3 ms·
Nobody has lost their first amendment rights That's just what Universities say when they create protest zones where no one can see the protest. That's what Uni
by stcredzero 8y ago
Nobody has lost their first amendment rights
That's just what Universities say when they create protest zones where no one can see the protest. That's what Universities say when they slap outrageous fees and fines on groups who invite speakers they don't like. Technically, they're correct, but in the spirit of the law, suppressing speech is what they are seeking to do.
the person you're replying to hasn't made such an argument at all
The person I'm replying to is advocating for the practical loss of free speech, while it's not technically a violation of the law. I'm merely pointing out that sneaky indirection.
- pvg 8y agoYou are free to make whatever argument you want - what you can't do is deliberately misrepresent the other person's argument, which is what you are doing. HN even has a weird rule about that involving quotation marks. There's no 'technically' about this, you're doing it, it's bad and you shouldn't.
- stcredzero 8y agoI'm not misrepresenting the other's argument at all. I'm clarifying it.
- pvg 8y agoNo you aren't. You don't get to decide what the other person's argument is and then rail against that. It's a pretty fundamental rule of reasonably civil discourse. I'm sure you've seen dang berate people about this but in case you haven't: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20quotation&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20quotation&sort=b...
- stcredzero 8y agoI'm pretty clear about what is the other person's idea, and what other ideas that idea is parallel to. In that case, I'm not misstating the other person's argument. I'm clarifying the idea's implications.
- pvg 8y agoWell, you were, quite blatantly, but you've now edited the comment to not do that - thanks. It seems we're in agreement on the important bit.
- stcredzero 8y agoWell, you were, quite blatantly No, you were quite blatantly misreading my argument and making your argument hypocritically. but you've now edited the comment to not do that - thanks. No, it never did that. I just clarified. It seems we're in agreement on the important bit. Effectively, you are admitting you have no counter-argument, other than your willful misreading of what I was saying all along.
- pvg 8y agoYou edited the comment. If the end result is a less poopy comment, I'm fine with that.
- stcredzero 8y agoNo, you were hypocritically pushing a narrative that I meant something entirely different than what I was saying, and I took that opportunity away from you. I'm saying the same thing I always was.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago> The person I'm replying to is advocating for the practical loss of free speech No, I'm arguing that your free speech rights do not give you the right to compel me to repeat your speech for you, and that the idea that they do negates my free speech rights.
- stcredzero 8y agoNo, I'm arguing that your free speech rights do not give you the right to compel me to repeat your speech for you, and that the idea that they do negates my free speech rights. No one in 2018 really thinks that someone having a YouTube channel means that YouTube means to say or approve everything said on that channel. That's only pretended by people whose aim is just to silence those they disagree with. I should think that the small fraction of a percent of people who'd genuinely have that sort of idea is far outweighed by the impact on hundreds of millions of people who feel their voices are squelched in part or whole by YouTube's so-called "free speech" decision to silence opinions they don't like.