4 ms·

I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd like to hear about them to broaden my views. James Damore. And if you believe what

I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd like to hear about them to broaden my views. James Damore. And if you believe what he said really was hate speech, that just illustrates the problem.

Craighead 7y ago
"You all are inferior because of your gender" That's the definition of creating a vicious and predatory workplace. Hence, fired. Not to mention every source he quoted came out saying that the information was misused.
- phasnox 7y ago
  He never said that. Different != Inferior
- philwelch 7y ago
  That’s not what he said. But really, this only highlights the real problem: if you censor someone, you can accuse them of having said anything because, by virtue of having censored the person, there’s no way for anyone to know better. Obviously many of us actually can still read Damore’s writeup, but that’s largely because the censorship isn’t actually effective yet. I’m just impressed that still doesn’t stop the would-be censors from lying about the stuff they’re trying to censor!
guelo 7y ago
You heard his speech, millions heard his speech. In what way was he censored?
- mdorazio 7y ago
  1) There was no speech. There was a well-reasoned essay worth reading even if you disagree with it. 2) Virtually no one actually read his essay in its entirety, including the media figures and bloggers who commented on it incessantly. His actual message and claims were completely ignored or outright twisted to fit a specific narrative. The fact that you had to go all the way to places like the Joe Rogan podcast to listen to him actually explain his thoughts without being editorialized was insane. 3) He lost his job as a direct result.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    I read his essay, and yes, it did get seriously distorted to demonize him. However, it was not well written nor was it particularly well reasoned. While there were some potentially good ideas buried it it, they were buried under poorly understood and debunked science and statements that were easily misunderstood. I think critical debunking of where he went wrong and charitable interpretation of some of the things he may have gotten right would have been far more effective. Unfortunately it was pulled into the morass that is partisanship in US these days. (I personally harbor a suspicion that this was deliberate and that he fully intended to get himself fired given the way that it and numerous other personal details of googlers got leaked in the lead up to his firing).
    - meruru 7y ago
      >they were buried under poorly understood and debunked science and statements that were easily misunderstood. I didn't read his essay or follow this case at all, but from Wikipedia it seems he was arguing that biological differences between the sexes are a driving factor for the lack of women programmers at Google. That's a position that's solidly backed by the science.
      - orwin 7y ago
        And he based some of his example on "facts" tht were debunked in the 70s. In fact i think i remember one of his argument was so easily recognisable as debunked that i thought "Well, writting a paper on sociology without having ever read sociology papers, who taught this guy?". It's not even Donning-kruger, because he did not even had the basics. I mean, come on, if it was a paper in any other field, even economy, people here at HN would have either ignored him or called him out. Anyway he was dumb and should not have been fired (unless this essay looked like his work at Google).
        guelo 7y ago
        The point of my downvoted comment is that Damore is not a good example of censored speech. You guys are on here discussing the essay because it is famous. Millions of people read it. Not sure why I was downvoted for pointing that out except that there seems to be a cult of defending the guy.
baddox 7y ago
He got fired for violating his company’s code of conduct. I do not think that qualifies as “deplatforming.”
- mdorazio 7y ago
  No offense, but bullshit. He got fired because Google didn't want to be associated with him due to public opinion from the left demonizing him for things he didn't even say. They used the code of conduct violation purely as an excuse. I'm 100% certain HN Googlers could provide 100 examples of violations that did not result in someone getting fired.
  - baddox 7y ago
    I’m not claiming that the code of conduct accusation is or isn’t justified. My point is that he got fired from one normal job (i.e. not a role with a significant public-facing component, like an actor or TV personality or comedian or writer or YouTube creator) for saying things about his employer that for one reason or another the employer very much didn’t like. Do you genuinely think his case qualifies as “deplatforming?” I think that would be an extremely broad application of the term “deplatforming.”
    - meruru 7y ago
      I think getting caught up in the "but does it fit the definition of deplatforming?" is a pretty obvious distraction from the issue.
      - baddox 7y ago
        > I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd like to hear about them to broaden my views. This is the initial comment we are discussing. It’s a pretty specific choice of words, so it’s not unreasonable to continue the discussion based on a reasonable interpretation of those actual words. That claim is the specific issue being discussed, so I don’t think it’s a distraction. If you’re interested in some other issue, then by all means openly discuss that. If the challenge was just to name any event that has occurred that didn’t involve hate speech, then sure, we can list many such events.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Craighead 7y ago

