4 ms·

> The crux of free speech is this: do we trust people to judge the words and ideas of others for themselves, or do we not? This is a free-speech-centric view o

> The crux of free speech is this: do we trust people to judge the words and ideas of others for themselves, or do we not? This is a free-speech-centric view of the world, and my claim is that this is (at least) an insufficient, and (at most) the wrong perspective for shaping society. The correct and highest thing to optimize for is not the maximization of free speech, but the minimization of suffering.

lliamander 8y ago
Of course, such calculations of suffering are invariably nebulous and highly subjective. The question is, in your pursuit of the ideal society, will you allow the general population the dignity of their own rational minds? Or will you deny them even that? Every optimization problem has its boundary conditions. Do you know what yours are?
- sagichmal 8y ago
  > The question is, in your pursuit of the ideal society, will you allow the general population the dignity of their own rational minds? Or will you deny them even that? Stop generalizing and stop grandstanding. I'm not talking about denying human beings autonomy or freedom of mind. I'm talking about de-platforming agents of hate and intolerance. The distance between the latter and the former is the width of an ocean, not a three-foot slippery-slope, and we can (and are ethically obliged to) do things to stop the one without inevitably leading to the other.
  - lliamander 8y ago
    > The distance between the latter and the former is the width of an ocean, not a three-foot slippery-slope, and we can (and are ethically obliged to) do things to stop the one without inevitably leading to the other. And yet people who push for de-platforming fail to make the distinction on a regular basis. It's not so much a slippery slope as a motte-and-bailey.
vorpalhex 8y ago
> the wrong perspective for shaping society Who says I want your shape for my society? > The correct and highest thing to optimize for is not the maximization of free speech, but the minimization of suffering. Why should we minimize suffering? Should we get rid of all pointed knives and force the world to eat their steak with plastic cutlery? Then again, steak causes it's own suffering, maybe we should feed the world with baby food. What does it mean to suffer? Is losing a sparring match suffering? Is coming in last place in a race suffering? What about when someone calls me ugly or fat? What if someone really doesn't care for cats? Why do you have some special right to design my world? What if instead I got to design yours?
- sagichmal 8y ago
  > Who says I want your shape for my society? I don't care what you want. I think my shape for society is better than yours, objectively better, better in the ethical and practical sense, and every other sense besides. I'm laying out my reasoning for why it is I think that, and you can agree or you can disagree. We can both lay out our reasoning, and our conversation can be read by other people, and they can think about which version of society they'd prefer to live in, and they can work to make that idea a reality, too, if they like.
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    > I don't care what you want. I hope you have sufficient force to back up your desires then. The problem with any attempt at Utopia is that it becomes fascism, and fascism can only be maintained by force - which means suffering. Force is always met with force.
    - sagichmal 8y ago
      > I hope you have sufficient force to back up your desires I don't need force. I just need to present my worldview in a way that's compelling to the peanut gallery. If I do a good job, I can convince them, and with luck, some of them can begin advocating for the same, more-ethical worldview I'm hoping for. Together, we comprise society, and can shape society in our image.
RaleyField 8y ago
> my claim is that People don't care about your claims - you want to change fundamental parts of society for a view that perhaps isn't that well thought out. Until your claim is virtually everyone's then assume that many people that came before us with different views than yours on how to "shape societies" have though their things through and conceivably had defensible philosophical positions and benevolent motivations behind them. There's a reason why ACLU fought and fights its battles, sometimes defending deplorable groups like KKK, it's not because they above all else favor obscenities. > but the minimization of suffering. All parties everywhere have in some way claimed they are in favor of that. But you wouldn't want other parties, who clearly don't know how to "minimize suffering" properly, minimize your ability to proselytize on HN and elsewhere how to truly minimize suffering. So why should we let you minimize our ability to spread our views on that, as clearly we don't all agree that you know much about minimizing suffering?
- sagichmal 8y ago
  > you wouldn't want other parties . . . minimize your ability to proselytize on HN and elsewhere You are trying to conflate the words I've written here with antisemitism, by claiming they are both opinions. But this is reducto ad absurdum, both disingenuous and wrong. There is a clear difference between the two, an ocean of difference, which human beings are perfectly equipped to understand. It is possible to say "we don't tolerate antisemitism" and "we do tolerate pontificating about more just social contracts" concurrently. There is nothing impossible, or even difficult, about this.
  - RaleyField 8y ago
    > the words I've written Which words? I'm confident you misunderstood something. > both disingenuous Throughout this thread you've been very creative in pissing people off. Don't assume malice in other people's positions, it's uncouth. Here's an ingenuous question - god forbid saudis ever did something objectionable, would my perhaps justified complaints be filed under banned antiwahabbist speech? If we start bartering on speech I doubt there wouldn't be endless streams of money to minimize their suffering and indignation. > It is possible to say It's possible to say that for now. I doubt it will be for long after bartering starts. Just look at the current environment and parties that are on the rise, do you think they look like they would favor any pontification that go against them if they had any choice?

