6 ms·

> That is a supremely American way of looking at the world. It's based in European, and more specifically, British Enlightenment thinking, the apotheosis of wh

> That is a supremely American way of looking at the world. It's based in European, and more specifically, British Enlightenment thinking, the apotheosis of which (with regard to freedom of speech) is On Liberty[0] by John Stuart Mill, an Englishman. To quote: > THE TIME, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the "liberty of the press" as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrannical government. No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear. This aspect of the question, besides, has been so often and so triumphantly enforced by preceding writers, that it needs not be specially insisted on in this place. It appears his hopes would bring disappointment were he still around. [0] Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion https://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html https://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html ---- Edit: Fixing markup. If anyone knows of a document describing the markup rules, please let me know, it would save me an awful lot of edits ;-)

toxik 7y ago
This to me seems not far from ayatollahs quoting scripture to justify their positions and policies. Surely thought has progressed in the last two hundred years?
- kortilla 7y ago
  > Surely thought has progressed in the last two hundred years? Nope, that’s not how it works. People consistently keep retrying ideas for government and economics over and over because they get tempted by promises while ignoring history because “this time it’s different”.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    "This time it's different" was exactly the answer the liberals gave when propounding their system. It is also the answer mathematicians gave every time they tried to prove Fermat's Last Theorem. Contrary to popular belief, "this time it's different" is a very good way to go about progress, so long as there is good theoretical reason to believe there could be a difference in application.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  It has, but due to the orthodoxy of thinking in terms of the liberal conception of human rights in the US Constitution, other voices aren't listened to much - their views are different to the orthodoxy such that they are considered heretical and against liberty. It's a circular argument in the sense that because liberty and freedom are defined for the mainstream framework, any outside framework, in order to be accepted by adherents of the mainstream framework, must provide a vision compatible with the existing framework. We're stuck in a hole in terms of what can be done outside academia in the real world.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    I'm curious as to why this comment is being downvoted; if anyone could offer an explanation I'd be grateful to learn where I went wrong.
    - toxik 7y ago
      Downvoting is not being wrong, it is being disagreed with. It is a win in my book if you ruffle some feathers in your opinions, it means you’re not just restating the majority belief. In terms of a graphical model, voting is dependent on not only opinion but also motivation. Somebody that thinks you’re wrong is more motivated to downvote than someone who thinks you’re right - one has an ax to grind, one does not.
      - claudiawerner 7y ago
        I learned this principle early on (and I think it's an unfortunate facet of HN as compared to, say, Reddit where Reddiquette is that one does not downvote for mere disagreement) though I also learned that HN is a place with a great deal of intelligent people who enjoy to think about problems - presumably, there would be some reason behind the disagreement. HN threads are known for pessimism and critique, so it's curious when a HNers feathers are ruffled they don't say anything. Though, you're right - I think a lack of reason given for disagreement itself can reveal something interesting - not only that they may not have a reason, but that they can't articulate the reason well enough. In real life we often don't voice disagreement for either of those reasons. In my view, HN is no different.
- piokoch 7y ago
  Where exactly ayatollahs talk about people rights and free speech? Comparing J.S. Mill to a bunch of religious maniacs is a bit far-fetched. The fact that Mill wrote those words 200 years ago does not mean they are incorrect. We stick to the rules of Roman law in many aspects, although it was written pretty long time ago. Pythagoras formulated his theorem quite long ago too, yet we still learn it at school. There are certain ideas that seems to be universal, that just make people lives better. People tend to challenge them and thanks to that we get goodies like Communism and Nazism.
  - arbitrary_name 7y ago
    >The fact that Mill wrote those words 200 years ago does not mean they are incorrect It also does not mean they are correct or meaningful, at least not in every case they are applied or quoted...
- notSupplied 7y ago
  I have the same experience with people dropping John Stuart Mill quotes in particular as if that was all that was needed to win the argument. Those are elegantly worded claims and conclusions, not compelling arguments and evidence to ponder. The mic very much did not drop after you quoted some smart dead white guy. Please, we're still waiting for the actual payload.
  - brigandish 7y ago
    If you're looking for quotes from smart, dead, non-white guys I have this one from Frederick Douglass: > To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. Not that their being smart, their ethnicity, nor their being alive or dead has any relevance to the content of their speech. Aside from the obvious rebuttal already given by pointing out it's not American to think the press should be free, further "payload" was in the link provided. I'd encourage you to read, what is in my opinion and of many others, the greatest work on freedom of speech.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  Unlike ayatollahs, not only did your parent not suggest the person they were quoting was right, they actually suggested the person they were quoting was wrong: "It appears his hopes would bring disappointment were he still around." You're confused about the point your parent was making. Let me try to explain the context to you: Top of thread: we think this way in Denmark (a country in Europe) Reply: we think this way in America Reply: "This is such blatant and obvious nonsense. ... That is a supremely American way of looking at the world." Your parent: actually this way of thinking comes from Europe Your parent is not saying this way of thinking is correct, only that your grandparent is silly to call this way of thinking "supremely American" and imply that it's inferior to European thinking.
tempodox 7y ago
> ...document describing the markup rules https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc
- brigandish 7y ago
  I thank you, good sir!

