6 ms·

You don't understand AT ALL how someone could want an organization to make a choice, but not want the government to make that choice for them? I don't think pe

You don't understand AT ALL how someone could want an organization to make a choice, but not want the government to make that choice for them? I don't think people should wear socks with sandals, and I will not hesitate to tell them that should I see it. I'll still be the first protesting if the government starts making them take off their socks.

mc32 6y ago
Yeah I understand that they want to allow an org to make a choice so long as they agree with that choice. I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that.
- danharaj 6y ago
  > Yeah I understand that they want to allow an org to make a choice so long as they agree with that choice. They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial? People want the world to be a certain way and don't want it to be other ways. This is hypocritical? > I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that. Ok, so you're admitting to setting up a literal strawman but we should trust your ability to read the thoughts of hundreds of people. You're clearly having a normal one.
  - kryogen1c 6y ago
    > They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial? of course its contraversial. its not free speech if they only say what you want them to, is it?
    - danharaj 6y ago
      There is no place on Earth where you can say literally anything and not have a consequence for it. People who subscribe to such an absolutist free speech make buffoons of themselves.
      - kryogen1c 6y ago
        > People who subscribe to such an absolutist free speech make buffoons of themselves. good thing no one on this thread has said anything like that, then.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        > There is no place on Earth where you can say literally anything and not have a consequence for it. Should there be one? Should there be a subset of speech that this might apply to? What should that subset be?
        danharaj 6y ago
        What you can fit in your diary.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        Ok, I think I agree with that specific case, but I think we can try broadening it: should there be external consequences if I and someone else discuss something?
        danharaj 6y ago
        Are you planning a murder? Lets cut to the chase. Just because we cannot decide right now what is acceptable or not for all possibilities in all contexts doesn't mean we cannot make guidelines and use our discretion in context. All rules, all laws, all prescriptions and otherwise are limited, imperfect judgments that we can adapt to a complex world. Indeed, it will very much be possible, like with every other rule, law or prescription to misapply guidelines about speech, harmful or otherwise. Mistakes can be made and they should be righted when they are recognized. Given the absolute transformation of speech in the past 30 years in our world we are very much going to make a lot of new mistakes that in retrospect will be seen as foolish. That's ok, we have to figure things out somehow. Most people would agree that this is a reasonable state of affairs for all the many ways we deliberate and compromise about how society should be run. But when we talk about speech in praticular, its effects, when and where it's appropriate, when it can and should be limited, a certain kind of person who will obstinately and resolutely refuse any such nuance comes swarming out. For example, the kind of person who thinks that it can only be called free speech if it's completely unbridled. As if every right has to be absolutely limitless in order for it to be considered a right. You're probably not that kind of person. What would you like to discuss?
    - Talanes 6y ago
      You do realize that your argument works against you, right? Assume the pronouns refer to the protesting workers instead of the organization and see what happens.
      - kryogen1c 6y ago
        > You do realize that your argument works against you, right? i dont > Assume the pronouns refer to the protesting workers instead of the organization and see what happens. facebooks not trying to force its employees to change a decision they made regarding free speech, so how does that make sense?
        Talanes 6y ago
        But you seem to want to force them to change a decision they made regarding free speech.
- Talanes 6y ago
  Nice of you to just straight up admit you're putting words into other people's mouths. You should judge people based on their actions, not your fan-fiction.

mc32 6y ago

Yeah I understand that they want to allow an org to make a choice so long as they agree with that choice. I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that.

danharaj 6y ago
> Yeah I understand that they want to allow an org to make a choice so long as they agree with that choice. They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial? People want the world to be a certain way and don't want it to be other ways. This is hypocritical? > I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that. Ok, so you're admitting to setting up a literal strawman but we should trust your ability to read the thoughts of hundreds of people. You're clearly having a normal one.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial? of course its contraversial. its not free speech if they only say what you want them to, is it?
  - danharaj 6y ago
    There is no place on Earth where you can say literally anything and not have a consequence for it. People who subscribe to such an absolutist free speech make buffoons of themselves.
    - kryogen1c 6y ago
      > People who subscribe to such an absolutist free speech make buffoons of themselves. good thing no one on this thread has said anything like that, then.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      > There is no place on Earth where you can say literally anything and not have a consequence for it. Should there be one? Should there be a subset of speech that this might apply to? What should that subset be?
      - danharaj 6y ago
        What you can fit in your diary.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        Ok, I think I agree with that specific case, but I think we can try broadening it: should there be external consequences if I and someone else discuss something?
        danharaj 6y ago
        Are you planning a murder? Lets cut to the chase. Just because we cannot decide right now what is acceptable or not for all possibilities in all contexts doesn't mean we cannot make guidelines and use our discretion in context. All rules, all laws, all prescriptions and otherwise are limited, imperfect judgments that we can adapt to a complex world. Indeed, it will very much be possible, like with every other rule, law or prescription to misapply guidelines about speech, harmful or otherwise. Mistakes can be made and they should be righted when they are recognized. Given the absolute transformation of speech in the past 30 years in our world we are very much going to make a lot of new mistakes that in retrospect will be seen as foolish. That's ok, we have to figure things out somehow. Most people would agree that this is a reasonable state of affairs for all the many ways we deliberate and compromise about how society should be run. But when we talk about speech in praticular, its effects, when and where it's appropriate, when it can and should be limited, a certain kind of person who will obstinately and resolutely refuse any such nuance comes swarming out. For example, the kind of person who thinks that it can only be called free speech if it's completely unbridled. As if every right has to be absolutely limitless in order for it to be considered a right. You're probably not that kind of person. What would you like to discuss?
  - Talanes 6y ago
    You do realize that your argument works against you, right? Assume the pronouns refer to the protesting workers instead of the organization and see what happens.
    - kryogen1c 6y ago
      > You do realize that your argument works against you, right? i dont > Assume the pronouns refer to the protesting workers instead of the organization and see what happens. facebooks not trying to force its employees to change a decision they made regarding free speech, so how does that make sense?
      - Talanes 6y ago
        But you seem to want to force them to change a decision they made regarding free speech.
Talanes 6y ago
Nice of you to just straight up admit you're putting words into other people's mouths. You should judge people based on their actions, not your fan-fiction.