "The left" became "the progressive left" which became "progressives". The actual liberal left still believes in freedom of speech, the public perception of it has just been co-opted by militants with a different social agenda (conformity to progressive values, rather than liberal values).
BadassFractal 8y ago
Yep, at this point I, and I imagine many others, have experienced first-hand that HN is not the right place to be having this sort of discussions. There's a certain orthodox Overton window to the conversation here, and stepping outside of it is often punished with flagging. Ultimately I don't care, I don't have a horse in the race of keeping HN a safe, civilized, good-faith neutral space for conversation. It just means this sort of dialogue has to be moved elsewhere. I'm happy to talk purely tech, but politics seeps into everything these days, so it's hard to avoid.

by haha99 8y ago

Enable "showdead" in your profile and you will see that anything that moves beyond the left is promptly flagged and, sometimes, the account gets banned for "starting flames".

dang 8y ago

That's quite untrue. Anyone who looks through the moderation comments sctb and I post can see that we ban accounts that break HN's rules regardless of ideology. And you can read this very thread (or many others) to see plenty of comments which "move beyond the left", whatever that means, which are neither flagged nor banned.

JBReefer 8y ago

But absolute freedom of speech IS A LEFT WING OPINION! Is no one here old enough to remember the fight over pornography or offensive language in art/music/movies? That was the right trying to shut down speech they disagreed with via corporate power! These people are _not_ liberals, they're something else that's new and terrifying

topspin 8y ago
"But absolute freedom of speech IS A LEFT WING OPINION" That only holds if you're willing to perform enough mental gymnastics to somehow transmogrify the gulags, mass graves, firing squads and famines that the USSR, Mao Zedong, Cuba, Pol Pot, etc. employed to deal with dissenters into features of right wing governance. Or just pretend these things don't count...
- BadassFractal 8y ago
  One could argue they were "punching a nazi" of their time. The establishment of a dictatorship of the working class was a mission for which no human sacrifice was too great. Obviously we're nowhere near that in modern US, BUT the hints of "violence in exchange for a dissenting opinion" and "what I don't agree with is Nazism" are unpleasant to say the least.
  - happytoexplain 8y ago
    >the hints of "violence in exchange for a dissenting opinion" I couldn't agree more. I've seen both actual violence and extreme glorification of violence against people of the opposite political affiliation more and more over the past couple years. Many people seem to dismiss the calls to violence as "trolls", which is actually probably true, but I have to wonder if there is much of a difference between a troll who calls for violence and loves to see people get attacked at rallies, and a person who would actually be happy about these things if they became worse than they are now. I feel like there used to be a solid distinction, but I'm not sure any longer that there's really a hard line between all "trolls" and people who would actually enact these things, given the power (and given no significant threat to themselves, of course).
    - BadassFractal 8y ago
      In addition to the violence aspect, there's also total power asymmetry in bigoteering. Calling someone a Nazi, a white supremacist, a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, a xenophobe, a misogynist, a transphobe, a cultural appropriator, whatever other trendy moral shortcoming du jour, with no need for supporting evidence whatsoever, has no downside to the accuser. Accuse away. You're doing a service to society. The entirety of the burden is always on the accused.
  - topspin 8y ago
    > One could argue they were "punching a nazi" of their time. One could. One would have to forego any claim to "absolute freedom of speech," however.
happytoexplain 8y ago
I think you've convinced yourself of something horrific for reasons that I'm not seeing from what you're writing. "Absolute freedom of speech" is a satisfying way to describe a righteous movement like the one you mentioned, but it's not a real thing. Nobody is for "absolute" anything, though they may shout as much from a podium. I think it would not at all be a contradiction if many of the same people who fought against censorship of "offensive" material in the arts would opt not to fight for the right to incite direct violence. On the other hand, would they be against whatever it is these employees are upset about? Possibly - the details are fuzzy - but if it's general political workplace hostility, then that seems to happen just as much in conservative workplaces, where I've personally seen people express a shocking degree of public hatred for other people based on the perceived liberal nature of their opinions, to the point of destroying working relationships. The things that scare ME are: A. Some people seem to be practically unable to engage with dissenting opinions without claiming to have been "shouted down". B. There seems to be less disagreement about the how to achieve what's right (i.e. we both agree on what's right, but disagree on how to get there), which can realistically be argued about in good faith, and more disagreement about what's right in the first place (e.g. person X thinks gay marriage, abortion, etc should be legally prohibited, and person Y does not), about which good-faith arguments are vanishingly rare for perhaps unavoidable reasons.
taneq 8y ago
"The left" became "the progressive left" which became "progressives". The actual liberal left still believes in freedom of speech, the public perception of it has just been co-opted by militants with a different social agenda (conformity to progressive values, rather than liberal values).

BadassFractal 8y ago

Yep, at this point I, and I imagine many others, have experienced first-hand that HN is not the right place to be having this sort of discussions. There's a certain orthodox Overton window to the conversation here, and stepping outside of it is often punished with flagging. Ultimately I don't care, I don't have a horse in the race of keeping HN a safe, civilized, good-faith neutral space for conversation. It just means this sort of dialogue has to be moved elsewhere. I'm happy to talk purely tech, but politics seeps into everything these days, so it's hard to avoid.