toxik 7y ago

This to me seems not far from ayatollahs quoting scripture to justify their positions and policies. Surely thought has progressed in the last two hundred years?

kortilla 7y ago
> Surely thought has progressed in the last two hundred years? Nope, that’s not how it works. People consistently keep retrying ideas for government and economics over and over because they get tempted by promises while ignoring history because “this time it’s different”.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  "This time it's different" was exactly the answer the liberals gave when propounding their system. It is also the answer mathematicians gave every time they tried to prove Fermat's Last Theorem. Contrary to popular belief, "this time it's different" is a very good way to go about progress, so long as there is good theoretical reason to believe there could be a difference in application.
claudiawerner 7y ago
It has, but due to the orthodoxy of thinking in terms of the liberal conception of human rights in the US Constitution, other voices aren't listened to much - their views are different to the orthodoxy such that they are considered heretical and against liberty. It's a circular argument in the sense that because liberty and freedom are defined for the mainstream framework, any outside framework, in order to be accepted by adherents of the mainstream framework, must provide a vision compatible with the existing framework. We're stuck in a hole in terms of what can be done outside academia in the real world.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  I'm curious as to why this comment is being downvoted; if anyone could offer an explanation I'd be grateful to learn where I went wrong.
  - toxik 7y ago
    Downvoting is not being wrong, it is being disagreed with. It is a win in my book if you ruffle some feathers in your opinions, it means you’re not just restating the majority belief. In terms of a graphical model, voting is dependent on not only opinion but also motivation. Somebody that thinks you’re wrong is more motivated to downvote than someone who thinks you’re right - one has an ax to grind, one does not.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      I learned this principle early on (and I think it's an unfortunate facet of HN as compared to, say, Reddit where Reddiquette is that one does not downvote for mere disagreement) though I also learned that HN is a place with a great deal of intelligent people who enjoy to think about problems - presumably, there would be some reason behind the disagreement. HN threads are known for pessimism and critique, so it's curious when a HNers feathers are ruffled they don't say anything. Though, you're right - I think a lack of reason given for disagreement itself can reveal something interesting - not only that they may not have a reason, but that they can't articulate the reason well enough. In real life we often don't voice disagreement for either of those reasons. In my view, HN is no different.
piokoch 7y ago
Where exactly ayatollahs talk about people rights and free speech? Comparing J.S. Mill to a bunch of religious maniacs is a bit far-fetched. The fact that Mill wrote those words 200 years ago does not mean they are incorrect. We stick to the rules of Roman law in many aspects, although it was written pretty long time ago. Pythagoras formulated his theorem quite long ago too, yet we still learn it at school. There are certain ideas that seems to be universal, that just make people lives better. People tend to challenge them and thanks to that we get goodies like Communism and Nazism.
- arbitrary_name 7y ago
  >The fact that Mill wrote those words 200 years ago does not mean they are incorrect It also does not mean they are correct or meaningful, at least not in every case they are applied or quoted...
notSupplied 7y ago
I have the same experience with people dropping John Stuart Mill quotes in particular as if that was all that was needed to win the argument. Those are elegantly worded claims and conclusions, not compelling arguments and evidence to ponder. The mic very much did not drop after you quoted some smart dead white guy. Please, we're still waiting for the actual payload.
- brigandish 7y ago
  If you're looking for quotes from smart, dead, non-white guys I have this one from Frederick Douglass: > To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. Not that their being smart, their ethnicity, nor their being alive or dead has any relevance to the content of their speech. Aside from the obvious rebuttal already given by pointing out it's not American to think the press should be free, further "payload" was in the link provided. I'd encourage you to read, what is in my opinion and of many others, the greatest work on freedom of speech.
laughinghan 7y ago
Unlike ayatollahs, not only did your parent not suggest the person they were quoting was right, they actually suggested the person they were quoting was wrong: "It appears his hopes would bring disappointment were he still around." You're confused about the point your parent was making. Let me try to explain the context to you: Top of thread: we think this way in Denmark (a country in Europe) Reply: we think this way in America Reply: "This is such blatant and obvious nonsense. ... That is a supremely American way of looking at the world." Your parent: actually this way of thinking comes from Europe Your parent is not saying this way of thinking is correct, only that your grandparent is silly to call this way of thinking "supremely American" and imply that it's inferior to European thinking.

tempodox 7y ago

> ...document describing the markup rules https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc

brigandish 7y ago
I thank you, good sir!