5 ms·

I'm pretty sure that all of those views were censored because they were immoral according to the dominant ideology of the day, and in every case it would have b

by rmtech 7y ago

I'm pretty sure that all of those views were censored because they were immoral according to the dominant ideology of the day, and in every case it would have been argued that this time the censorship was good because the dominant ideology was good, whereas previous instances of censorship were bad. How would someone in the USSR know that censorship of opponents of Lysenkoism was bad? As far as they were concerned, the people being censored were evil counter-revolutionaries of whom nothing good could come.

hunter2_ 7y ago
Wouldn't "only censor/condemn hate that's tied to a protected class" be a decent test? Where protected class is defined as the stuff people cannot change about themselves. This test seems quite timeless and orthogonal to the problematic "immoral."
- NhanH 7y ago
  White male is decidedly a protected class with that definition. Disclaimer: I am Asian and like to point out irony, don't lynch me.
  - Iv 7y ago
    Yes and? Hate speech against white male would be brought down as well.
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      Let's dive into that: here are tweets made by the accusers leading to Linux Foundation's judgment. https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/dtnamp/linux_foundation_revokes_attendees_registration/f6xvd46/ https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/dtnamp/linux_foundat...
      - Iv 7y ago
        Well, have clear rules, clear penalties and due process, saying crap about any skin color is hate speech. You have no shortage of that in the US right now. That's not my country and not much of my business but if half of your country is fine using its free speech defending KKK apologists and the other half only meets that with apathy, don't be surprised if some Black Panthers come back to life and use their own free speech fighting back. And maybe I am less shocked by this affair because in many European cities, wearing a MAGA hat would be seen pretty close as wearing nazi insignia. Under it, lies either someone very racist or someone very confused. And either way probably someone that is not going to have a constructive participation. So yeah, probably lack of clear rules, lack of due process, I hope that's the takeaway they'll get from it. Arbitrary enforcement of vague rules is authoritarianism, but you can have clear rules and due process to limit hate speech. It has been done successfully in several places.
        Fellshard 7y ago
        I agree with having clear standards. I think the proportions in the US are not quite as dire as you portray.
        Iv 7y ago
        That's true, he is "just" at 40% of support among voters. He still has won an election in a country that pretends to be democratic, so I'll politely assume he was the choice of the majority.
        Fellshard 7y ago
        That's a far cry from 'defending KKK apologists'. Then again, having seen other responses you've made in this post, I'm skeptical I should be trying to persuade you.
        Skaruts 7y ago
        > And maybe I am less shocked by this affair because in many European cities, wearing a MAGA hat would be seen pretty close as wearing nazi insignia. Under it, lies either someone very racist or someone very confused. And either way probably someone that is not going to have a constructive participation. That's what I'd call paranoia. Because the nazi insignia isn't in the least comparable to a MAGA hat. In fact, the nazi insignia is much more comparable to Antifa insignia. Also keep in mind the KKK were democrats.
  - hunter2_ 7y ago
    No lynching here; another comment of mine points out irony as well. That said, white male isn't some sort of exception just because some do/did abhorrent things -- the white males who don't (and they certainly can't control whether they descend from those who did) do abhorrent things don't deserve it. Feel free to define a set of people who suck based on their actions, but white male can't be an analogue for that definition.
- rmtech 7y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding the reasons for free speech. As soon as some entity gets a license to start banning speech, you have given bad ideas an advantage over good ones. This is because a bad memeplex can co-opt the censorship apparatus and kill off any competitors without having to face them in a fair fight. The criterion you mentioned about hate speech etc is extremely flexible and dependent on a bunch of definitions and interpretations that the censors will be in control of - exactly the kind of thing that the free speech principle protects us from!
Iv 7y ago
> and in every case it would have been argued that this time the censorship was good because the dominant ideology was good, whereas previous instances of censorship were bad. The idea of general progress is a fairly recent one. At the times of Galileo trials, many people would have proclaimed with pride that they were following the pure and unalterable criterion of the glorious classics of antiquities. Notwithstanding that, our modern understanding of the evils of censorship is not just based on a shift in morality, it is based on a reasoning on the nature of debate, science, uncovering of truth and the importance of controversy. There are places where, if you have a good argument, one can argue about the differences between genders, ethnicities, religions (<- God knows I waste so much time on that subject) or sexual orientation. One is allowed to propose an argumented view at odd with the majority. Once that is preserved, I do not see what discussion of value is suppressed by suppressing hate speech.
- darkforest1336 7y ago
  Using Galileo as an example isn't very useful since even though it turns out that he was right, at the time he didn't actually have real proof so the church was right to tell him not to publish his opinion since he didn't have adequate evidence for his position. The problem the church had with him wasn't that they thought that the sun had to orbit the Earth, but that he wouldn't stop trying to make people use his method without actual proof.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

by rmtech 7y ago

hunter2_ 7y ago

Wouldn't "only censor/condemn hate that's tied to a protected class" be a decent test? Where protected class is defined as the stuff people cannot change about themselves. This test seems quite timeless and orthogonal to the problematic "immoral."

