4 ms·

I think there's an interesting dynamic with empathy and freedom of speech: defending freedom of speech forces you to have a basic empathy for everyone. It migh

by daenz 7y ago

I think there's an interesting dynamic with empathy and freedom of speech: defending freedom of speech forces you to have a basic empathy for everyone. It might not be an empathy based on their lived experiences, but it is one based on respecting that we should collectively protect what they have to communicate. It's why I believe attacks on freedom of speech are so dangerous...they undermine this foundational respect for one another. If hating what someone has to say but defending their right to say it isn't a form of sincere empathy, then I don't know what is.

pas 7y ago
Naturally this empathy only self-reinforces itself, if it selectively ignores those who agitate against it. Eg if someone advocates against free-speech, maybe protecting them won't preserve this basic empathy. And it seems this instability is real, as we have a hard time defining the minimums of free speech.
- baked_ziti 7y ago
  > we have a hard time defining the minimums of free speech. In what sense? Legally, for example, we don't.
  - pas 7y ago
    But we do. In many countries, and even in the US the history of what is and isn't a good trade off to limit speech is a long and still ongoing discourse. Sure, the gov part seems easy, but then people call on FB to filter lies in political ads, and again people want laws to mandate social networks to do this, and so on.
  - Dumblydorr 7y ago
    What about shouting fire in a crowded theater? I've had lengthy debates about whether that should be allowed or not, and if we still "have" free speech if we disallow it.
    - pas 7y ago
      The ever relevant Hitchens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aePgiW0Km_0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aePgiW0Km_0 (I don't necessarily share his very individualized approach/view.)
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Protecting their speech probably preserves it. Giving in to their demands probably not.
hos234 7y ago
What's you are not talking about in your equation is BROADCAST. Everyone is a click away from broadcasting to the planet whatever is flitting through their head. And everyone is encouraged to broadcast thanks to Zuckerberg & Co inventing the likes/clicks/views engagement feedback loop. In the past, if one was ignorant (lacked knowledge or access to knowledge), stupid (lacked the capacity to understand knowledge even with access to it), misguided (had access to the knowledge with errors) the cost and energy required to broadcast was much higher. And there were only finite number of people and groups who could pull it off. That put an upper limit on how much energy society had to expend in dealing with issues thanks to broadcast of free speech. Countering the issues takes energy. And that is finite. It's not complicated to understand the change. Take the best, most compassionate, patient, empathetic teacher you have and put him in a classroom with 10 misbehaving kids (all incentivized to misbehave) You will still see good teachers having a positive effect on all of them. Make it 30 misbehaving kids and things get trickier. Make it 500 and you will have the building burning down. Some magic process will have to generate more teachers to counteract the increase. Social media and the news media have given us scale to Broadcast and rigged the game to prop up whoever/whatever gets engagement, without giving us a proportionate increase to respond to all the issues that also scale up. We haven't invented empathy at scale yet. And it doesn't make sense to try while social media/news media rewards all kinds of bullshit. Likes/clicks/views counts need to be hidden otherwise the misbehaving kid gets mixed signals even if you apply empathy.
mLuby 7y ago
I'm not sure I agree. Taking this quotation on free speech as a starting point: > "I'll never agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" The key points are not agreeing, and defending. I'd argue if you can empathize with them, you could agree with them (were you them), so that's not happening here. What matters is that you're both being attacked by a much more powerful entity, so powerful that it requires an alliance of enemies to successfully defend against. Of course that is government (or now corporate) censorship. So I think you can hate someone and still defend a shared right against a common aggressor. And you can empathize with them enough to understand why they'd say the thing you disagree with. It's hard for me to imagine both hating and empathizing with the same person at the same time though.
learnstats2 7y ago
Allowing people to speak is not empathetic. You have to at least listen to them.

by daenz 7y ago

pas 7y ago

Naturally this empathy only self-reinforces itself, if it selectively ignores those who agitate against it. Eg if someone advocates against free-speech, maybe protecting them won't preserve this basic empathy. And it seems this instability is real, as we have a hard time defining the minimums of free speech.

baked_ziti 7y ago
> we have a hard time defining the minimums of free speech. In what sense? Legally, for example, we don't.
- pas 7y ago
  But we do. In many countries, and even in the US the history of what is and isn't a good trade off to limit speech is a long and still ongoing discourse. Sure, the gov part seems easy, but then people call on FB to filter lies in political ads, and again people want laws to mandate social networks to do this, and so on.
- Dumblydorr 7y ago
  What about shouting fire in a crowded theater? I've had lengthy debates about whether that should be allowed or not, and if we still "have" free speech if we disallow it.
  - pas 7y ago
    The ever relevant Hitchens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aePgiW0Km_0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aePgiW0Km_0 (I don't necessarily share his very individualized approach/view.)
raxxorrax 7y ago
Protecting their speech probably preserves it. Giving in to their demands probably not.

hos234 7y ago

What's you are not talking about in your equation is BROADCAST. Everyone is a click away from broadcasting to the planet whatever is flitting through their head. And everyone is encouraged to broadcast thanks to Zuckerberg & Co inventing the likes/clicks/views engagement feedback loop. In the past, if one was ignorant (lacked knowledge or access to knowledge), stupid (lacked the capacity to understand knowledge even with access to it), misguided (had access to the knowledge with errors) the cost and energy required to broadcast was much higher. And there were only finite number of people and groups who could pull it off. That put an upper limit on how much energy society had to expend in dealing with issues thanks to broadcast of free speech. Countering the issues takes energy. And that is finite. It's not complicated to understand the change. Take the best, most compassionate, patient, empathetic teacher you have and put him in a classroom with 10 misbehaving kids (all incentivized to misbehave) You will still see good teachers having a positive effect on all of them. Make it 30 misbehaving kids and things get trickier. Make it 500 and you will have the building burning down. Some magic process will have to generate more teachers to counteract the increase. Social media and the news media have given us scale to Broadcast and rigged the game to prop up whoever/whatever gets engagement, without giving us a proportionate increase to respond to all the issues that also scale up. We haven't invented empathy at scale yet. And it doesn't make sense to try while social media/news media rewards all kinds of bullshit. Likes/clicks/views counts need to be hidden otherwise the misbehaving kid gets mixed signals even if you apply empathy.

mLuby 7y ago

I'm not sure I agree. Taking this quotation on free speech as a starting point: > "I'll never agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" The key points are not agreeing, and defending. I'd argue if you can empathize with them, you could agree with them (were you them), so that's not happening here. What matters is that you're both being attacked by a much more powerful entity, so powerful that it requires an alliance of enemies to successfully defend against. Of course that is government (or now corporate) censorship. So I think you can hate someone and still defend a shared right against a common aggressor. And you can empathize with them enough to understand why they'd say the thing you disagree with. It's hard for me to imagine both hating and empathizing with the same person at the same time though.

learnstats2 7y ago

Allowing people to speak is not empathetic. You have to at least listen to them.