"You all are inferior because of your gender" That's the definition of creating a vicious and predatory workplace. Hence, fired. Not to mention every source he quoted came out saying that the information was misused.

phasnox 7y ago
He never said that. Different != Inferior
philwelch 7y ago
That’s not what he said. But really, this only highlights the real problem: if you censor someone, you can accuse them of having said anything because, by virtue of having censored the person, there’s no way for anyone to know better. Obviously many of us actually can still read Damore’s writeup, but that’s largely because the censorship isn’t actually effective yet. I’m just impressed that still doesn’t stop the would-be censors from lying about the stuff they’re trying to censor!

guelo 7y ago

You heard his speech, millions heard his speech. In what way was he censored?

mdorazio 7y ago
1) There was no speech. There was a well-reasoned essay worth reading even if you disagree with it. 2) Virtually no one actually read his essay in its entirety, including the media figures and bloggers who commented on it incessantly. His actual message and claims were completely ignored or outright twisted to fit a specific narrative. The fact that you had to go all the way to places like the Joe Rogan podcast to listen to him actually explain his thoughts without being editorialized was insane. 3) He lost his job as a direct result.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  I read his essay, and yes, it did get seriously distorted to demonize him. However, it was not well written nor was it particularly well reasoned. While there were some potentially good ideas buried it it, they were buried under poorly understood and debunked science and statements that were easily misunderstood. I think critical debunking of where he went wrong and charitable interpretation of some of the things he may have gotten right would have been far more effective. Unfortunately it was pulled into the morass that is partisanship in US these days. (I personally harbor a suspicion that this was deliberate and that he fully intended to get himself fired given the way that it and numerous other personal details of googlers got leaked in the lead up to his firing).
  - meruru 7y ago
    >they were buried under poorly understood and debunked science and statements that were easily misunderstood. I didn't read his essay or follow this case at all, but from Wikipedia it seems he was arguing that biological differences between the sexes are a driving factor for the lack of women programmers at Google. That's a position that's solidly backed by the science.
    - orwin 7y ago
      And he based some of his example on "facts" tht were debunked in the 70s. In fact i think i remember one of his argument was so easily recognisable as debunked that i thought "Well, writting a paper on sociology without having ever read sociology papers, who taught this guy?". It's not even Donning-kruger, because he did not even had the basics. I mean, come on, if it was a paper in any other field, even economy, people here at HN would have either ignored him or called him out. Anyway he was dumb and should not have been fired (unless this essay looked like his work at Google).
      - guelo 7y ago
        The point of my downvoted comment is that Damore is not a good example of censored speech. You guys are on here discussing the essay because it is famous. Millions of people read it. Not sure why I was downvoted for pointing that out except that there seems to be a cult of defending the guy.

baddox 7y ago

He got fired for violating his company’s code of conduct. I do not think that qualifies as “deplatforming.”

mdorazio 7y ago
No offense, but bullshit. He got fired because Google didn't want to be associated with him due to public opinion from the left demonizing him for things he didn't even say. They used the code of conduct violation purely as an excuse. I'm 100% certain HN Googlers could provide 100 examples of violations that did not result in someone getting fired.
- baddox 7y ago
  I’m not claiming that the code of conduct accusation is or isn’t justified. My point is that he got fired from one normal job (i.e. not a role with a significant public-facing component, like an actor or TV personality or comedian or writer or YouTube creator) for saying things about his employer that for one reason or another the employer very much didn’t like. Do you genuinely think his case qualifies as “deplatforming?” I think that would be an extremely broad application of the term “deplatforming.”
  - meruru 7y ago
    I think getting caught up in the "but does it fit the definition of deplatforming?" is a pretty obvious distraction from the issue.
    - baddox 7y ago
      > I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd like to hear about them to broaden my views. This is the initial comment we are discussing. It’s a pretty specific choice of words, so it’s not unreasonable to continue the discussion based on a reasonable interpretation of those actual words. That claim is the specific issue being discussed, so I don’t think it’s a distraction. If you’re interested in some other issue, then by all means openly discuss that. If the challenge was just to name any event that has occurred that didn’t involve hate speech, then sure, we can list many such events.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]