6 ms·

It's so satisfying a read. That's the great paradox of free speech I think. Somehow by reading this, I am more inclined to endorse the excesses of American exce

by dosy 7y ago

It's so satisfying a read. That's the great paradox of free speech I think. Somehow by reading this, I am more inclined to endorse the excesses of American exceptionalism than wholeheartedly criticism them. Even if it's all hogwash, the mere sight of this lavish helping of self-directed criticism more than enamors me to their cause, whatever it may be. Free speech may just be a more effective social control mechanism than democracy.

ma2rten 7y ago
I am more inclined to endorse the excesses of American exceptionalism The US is not only not exceptional in this regard, it's not even the freest country in terms of press: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_a...
- dosy 7y ago
  I never said "appetite for self-criticism" equaled free and even handed. In fact, I think it is opposite.
- haskellandchill 7y ago
  How can you take that seriously? It has UK above US.
  - alehul 7y ago
    The above comment is being downvoted, but the UK actually arrests people for offensive speech. 625 arrests in 2010, for instance. [0] I'd note the caveat that "aggressive" speech is included, but it also is simply meant to cover offensive speech. Maybe someone from the UK can chime in on whether section 127 is used for actual crime-inciting speech, or whether it's handled under a separate law. Edit: And this is being silently downvoted, too... [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...
    - jon-wood 7y ago
      Subsection 4 is probably most relevant to this discussion, which I believe is effectively a press exemption: “Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service”
      - alehul 7y ago
        So there are freedoms of speech that are limited to the press? A collection of individuals in a corporation has more rights to speech than an individual alone? Thank you for making that distinction, and based on the interpretation of "a programme service" you may well be correct. I wonder whether this brings up a separate issue, as the post I responded to was rather rightly questioning how you can have limited rights to free speech and supposedly have a free press. If that is indeed a compatible notion, it seems worrying in a different way.
  - emj 7y ago
    You do not need to be offensive and hatefull to make a point. This might not be the US way, but it does work.
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      That they can't decide what you "need" is the point of free speech.
      - asveikau 7y ago
        I agree, but I actually think your phrasing hints at perhaps missing the point. I came to an interesting conclusion about individual rights recently. You are not granted them because You are a specific You, and You are that awesome. Rather, it is someone else who is denied denying you rights, not because they would make the wrong call in your specific case, but because in aggregate, any authority making such calls would make a certain number of mistakes. This is completely separate from that authority being right or wrong, or the individual granted rights being right or wrong. People get upset and offended about "being told what they need", they think an abridgement of rights is a personal affront to them and their ego, but I don't think it's actually about any of that. It's more a recognition that any body set up to decide will sometimes (not even always, or most of the time, but sometimes) be wrong. Not personal, but meaningful in aggregate. Apologies if you already recognize this argument. I feel like US political discussions tend to have other subtexts around these issues, which set me on a bit of a tangent.
        Nasrudith 7y ago
        The point of rights is they belong to individuals. It /is/ a personal affront but it isn't of ego but territoriality and justly so - denial of them is a violence delivered upon them. There may be limits in practicality in ability to claim them but it doesn't make it less of an affront any more than inability to escape a life of literal slavery is okay because the slave is physically incapable of breaking their chains and killing every last master and overseer.
        7y ago
  - zknz 7y ago
    Press freedom index methodology: The report is partly based on a questionnaire[3] which asks questions about pluralism, media independence, environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and infrastructure. The questionnaire takes account of the legal framework for the media (including penalties for press offences, the existence of a state monopoly for certain kinds of media and how the media are regulated) and the level of independence of the public media. --Presumably the evaluation 'downvotes' the independence and self-censorship of US media?
lucideer 7y ago
I'm sorry what? If ever there were a glaring example of the blind extremes of American exceptionalism this comment is it. Exactly which countries are you comparing the US to that would not tolerate similar "lavish helpings of self-directed criticism"?
- dosy 7y ago
  No, you're okay, you just didn't get it the first time, I'm fine with that. I never said 'tolerate', and I think it's more promotion that tolerance being the plan. The Americans have really become experts at strategic self-criticism. I remember learning about Italian Commedia dell'arte and how the satire of power was a cathartic mechanism of control, yielding an outlet for pent up feelings, and assisting in the maintenance of the status quo by directing the desire for change to the outlet, rather than to actual change. Could be related, just saying.
  - umadon 7y ago
    This is exactly it. These articles offer an ultimately vacant catharsis in place of change. Afterwards, the type of people who read the New Yorker can go about their business, feeling full of rectitude and seriousness and even, perversely, a kind of pride in their country.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnchristopher 7y ago
      So, offline outrage culture ?
  - mijamo 7y ago
    I still don't get your point. Many countries have good investigation press and LOTS of criticism towards their government and policies. How is the US any special in that regard?
    - 7y ago
xkcd-sucks 7y ago
>A job posting depicts life as an intelligence officer in Guantánamo Bay as “a rewarding challenge with incredible surroundings”—sunsets, beaches, iguanas, pristine Caribbean blue. “After a hustled day of tackling a myriad of issues and directly contributing to the global war on terrorism,” it reads, “fun awaits.” Officers could partake in pottery classes, paintball, rugby, tennis, and softball, or exercise in several pools and gyms. The local dive shop offered gear and certifications for sailing, water-skiing, snorkelling, scuba diving, and more: “No experience, no problem. . . . Relaxing is easy.” >In practice, many military-police officers killed time by watching movies and getting drunk at the Tiki Bar; they also took flights to Afghanistan, to pick up more detainees.
Gpetrium 7y ago
Are you implying that the world is better off having global powers that have free speech and self-directed criticism which is why you look to endorse American exceptionalism?
dmurray 7y ago
As Frankie Boyle put it, > Not only will America go into your country and kill all your people, they'll come back twenty years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.
Synaesthesia 7y ago
The torture is quite unnecessary and not enough people know about it. It’s obvious they torture prisoners there, why else keep it so secret? We do need democracy, informed democracy. The people need to be able to tell their government not to do things like this.
standardUser 7y ago
"Free speech may just be a more effective social control mechanism than democracy." There is no evidence that those two concepts can be mutually exclusive. But a lot of evidence to the contrary.
lucas_membrane 7y ago
>> excesses of American exceptionalism Who does the labor to maintain and sustain Guantanamo? Not Americans, foreign contract labor working below American minimum wage. They may stay there for 3 years to try to save $300 to go back home and start a business or for much longer to earn an American green card. Somehow, their subservient role often translates into providing undocumented personal services for their American bosses. With the American interrogators living a class-privileged life, the base is what America itself is becoming, an experiment to observe the grievously absurd manifestations of an irrational social structure.
- omarchowdhury 7y ago
  > Who does the labor to maintain and sustain Guantanamo? Not Americans, foreign contract labor working below American minimum wage. And yet, the article cites it costs $10M per year to keep one detainee at Guantanamo. Where's all that money going?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by dosy 7y ago

