4 ms·

> Likewise it is an abdication of responsibility to just pretend like speech can't be destructive. How is speech destructive to anything other than ideas? Just

> Likewise it is an abdication of responsibility to just pretend like speech can't be destructive. How is speech destructive to anything other than ideas? Just one, very precise example would do.

ForHackernews 7y ago
"you can cure coronavirus by drinking bleach"
- brigandish 7y ago
  The act of drinking bleach is destructive, not the words. No one and nothing has been destroyed by reading your (mis)quote.
fzeroracer 7y ago
Holocaust denial, for one. More recently, Sandy Hook denial is what lead to parents of Sandy Hook victims being harassed by people calling them actors, frauds, charlatans etc. Would you not agree that having people tell you that your child never existed or never died to be harmful?
- brigandish 7y ago
  > Would you not agree that having people tell you that your child never existed or never died to be harmful? Since we're moving from destructive to harmful then I'll move it on to hurtful. Of course words can be hurtful and they can even be harmful - can they be destructive? Still, I wouldn't relieve anyone of the right to deny Sandy Hook or The Holocaust because I can either: a) choose to ignore them b) argue If I use (b) then I have nothing to fear because if I'm right and they are wrong then I have a better argument. What's to fear? Is Holocaust denial more widespread than than disdain for it even in societies that have no injuction against it? No, is the answer, most people think the Holocaust happened, and Sandy Hook for that matter.
afiori 7y ago
Lies, deception, memetic contagions, going into what is already illegal slander and fraud. The argument on the side of free speech is that the negative sides of such restriction outweigh the potential safety they grant; not that they do not exist.
- brigandish 7y ago
  They're not destructive. Which object do they destroy? We're discussing speech, precision is a precursor for that, no?
  - danharaj 7y ago
    Your ignorance of the distinction between cause-in-fact and proximate cause is not a matter of precision.
    - brigandish 7y ago
      So says you but I disagree. Would you ban me saying so? At least I'm able to give an explanation where you make a bare assertion. Maybe not bare, you added some snark. Maybe that's why I wouldn't have your speech denied, I'm quite sure I'm able to defend my position. Maybe that's also why you wish for others to have their speech denied, because you aren't able to defend yours.
      - danharaj 7y ago
        Is this really what you think passes for an argument? Honestly I would be more concerned if you agreed with me on anything.
        brigandish 7y ago
        Maybe because I'm still waiting for my question to be answered. What is destructive about speech? Which object does it destroy other than ideas?

> Likewise it is an abdication of responsibility to just pretend like speech can't be destructive. How is speech destructive to anything other than ideas? Just one, very precise example would do.

ForHackernews 7y ago

"you can cure coronavirus by drinking bleach"

brigandish 7y ago
The act of drinking bleach is destructive, not the words. No one and nothing has been destroyed by reading your (mis)quote.

fzeroracer 7y ago

Holocaust denial, for one. More recently, Sandy Hook denial is what lead to parents of Sandy Hook victims being harassed by people calling them actors, frauds, charlatans etc. Would you not agree that having people tell you that your child never existed or never died to be harmful?

brigandish 7y ago
> Would you not agree that having people tell you that your child never existed or never died to be harmful? Since we're moving from destructive to harmful then I'll move it on to hurtful. Of course words can be hurtful and they can even be harmful - can they be destructive? Still, I wouldn't relieve anyone of the right to deny Sandy Hook or The Holocaust because I can either: a) choose to ignore them b) argue If I use (b) then I have nothing to fear because if I'm right and they are wrong then I have a better argument. What's to fear? Is Holocaust denial more widespread than than disdain for it even in societies that have no injuction against it? No, is the answer, most people think the Holocaust happened, and Sandy Hook for that matter.

afiori 7y ago

Lies, deception, memetic contagions, going into what is already illegal slander and fraud. The argument on the side of free speech is that the negative sides of such restriction outweigh the potential safety they grant; not that they do not exist.

brigandish 7y ago
They're not destructive. Which object do they destroy? We're discussing speech, precision is a precursor for that, no?
- danharaj 7y ago
  Your ignorance of the distinction between cause-in-fact and proximate cause is not a matter of precision.
  - brigandish 7y ago
    So says you but I disagree. Would you ban me saying so? At least I'm able to give an explanation where you make a bare assertion. Maybe not bare, you added some snark. Maybe that's why I wouldn't have your speech denied, I'm quite sure I'm able to defend my position. Maybe that's also why you wish for others to have their speech denied, because you aren't able to defend yours.
    - danharaj 7y ago
      Is this really what you think passes for an argument? Honestly I would be more concerned if you agreed with me on anything.
      - brigandish 7y ago
        Maybe because I'm still waiting for my question to be answered. What is destructive about speech? Which object does it destroy other than ideas?