4 ms·

> the words I've written Which words? I'm confident you misunderstood something. > both disingenuous Throughout this thread you've been very creative in piss

> 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?

sagichmal 8y ago
> Throughout this thread you've been very creative in pissing people off. I haven't pissed anyone off. I'm presenting and substantiating an ethical worldview based on the minimization of suffering, and deconstructing the unethical worldview based on the maximization of free speech. > Don't assume malice in other people's positions, it's uncouth. I'm not assuming anything about intent, I'm speaking directly to consequence. When you write > 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? you are equivocating "[my] ability to proselytize [a worldview based on minimizing suffering] on HN and elsewhere" to someone else's "ability to spread" antisemitism, which is obviously and transparently disingenuous.
- RaleyField 8y ago
  > I haven't pissed anyone off. You accused me of being disingenuous. I'm sure your radical views irritate other people as well. > minimization of suffering Now I'm starting to think you are trolling. Me and others have pointed out that this is a egregiously nebulous thing to say. People who say that they stand for minimization of suffering are also the same type of people who say they are for all the things that are good without ever elucidating what their idea of good is. Pol Pot probably said he was for minimization of suffering. > you are equivocating "[my] ability to proselytize [a worldview based on minimizing suffering] on HN and elsewhere" to someone else's "ability to spread" antisemitism, which is obviously and transparently disingenuous. It's hard to play mental forensics of what went through your mind. I'm not. I'm not saying there's equivalency, I think you misunderstood me because you are under impression that you can control or predict what people will decide is an acceptable speech. If you could control that then of course sign me up for no antisemitizem and all the proselytization. And to repeat, I merely stated that you probably don't trust us to be your moral authority and we reciprocally don't trust you to be moral authority for us. Furthermore, realization that we can't agree on any moral authority is reflected in free speech protections and democratic system itself. Again, unfortunate side-effect of free speech laws is that we let people speak obscenities just as it's unfortunate side-effect that we let murderers go if we can't prove their crime beyond reasonable doubt.
  - sagichmal 8y ago
    > you probably don't trust us to be your moral authority and we reciprocally don't trust you to be moral authority for us. Yep! That’s correct, and it’s also fine. I believe in my moral authority and I’m working to prostheletize it, and you can do the same, and whoever presents the more compelling case can shape society. Just because we disagree is no reason to declare the whole initiative unsolvable, or invalid. We should both keep advocating for the type of society we want. > your radical views The position I’m advocating is explicitly one of moderation: that free speech absolutism isn’t as appropriate a social creed as the much more subjective minimization of suffering. It is strictly less radical than the one it opposes.

sagichmal 8y ago

> Throughout this thread you've been very creative in pissing people off. I haven't pissed anyone off. I'm presenting and substantiating an ethical worldview based on the minimization of suffering, and deconstructing the unethical worldview based on the maximization of free speech. > Don't assume malice in other people's positions, it's uncouth. I'm not assuming anything about intent, I'm speaking directly to consequence. When you write > 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? you are equivocating "[my] ability to proselytize [a worldview based on minimizing suffering] on HN and elsewhere" to someone else's "ability to spread" antisemitism, which is obviously and transparently disingenuous.

RaleyField 8y ago
> I haven't pissed anyone off. You accused me of being disingenuous. I'm sure your radical views irritate other people as well. > minimization of suffering Now I'm starting to think you are trolling. Me and others have pointed out that this is a egregiously nebulous thing to say. People who say that they stand for minimization of suffering are also the same type of people who say they are for all the things that are good without ever elucidating what their idea of good is. Pol Pot probably said he was for minimization of suffering. > you are equivocating "[my] ability to proselytize [a worldview based on minimizing suffering] on HN and elsewhere" to someone else's "ability to spread" antisemitism, which is obviously and transparently disingenuous. It's hard to play mental forensics of what went through your mind. I'm not. I'm not saying there's equivalency, I think you misunderstood me because you are under impression that you can control or predict what people will decide is an acceptable speech. If you could control that then of course sign me up for no antisemitizem and all the proselytization. And to repeat, I merely stated that you probably don't trust us to be your moral authority and we reciprocally don't trust you to be moral authority for us. Furthermore, realization that we can't agree on any moral authority is reflected in free speech protections and democratic system itself. Again, unfortunate side-effect of free speech laws is that we let people speak obscenities just as it's unfortunate side-effect that we let murderers go if we can't prove their crime beyond reasonable doubt.
- sagichmal 8y ago
  > you probably don't trust us to be your moral authority and we reciprocally don't trust you to be moral authority for us. Yep! That’s correct, and it’s also fine. I believe in my moral authority and I’m working to prostheletize it, and you can do the same, and whoever presents the more compelling case can shape society. Just because we disagree is no reason to declare the whole initiative unsolvable, or invalid. We should both keep advocating for the type of society we want. > your radical views The position I’m advocating is explicitly one of moderation: that free speech absolutism isn’t as appropriate a social creed as the much more subjective minimization of suffering. It is strictly less radical than the one it opposes.