ma2rten 7y ago

I am more inclined to endorse the excesses of American exceptionalism The US is not only not exceptional in this regard, it's not even the freest country in terms of press: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_a...

dosy 7y ago
I never said "appetite for self-criticism" equaled free and even handed. In fact, I think it is opposite.
haskellandchill 7y ago
How can you take that seriously? It has UK above US.
- alehul 7y ago
  The above comment is being downvoted, but the UK actually arrests people for offensive speech. 625 arrests in 2010, for instance. [0] I'd note the caveat that "aggressive" speech is included, but it also is simply meant to cover offensive speech. Maybe someone from the UK can chime in on whether section 127 is used for actual crime-inciting speech, or whether it's handled under a separate law. Edit: And this is being silently downvoted, too... [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...
  - jon-wood 7y ago
    Subsection 4 is probably most relevant to this discussion, which I believe is effectively a press exemption: “Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service”
    - alehul 7y ago
      So there are freedoms of speech that are limited to the press? A collection of individuals in a corporation has more rights to speech than an individual alone? Thank you for making that distinction, and based on the interpretation of "a programme service" you may well be correct. I wonder whether this brings up a separate issue, as the post I responded to was rather rightly questioning how you can have limited rights to free speech and supposedly have a free press. If that is indeed a compatible notion, it seems worrying in a different way.
- emj 7y ago
  You do not need to be offensive and hatefull to make a point. This might not be the US way, but it does work.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    That they can't decide what you "need" is the point of free speech.
    - asveikau 7y ago
      I agree, but I actually think your phrasing hints at perhaps missing the point. I came to an interesting conclusion about individual rights recently. You are not granted them because You are a specific You, and You are that awesome. Rather, it is someone else who is denied denying you rights, not because they would make the wrong call in your specific case, but because in aggregate, any authority making such calls would make a certain number of mistakes. This is completely separate from that authority being right or wrong, or the individual granted rights being right or wrong. People get upset and offended about "being told what they need", they think an abridgement of rights is a personal affront to them and their ego, but I don't think it's actually about any of that. It's more a recognition that any body set up to decide will sometimes (not even always, or most of the time, but sometimes) be wrong. Not personal, but meaningful in aggregate. Apologies if you already recognize this argument. I feel like US political discussions tend to have other subtexts around these issues, which set me on a bit of a tangent.
      - Nasrudith 7y ago
        The point of rights is they belong to individuals. It /is/ a personal affront but it isn't of ego but territoriality and justly so - denial of them is a violence delivered upon them. There may be limits in practicality in ability to claim them but it doesn't make it less of an affront any more than inability to escape a life of literal slavery is okay because the slave is physically incapable of breaking their chains and killing every last master and overseer.
        7y ago
- zknz 7y ago
  Press freedom index methodology: The report is partly based on a questionnaire[3] which asks questions about pluralism, media independence, environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and infrastructure. The questionnaire takes account of the legal framework for the media (including penalties for press offences, the existence of a state monopoly for certain kinds of media and how the media are regulated) and the level of independence of the public media. --Presumably the evaluation 'downvotes' the independence and self-censorship of US media?

