11 ms·

If someone says they're going to bomb an event on Twitter should they be banned? Yes, everyone agrees. If someone says they're a race realist and that they're

by voxl 7y ago

If someone says they're going to bomb an event on Twitter should they be banned? Yes, everyone agrees. If someone says they're a race realist and that they're going to make fun of all the black people in tech should they be banned? Not everyone agrees. If someone analyzes IQ studies about race realism to highlight the flaws in methodology but doesn't outright condemn race realism should they be banned? No, everyone agrees. To claim that its 1984 because we're trying to work out the fuzziness in the middle is absurd.

superbatfish 7y ago
OK, but to imply that the response to the "fuzziness in the middle" should be the same as the response to an extreme violation is also absurd.
asdf21 7y ago
Even beginning to discuss race realism almost anywhere will get you banned, including from this forum. Especially if you think there are substantial IQ differences.
traverseda 7y ago
Huh, that's not where I'd have assumed those lines were. * Yes, everyone agrees * Almost everyone agrees on this one * Not everyone agrees, but the public consensus seems like they'd probably be banned. I guess we just live in different filter bubbles.
michaelmrose 7y ago
If in one context someone expresses beliefs I find odious but they do not say odious things or behave improperly in another say tech conferences I think they ought to be able to come to a conference and talk about tech. I don't say this because I want to help odious people but because I don't want other people judging me. People have many different beliefs and it ought to be sufficient to respect one another rather than agree on all points. What if merely not denouncing trumptards with sufficient vigor is sufficient to paint me as undesirable.
- potatoz2 7y ago
  That's a fair fear to have and these are difficult questions. But take what you advocate to its logical extreme: what if I say it'd be ideal if all minorities would die of terrible diseases to "cleanse" tech/the country/etc., but without calling for direct violence. It's an opinion. Would you be OK with me speaking at a conference and being given the associated prestige?
  - Canada 7y ago
    I would be totally OK with listening to your technical presentation. I'm not concerned with your other opinions. Or rather, I refuse to be forced by others to be concerned with your other opinions. I'd listen to quality presentation on a technical subject that interests me even if the presenter was Hitler or Pol Pot. I don't think I like the opinions of this Sarah Mei on Twitter, but I'd happily listen to her talk on another subject that does interest me.
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      Exactly this. And Robert Martin has made similar sentiments clear in prior discussions with her.
    - johnny22 7y ago
      and how old are you ?
    - ianwalter 7y ago
      Seriously? You could just put aside that insane, clearly evil opinion and listen to them speak for an hour? Give them an applause and move on without the slightest burden on your conscious?
      - Fellshard 7y ago
        If your conscience is burdened by hearing the words someone says, may I propose you need to work on filtering words? That implies you are digesting and importing everything you hear directly into your worldview, instead of examining what people say critically in case they are lying or being disingenuous.
08-15 7y ago
> If someone says they're going to bomb an event on Twitter should they be banned? Yes, everyone agrees. What? No, not everyone agrees! That someone should be arrested, but keep his Twitter account. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason, and we don't need companies to play speech police, which, incidentally, in this particular case, would make law enforcement more difficult. > If someone analyzes IQ studies... everyone agrees. Unfortunately, you're wrong again. Some radicals would want you banned for merely using the word "race", regardless of context.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > What? No, not everyone agrees! That someone should be arrested, but keep his Twitter account. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason, and we don't need companies to play speech police, which, incidentally, in this particular case, would make law enforcement more difficult. Exactly what I was thinking. And frankly, I'd rather have someone post "Imma shoot up ur confrence" and get arrested because of that post than have them avoid Twitter and instead, yaknow, actually shoot up the conference.
- lliamander 7y ago
  Who needs laws when you can just ban people from using an ATM if they disagree with the values of a bank?
michaelmrose 7y ago
Banning 1/3 of the nation who voted for a horrible person from every participating every again in social society in any venue right thinking individuals run doesn't seem like a grey area. Twisting "safe space" to mean a space free of people who hold bad opinions instead of a space in which you can expect to share your thoughts without being treated poorly again doesn't seem very grey.

by voxl 7y ago

superbatfish 7y ago

OK, but to imply that the response to the "fuzziness in the middle" should be the same as the response to an extreme violation is also absurd.

asdf21 7y ago

Even beginning to discuss race realism almost anywhere will get you banned, including from this forum. Especially if you think there are substantial IQ differences.

traverseda 7y ago

Huh, that's not where I'd have assumed those lines were. * Yes, everyone agrees * Almost everyone agrees on this one * Not everyone agrees, but the public consensus seems like they'd probably be banned. I guess we just live in different filter bubbles.

michaelmrose 7y ago

If in one context someone expresses beliefs I find odious but they do not say odious things or behave improperly in another say tech conferences I think they ought to be able to come to a conference and talk about tech. I don't say this because I want to help odious people but because I don't want other people judging me. People have many different beliefs and it ought to be sufficient to respect one another rather than agree on all points. What if merely not denouncing trumptards with sufficient vigor is sufficient to paint me as undesirable.

potatoz2 7y ago
That's a fair fear to have and these are difficult questions. But take what you advocate to its logical extreme: what if I say it'd be ideal if all minorities would die of terrible diseases to "cleanse" tech/the country/etc., but without calling for direct violence. It's an opinion. Would you be OK with me speaking at a conference and being given the associated prestige?
- Canada 7y ago
  I would be totally OK with listening to your technical presentation. I'm not concerned with your other opinions. Or rather, I refuse to be forced by others to be concerned with your other opinions. I'd listen to quality presentation on a technical subject that interests me even if the presenter was Hitler or Pol Pot. I don't think I like the opinions of this Sarah Mei on Twitter, but I'd happily listen to her talk on another subject that does interest me.
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    Exactly this. And Robert Martin has made similar sentiments clear in prior discussions with her.
  - johnny22 7y ago
    and how old are you ?
  - ianwalter 7y ago
    Seriously? You could just put aside that insane, clearly evil opinion and listen to them speak for an hour? Give them an applause and move on without the slightest burden on your conscious?
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      If your conscience is burdened by hearing the words someone says, may I propose you need to work on filtering words? That implies you are digesting and importing everything you hear directly into your worldview, instead of examining what people say critically in case they are lying or being disingenuous.

08-15 7y ago

> If someone says they're going to bomb an event on Twitter should they be banned? Yes, everyone agrees. What? No, not everyone agrees! That someone should be arrested, but keep his Twitter account. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason, and we don't need companies to play speech police, which, incidentally, in this particular case, would make law enforcement more difficult. > If someone analyzes IQ studies... everyone agrees. Unfortunately, you're wrong again. Some radicals would want you banned for merely using the word "race", regardless of context.

DuskStar 7y ago
> What? No, not everyone agrees! That someone should be arrested, but keep his Twitter account. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason, and we don't need companies to play speech police, which, incidentally, in this particular case, would make law enforcement more difficult. Exactly what I was thinking. And frankly, I'd rather have someone post "Imma shoot up ur confrence" and get arrested because of that post than have them avoid Twitter and instead, yaknow, actually shoot up the conference.
lliamander 7y ago
Who needs laws when you can just ban people from using an ATM if they disagree with the values of a bank?

michaelmrose 7y ago

Banning 1/3 of the nation who voted for a horrible person from every participating every again in social society in any venue right thinking individuals run doesn't seem like a grey area. Twisting "safe space" to mean a space free of people who hold bad opinions instead of a space in which you can expect to share your thoughts without being treated poorly again doesn't seem very grey.