lliamander 8y ago

Of course, such calculations of suffering are invariably nebulous and highly subjective. The question is, in your pursuit of the ideal society, will you allow the general population the dignity of their own rational minds? Or will you deny them even that? Every optimization problem has its boundary conditions. Do you know what yours are?

sagichmal 8y ago
> The question is, in your pursuit of the ideal society, will you allow the general population the dignity of their own rational minds? Or will you deny them even that? Stop generalizing and stop grandstanding. I'm not talking about denying human beings autonomy or freedom of mind. I'm talking about de-platforming agents of hate and intolerance. The distance between the latter and the former is the width of an ocean, not a three-foot slippery-slope, and we can (and are ethically obliged to) do things to stop the one without inevitably leading to the other.
- lliamander 8y ago
  > The distance between the latter and the former is the width of an ocean, not a three-foot slippery-slope, and we can (and are ethically obliged to) do things to stop the one without inevitably leading to the other. And yet people who push for de-platforming fail to make the distinction on a regular basis. It's not so much a slippery slope as a motte-and-bailey.

vorpalhex 8y ago

> the wrong perspective for shaping society Who says I want your shape for my society? > The correct and highest thing to optimize for is not the maximization of free speech, but the minimization of suffering. Why should we minimize suffering? Should we get rid of all pointed knives and force the world to eat their steak with plastic cutlery? Then again, steak causes it's own suffering, maybe we should feed the world with baby food. What does it mean to suffer? Is losing a sparring match suffering? Is coming in last place in a race suffering? What about when someone calls me ugly or fat? What if someone really doesn't care for cats? Why do you have some special right to design my world? What if instead I got to design yours?

sagichmal 8y ago
> Who says I want your shape for my society? I don't care what you want. I think my shape for society is better than yours, objectively better, better in the ethical and practical sense, and every other sense besides. I'm laying out my reasoning for why it is I think that, and you can agree or you can disagree. We can both lay out our reasoning, and our conversation can be read by other people, and they can think about which version of society they'd prefer to live in, and they can work to make that idea a reality, too, if they like.
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  > I don't care what you want. I hope you have sufficient force to back up your desires then. The problem with any attempt at Utopia is that it becomes fascism, and fascism can only be maintained by force - which means suffering. Force is always met with force.
  - sagichmal 8y ago
    > I hope you have sufficient force to back up your desires I don't need force. I just need to present my worldview in a way that's compelling to the peanut gallery. If I do a good job, I can convince them, and with luck, some of them can begin advocating for the same, more-ethical worldview I'm hoping for. Together, we comprise society, and can shape society in our image.

RaleyField 8y ago

> my claim is that People don't care about your claims - you want to change fundamental parts of society for a view that perhaps isn't that well thought out. Until your claim is virtually everyone's then assume that many people that came before us with different views than yours on how to "shape societies" have though their things through and conceivably had defensible philosophical positions and benevolent motivations behind them. There's a reason why ACLU fought and fights its battles, sometimes defending deplorable groups like KKK, it's not because they above all else favor obscenities. > but the minimization of suffering. All parties everywhere have in some way claimed they are in favor of that. But you wouldn't want other parties, who clearly don't know how to "minimize suffering" properly, minimize your ability to proselytize on HN and elsewhere how to truly minimize suffering. So why should we let you minimize our ability to spread our views on that, as clearly we don't all agree that you know much about minimizing suffering?

sagichmal 8y ago
> you wouldn't want other parties . . . minimize your ability to proselytize on HN and elsewhere You are trying to conflate the words I've written here with antisemitism, by claiming they are both opinions. But this is reducto ad absurdum, both disingenuous and wrong. There is a clear difference between the two, an ocean of difference, which human beings are perfectly equipped to understand. It is possible to say "we don't tolerate antisemitism" and "we do tolerate pontificating about more just social contracts" concurrently. There is nothing impossible, or even difficult, about this.
- RaleyField 8y ago
  > the words I've written Which words? I'm confident you misunderstood something. > both disingenuous Throughout this thread you've been very creative in pissing people off. Don't assume malice in other people's positions, it's uncouth. Here's an ingenuous question - god forbid saudis ever did something objectionable, would my perhaps justified complaints be filed under banned antiwahabbist speech? If we start bartering on speech I doubt there wouldn't be endless streams of money to minimize their suffering and indignation. > It is possible to say It's possible to say that for now. I doubt it will be for long after bartering starts. Just look at the current environment and parties that are on the rise, do you think they look like they would favor any pontification that go against them if they had any choice?