5 ms·

If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people, you're supporting violating the victim's rights. One of these has a real

by jachee 8y ago

If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people, you're supporting violating the victim's rights. One of these has a real social cost, and the other is just literal lip-service.

mitchty 8y ago
> If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people, you're supporting violating the victim's rights. Can you diagram how you arrived at this travesty of a logical leap? You're mixing in at least 5 suppositions completely outside of the stated parents post. Ignoring the other foundations coming alongside by implication.
- jachee 8y ago
  Let me simplify further, in the face of your ad hominem: If you're not actively trying to make the world a better place for everyone, you're passively making it worse for everyone.
  - mitchty 8y ago
    > Let me simplify further, in the face of your ad hominem: Sorry? I attacked your phrasing and logic, not YOU. Its like you're wanting to get angry at nothing. I'm done here if you don't want to act civilized.
    - jachee 8y ago
      Okay, I clearly got a bit too passionate. Let me try and clarify, civilly: Hate speech is always an attack. Whether it's overt (Westboro, the N-word, Swastikas, homophobic slurs, etc.) or more subtle ("the 14 words", "88", etc). Supporting the "right" of someone to use hate speech is supporting their right to attack (and thus violate the rights of) others. Whereas, by preventing those attacks, nothing of value is lost, and real harm is prevented.
      - yourbandsucks 8y ago
        Absolutism is also dangerous. You're dividing the world into 'good' and 'bad' and giving no quarter to the bad. That can go sideways. You think any of the monsters of history thought they were the bad guys?
        jachee 8y ago
        Thus, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.[0] [0]https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6492090-the-open-society-and-its-enemies https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6492090-the-open-socie...
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - Kapow 8y ago
        By these rules, you just committed an attack and violated the rights of others by saying "88". If you were banned to prevent this attack, nothing of value would be lost. Oh, "but I wasn't SAYING it" you say? Who judges whether hate speech is excused by context? Facebook interns? AI algorithms? Sorry, the algorithm has pronounced you guilty, you are now banned. That is the world you would create.
        jachee 8y ago
        Okay, nevermind then. Nothing to be done. Thinking about this is too hard! Let's just throw in the towel folks!
        orthecreedence 8y ago
        Or maybe social media companies get rid of any kind of algorithmic selection. Feeds are completely ordered by date. You can follow/unfollow people who you like or dislike. If you don't want to be offended by jackasses, don't go on the public feeds. That said, you've shot down a lot of people's arguments but I haven't seen you promote a sensible alternative. Given your personal belief framework and given the first amendment, what do you see as a solution to this problem?
archerface 8y ago
> If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people... Did that person's comment say that they support those things? Weird, I didn't read that... When it comes down to the fundamental rights of an individual you can't pick and choose when something is an unalienable right and when it is not. We can either have free speech (warts and all) or we can live in a world that dictates what a person can and cannot say (a world I want nothing to do with). Back to the previous point, I support someone's right to say something, not what they say. I think white supremacists are morons who sadly misunderstand there position in the world. I support their right to SAY what they want, but I don't support the contents of their speech. The discussion around free speech requires nuance; none of it is even remotely close to as black and white as you paint it.
- blueboo 8y ago
  But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. And if stoking panic in the easily-panicked is something you ARE okay with forbidding, why is it then ok to stoke hatred in the easily-manipulable? I guess that wart makes this a world you want nothing to do with, because of slope's slipperiness...
  - archerface 8y ago
    I honestly would have to read up more on the arguments for the restrictions that are currently in place. A problem with this whole discussion is that no one has the same definition of "hate speech"; it is too subjective of a term. We all (the majority) agree when it is wrong to declare imminent danger. But like I said, I need to read up more on the rationale for those restrictions.
  - pnw_hazor 8y ago
    No law or censor is stopping anyone from yelling fire. Censorship is prior restraint. Stopping speech before it is utterred, read, or heard because reasons.
  - velosol 8y ago
    Of course you can yell fire in a crowded theater. Perhaps you smelled smoke from the popcorn machine (or were having a stroke) and everyone would get up pretty calmly and leave the theater (or tell you to shut up and watch the movie/play). If someone twisted their ankle or even managed to get trampled to death few lawyers would even consider a case against you. Now, if you had clear intent to cause injury, blocked exits to ensure harm, and started the fire you'd be up on several charges related to fire safety codes & arson laws long before you had a prior restraint on speech claim (i.e. 1st amendment). The original Supreme Court case (Schenck v. US [1]) from which the rhetorical flourish about fires and theaters came [2] has been pretty much abandoned in favor of later rulings like Brandenburg v. Ohio [3]. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47 [2]: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... [3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 One more interesting read on this topic: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-explainer-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-expl...