NhanH 7y ago
White male is decidedly a protected class with that definition. Disclaimer: I am Asian and like to point out irony, don't lynch me.
- Iv 7y ago
  Yes and? Hate speech against white male would be brought down as well.
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    Let's dive into that: here are tweets made by the accusers leading to Linux Foundation's judgment. https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/dtnamp/linux_foundation_revokes_attendees_registration/f6xvd46/ https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/dtnamp/linux_foundat...
    - Iv 7y ago
      Well, have clear rules, clear penalties and due process, saying crap about any skin color is hate speech. You have no shortage of that in the US right now. That's not my country and not much of my business but if half of your country is fine using its free speech defending KKK apologists and the other half only meets that with apathy, don't be surprised if some Black Panthers come back to life and use their own free speech fighting back. And maybe I am less shocked by this affair because in many European cities, wearing a MAGA hat would be seen pretty close as wearing nazi insignia. Under it, lies either someone very racist or someone very confused. And either way probably someone that is not going to have a constructive participation. So yeah, probably lack of clear rules, lack of due process, I hope that's the takeaway they'll get from it. Arbitrary enforcement of vague rules is authoritarianism, but you can have clear rules and due process to limit hate speech. It has been done successfully in several places.
      - Fellshard 7y ago
        I agree with having clear standards. I think the proportions in the US are not quite as dire as you portray.
        Iv 7y ago
        That's true, he is "just" at 40% of support among voters. He still has won an election in a country that pretends to be democratic, so I'll politely assume he was the choice of the majority.
        Fellshard 7y ago
        That's a far cry from 'defending KKK apologists'. Then again, having seen other responses you've made in this post, I'm skeptical I should be trying to persuade you.
      - Skaruts 7y ago
        > And maybe I am less shocked by this affair because in many European cities, wearing a MAGA hat would be seen pretty close as wearing nazi insignia. Under it, lies either someone very racist or someone very confused. And either way probably someone that is not going to have a constructive participation. That's what I'd call paranoia. Because the nazi insignia isn't in the least comparable to a MAGA hat. In fact, the nazi insignia is much more comparable to Antifa insignia. Also keep in mind the KKK were democrats.
- hunter2_ 7y ago
  No lynching here; another comment of mine points out irony as well. That said, white male isn't some sort of exception just because some do/did abhorrent things -- the white males who don't (and they certainly can't control whether they descend from those who did) do abhorrent things don't deserve it. Feel free to define a set of people who suck based on their actions, but white male can't be an analogue for that definition.
rmtech 7y ago
I think you're misunderstanding the reasons for free speech. As soon as some entity gets a license to start banning speech, you have given bad ideas an advantage over good ones. This is because a bad memeplex can co-opt the censorship apparatus and kill off any competitors without having to face them in a fair fight. The criterion you mentioned about hate speech etc is extremely flexible and dependent on a bunch of definitions and interpretations that the censors will be in control of - exactly the kind of thing that the free speech principle protects us from!

Iv 7y ago

> and in every case it would have been argued that this time the censorship was good because the dominant ideology was good, whereas previous instances of censorship were bad. The idea of general progress is a fairly recent one. At the times of Galileo trials, many people would have proclaimed with pride that they were following the pure and unalterable criterion of the glorious classics of antiquities. Notwithstanding that, our modern understanding of the evils of censorship is not just based on a shift in morality, it is based on a reasoning on the nature of debate, science, uncovering of truth and the importance of controversy. There are places where, if you have a good argument, one can argue about the differences between genders, ethnicities, religions (<- God knows I waste so much time on that subject) or sexual orientation. One is allowed to propose an argumented view at odd with the majority. Once that is preserved, I do not see what discussion of value is suppressed by suppressing hate speech.

darkforest1336 7y ago
Using Galileo as an example isn't very useful since even though it turns out that he was right, at the time he didn't actually have real proof so the church was right to tell him not to publish his opinion since he didn't have adequate evidence for his position. The problem the church had with him wasn't that they thought that the sun had to orbit the Earth, but that he wouldn't stop trying to make people use his method without actual proof.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]