4 ms·

The problem people have with free speech is the way it is used to legitimise bad behaviour. Creating a hostile environment for people - questioning their equali

by hkt 6y ago

The problem people have with free speech is the way it is used to legitimise bad behaviour. Creating a hostile environment for people - questioning their equality and validity - is not a reasonable moral choice. Being ostracised for one's awful choices isn't unfair or unexpected, or indeed unprecedented. Most people complaining about free speech are essentially campaigning for their right to be cruel and impolite in polite society.

at_a_remove 6y ago
It certainly would be pleasant if I never heard "abolish Whiteness" ever again, yes, but I am just not so sure how far my feelings should be taken.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kerkeslager 6y ago
That's a total mischaracterization of people who believe in free speech. I don't think people should say bigoted things. But more importantly, I don't think people should think bigoted things. If you shame and ostracize people into not saying bigoted things, but you don't solve the thinking bigoted things problem, then all you've done is hide the problem, and you're suddenly surprised when a bigot gets elected to the White House or a bigoted police officer murders someone and gets away with it (again). Censored bigots don't magically stop being bigots--they just go form their own communities. The way you get people to stop thinking bigoted things is not by silencing it, it's by explaining to people why they're wrong. Even if you don't change the mind of the bigot you're talking to, you might change the mind of someone else who is listening to or reading what you say. I'm not campaigning for people's right to be cruel and impolite. I'm campaigning for conversation that brings the truth to light and improves our collective thinking. And to be clear, I'm also not saying that free speech means you should have no consequences in any context. If you say something racist at work you should absolutely be fired. I'm saying that we need places where people can say racist things so that those racist things can be confronted with the truth.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > If you shame and ostracize people into not saying bigoted things, but you don't solve the thinking bigoted things problem, then all you've done is hide the problem This is not true. It does not solve that person thinking bigoted things, but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots. A huge number of people have fallen into terrible thought patterns after being exposed to these ideas through youtubers and faux academics. If there are fewer people with PhDs after their name willing to lend a veneer of legitimacy to defeated ideas then there will be fewer people drawn into the trap.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    > It does not solve that person thinking bigoted things, but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Is it your belief that we are actually capable of silencing bigots? Keep in mind that the largest TV network in the US is Fox News, which is more-or-less openly bigoted. Bigots are capable of writing their own publications and building their own websites. And I'll just save everyone's time by pre-emptively shooting down that dumb study of Reddit which censorship proponents frequently cite[1]; there's absolutely no evidence that those users didn't simply move over to Voat. Put yourself in their shoes: if someone tried to censor anti-bigotry speech, wouldn't that mobilize you to find different avenues of speech and speak all the louder? What makes you think that bigots can't or won't do (or haven't already done) the same thing? On the contrary, trying to silence people is more likely to radicalize them than actually succeed in silencing them. [1] http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots This is the same as saying "I can't logically defeat their points so I will use underhanded censorship tricks". I would not care so much if it was only about actually bigoted things but it seems to include everything that goes against what the average SV google engineer believes. At the same time you are punishing these that are interested in seeing what the censored side thinks as well as the points against it.
dependenttypes 6y ago
> Creating a hostile environment for people Ironically in my experience this is exactly what anti-free speech people do. > Most people complaining about free speech are essentially campaigning for their right to be cruel and impolite in polite society. If politeness is defined by what the majority of the mob believes in, sure. I guess 80 years back you would be impolite to talk about gay rights.

by hkt 6y ago

at_a_remove 6y ago

It certainly would be pleasant if I never heard "abolish Whiteness" ever again, yes, but I am just not so sure how far my feelings should be taken.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kerkeslager 6y ago

That's a total mischaracterization of people who believe in free speech. I don't think people should say bigoted things. But more importantly, I don't think people should think bigoted things. If you shame and ostracize people into not saying bigoted things, but you don't solve the thinking bigoted things problem, then all you've done is hide the problem, and you're suddenly surprised when a bigot gets elected to the White House or a bigoted police officer murders someone and gets away with it (again). Censored bigots don't magically stop being bigots--they just go form their own communities. The way you get people to stop thinking bigoted things is not by silencing it, it's by explaining to people why they're wrong. Even if you don't change the mind of the bigot you're talking to, you might change the mind of someone else who is listening to or reading what you say. I'm not campaigning for people's right to be cruel and impolite. I'm campaigning for conversation that brings the truth to light and improves our collective thinking. And to be clear, I'm also not saying that free speech means you should have no consequences in any context. If you say something racist at work you should absolutely be fired. I'm saying that we need places where people can say racist things so that those racist things can be confronted with the truth.

UncleMeat 6y ago
> If you shame and ostracize people into not saying bigoted things, but you don't solve the thinking bigoted things problem, then all you've done is hide the problem This is not true. It does not solve that person thinking bigoted things, but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots. A huge number of people have fallen into terrible thought patterns after being exposed to these ideas through youtubers and faux academics. If there are fewer people with PhDs after their name willing to lend a veneer of legitimacy to defeated ideas then there will be fewer people drawn into the trap.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > It does not solve that person thinking bigoted things, but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Is it your belief that we are actually capable of silencing bigots? Keep in mind that the largest TV network in the US is Fox News, which is more-or-less openly bigoted. Bigots are capable of writing their own publications and building their own websites. And I'll just save everyone's time by pre-emptively shooting down that dumb study of Reddit which censorship proponents frequently cite[1]; there's absolutely no evidence that those users didn't simply move over to Voat. Put yourself in their shoes: if someone tried to censor anti-bigotry speech, wouldn't that mobilize you to find different avenues of speech and speak all the louder? What makes you think that bigots can't or won't do (or haven't already done) the same thing? On the contrary, trying to silence people is more likely to radicalize them than actually succeed in silencing them. [1] http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > but it does help prevent them from turning other people into bigots This is the same as saying "I can't logically defeat their points so I will use underhanded censorship tricks". I would not care so much if it was only about actually bigoted things but it seems to include everything that goes against what the average SV google engineer believes. At the same time you are punishing these that are interested in seeing what the censored side thinks as well as the points against it.

dependenttypes 6y ago

> Creating a hostile environment for people Ironically in my experience this is exactly what anti-free speech people do. > Most people complaining about free speech are essentially campaigning for their right to be cruel and impolite in polite society. If politeness is defined by what the majority of the mob believes in, sure. I guess 80 years back you would be impolite to talk about gay rights.