by jachee 8y ago

mitchty 8y ago

> If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people, you're supporting violating the victim's rights. Can you diagram how you arrived at this travesty of a logical leap? You're mixing in at least 5 suppositions completely outside of the stated parents post. Ignoring the other foundations coming alongside by implication.

jachee 8y ago
Let me simplify further, in the face of your ad hominem: If you're not actively trying to make the world a better place for everyone, you're passively making it worse for everyone.
- mitchty 8y ago
  > Let me simplify further, in the face of your ad hominem: Sorry? I attacked your phrasing and logic, not YOU. Its like you're wanting to get angry at nothing. I'm done here if you don't want to act civilized.
  - jachee 8y ago
    Okay, I clearly got a bit too passionate. Let me try and clarify, civilly: Hate speech is always an attack. Whether it's overt (Westboro, the N-word, Swastikas, homophobic slurs, etc.) or more subtle ("the 14 words", "88", etc). Supporting the "right" of someone to use hate speech is supporting their right to attack (and thus violate the rights of) others. Whereas, by preventing those attacks, nothing of value is lost, and real harm is prevented.
    - yourbandsucks 8y ago
      Absolutism is also dangerous. You're dividing the world into 'good' and 'bad' and giving no quarter to the bad. That can go sideways. You think any of the monsters of history thought they were the bad guys?
      - jachee 8y ago
        Thus, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.[0] [0]https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6492090-the-open-society-and-its-enemies https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6492090-the-open-socie...
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - Kapow 8y ago
      By these rules, you just committed an attack and violated the rights of others by saying "88". If you were banned to prevent this attack, nothing of value would be lost. Oh, "but I wasn't SAYING it" you say? Who judges whether hate speech is excused by context? Facebook interns? AI algorithms? Sorry, the algorithm has pronounced you guilty, you are now banned. That is the world you would create.
      - jachee 8y ago
        Okay, nevermind then. Nothing to be done. Thinking about this is too hard! Let's just throw in the towel folks!
        orthecreedence 8y ago
        Or maybe social media companies get rid of any kind of algorithmic selection. Feeds are completely ordered by date. You can follow/unfollow people who you like or dislike. If you don't want to be offended by jackasses, don't go on the public feeds. That said, you've shot down a lot of people's arguments but I haven't seen you promote a sensible alternative. Given your personal belief framework and given the first amendment, what do you see as a solution to this problem?

archerface 8y ago

> If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people... Did that person's comment say that they support those things? Weird, I didn't read that... When it comes down to the fundamental rights of an individual you can't pick and choose when something is an unalienable right and when it is not. We can either have free speech (warts and all) or we can live in a world that dictates what a person can and cannot say (a world I want nothing to do with). Back to the previous point, I support someone's right to say something, not what they say. I think white supremacists are morons who sadly misunderstand there position in the world. I support their right to SAY what they want, but I don't support the contents of their speech. The discussion around free speech requires nuance; none of it is even remotely close to as black and white as you paint it.

blueboo 8y ago
But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. And if stoking panic in the easily-panicked is something you ARE okay with forbidding, why is it then ok to stoke hatred in the easily-manipulable? I guess that wart makes this a world you want nothing to do with, because of slope's slipperiness...
- archerface 8y ago
  I honestly would have to read up more on the arguments for the restrictions that are currently in place. A problem with this whole discussion is that no one has the same definition of "hate speech"; it is too subjective of a term. We all (the majority) agree when it is wrong to declare imminent danger. But like I said, I need to read up more on the rationale for those restrictions.
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  No law or censor is stopping anyone from yelling fire. Censorship is prior restraint. Stopping speech before it is utterred, read, or heard because reasons.
- velosol 8y ago
  Of course you can yell fire in a crowded theater. Perhaps you smelled smoke from the popcorn machine (or were having a stroke) and everyone would get up pretty calmly and leave the theater (or tell you to shut up and watch the movie/play). If someone twisted their ankle or even managed to get trampled to death few lawyers would even consider a case against you. Now, if you had clear intent to cause injury, blocked exits to ensure harm, and started the fire you'd be up on several charges related to fire safety codes & arson laws long before you had a prior restraint on speech claim (i.e. 1st amendment). The original Supreme Court case (Schenck v. US [1]) from which the rhetorical flourish about fires and theaters came [2] has been pretty much abandoned in favor of later rulings like Brandenburg v. Ohio [3]. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47 [2]: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... [3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 One more interesting read on this topic: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-explainer-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-expl...