lucideer 7y ago

I'm sorry what? If ever there were a glaring example of the blind extremes of American exceptionalism this comment is it. Exactly which countries are you comparing the US to that would not tolerate similar "lavish helpings of self-directed criticism"?

dosy 7y ago
No, you're okay, you just didn't get it the first time, I'm fine with that. I never said 'tolerate', and I think it's more promotion that tolerance being the plan. The Americans have really become experts at strategic self-criticism. I remember learning about Italian Commedia dell'arte and how the satire of power was a cathartic mechanism of control, yielding an outlet for pent up feelings, and assisting in the maintenance of the status quo by directing the desire for change to the outlet, rather than to actual change. Could be related, just saying.
- umadon 7y ago
  This is exactly it. These articles offer an ultimately vacant catharsis in place of change. Afterwards, the type of people who read the New Yorker can go about their business, feeling full of rectitude and seriousness and even, perversely, a kind of pride in their country.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnchristopher 7y ago
    So, offline outrage culture ?
- mijamo 7y ago
  I still don't get your point. Many countries have good investigation press and LOTS of criticism towards their government and policies. How is the US any special in that regard?
  - 7y ago

xkcd-sucks 7y ago

>A job posting depicts life as an intelligence officer in Guantánamo Bay as “a rewarding challenge with incredible surroundings”—sunsets, beaches, iguanas, pristine Caribbean blue. “After a hustled day of tackling a myriad of issues and directly contributing to the global war on terrorism,” it reads, “fun awaits.” Officers could partake in pottery classes, paintball, rugby, tennis, and softball, or exercise in several pools and gyms. The local dive shop offered gear and certifications for sailing, water-skiing, snorkelling, scuba diving, and more: “No experience, no problem. . . . Relaxing is easy.” >In practice, many military-police officers killed time by watching movies and getting drunk at the Tiki Bar; they also took flights to Afghanistan, to pick up more detainees.

Gpetrium 7y ago

Are you implying that the world is better off having global powers that have free speech and self-directed criticism which is why you look to endorse American exceptionalism?

dmurray 7y ago

As Frankie Boyle put it, > Not only will America go into your country and kill all your people, they'll come back twenty years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.

Synaesthesia 7y ago

The torture is quite unnecessary and not enough people know about it. It’s obvious they torture prisoners there, why else keep it so secret? We do need democracy, informed democracy. The people need to be able to tell their government not to do things like this.

standardUser 7y ago

"Free speech may just be a more effective social control mechanism than democracy." There is no evidence that those two concepts can be mutually exclusive. But a lot of evidence to the contrary.

lucas_membrane 7y ago

>> excesses of American exceptionalism Who does the labor to maintain and sustain Guantanamo? Not Americans, foreign contract labor working below American minimum wage. They may stay there for 3 years to try to save $300 to go back home and start a business or for much longer to earn an American green card. Somehow, their subservient role often translates into providing undocumented personal services for their American bosses. With the American interrogators living a class-privileged life, the base is what America itself is becoming, an experiment to observe the grievously absurd manifestations of an irrational social structure.

omarchowdhury 7y ago
> Who does the labor to maintain and sustain Guantanamo? Not Americans, foreign contract labor working below American minimum wage. And yet, the article cites it costs $10M per year to keep one detainee at Guantanamo. Where's all that money going?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]