3 ms·

"People being hurt" is never a reason to stop something. If we took that route on everything, then everything would be banned because in some time or place, eve

"People being hurt" is never a reason to stop something. If we took that route on everything, then everything would be banned because in some time or place, everyone has the capability of being hurt. Back in the 90s and early 2000s, people would censor things "because of the children". Nowadays, people censor things because "it's going to hurt me". I believe in absolute free speech, even if it's wrong and it makes me nauseous hearing it. I believe that the truth and reason will convince the majority. You can't protect everyone, and you can't convince everyone. If you try to protect everyone, it's a slippery slope to fascism which is what we are seeing right now.

UncleMeat 6y ago
Sure it is. It is a question of degree, but "people are being hurt" is 100% why we have all sorts of laws ranging from preventing dumping waste in rivers to false advertising. In this case, a lot of people believe that people are being hurt extremely badly for centuries by racist systems and that some kinds of speech contribute directly to supporting those racist systems. "We can't protect people without turning fascist" is a really rough take.
- ping_pong 6y ago
  I was talking about when it comes to speech and ideas. Not crimes. Don't be disingenous. Ideas that crossover to discrimination or fraud are actions that are criminal and we have laws against this. People who discriminate against others can be charged or sued, which is perfectly okay. But if someone quotes someone who asks the question "why do people not talk about black-on-black crime?" and then their entire livelihood is at risk just for asking a question, that is fascism and censorship of ideas. This is what Matt Tabbiti talks about in his article https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i.... The problem is that "banning every thought or idea that hurts people" it has crossed over to just simple thoughts and discussions, which is wrong. People need to be tougher. If you're "hurt" by an idea, then you are fragile. That's the whole point about talking, discussing, arguing and ultimately agreeing or disagreeing.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    I think the history of Blood Libel is instructive here. The story of Simon of Trent was spread both maliciously and foolishly and led directly to the murders of a large number of jewish people and played a role in centuries long persecution of european jews. The example you mention is interesting because I think it is a good example of a statement that is both spread maliciously and foolishly. There has been both deep study and serious activism surrounding "black on black crime" yet this phrase persists because it is powerful ammunition from people who seek to persist white supremacy to convince people that people that activism is just whining and should be ignored. If you stood up in a Q&A session at a sociology conference on criminology and asked this you'd be outing yourself as truly ignorant of the field - the same as if you stood up in a Q&A session at an atmospheric science conference and asked "what about milankovitch cycles". The heterodox academy tips their hand when they bring up examples of thoroughly discredited ideas as things that they should be able to force people to take seriously.
    - ping_pong 6y ago
      Sorry, are you saying black-on-black crime is thoroughly discredited? I'm not saying that blacks haven't suffered immeasurably due to white racism, but if a journalist retweets a link to an interview of a black activist that asks the question about black-on-black crime, and then the journalist gets attacked as racist, that's too many levels of indirection. It sounds like people aren't even allowed to ask the question unless they wish to be fearful about their careers and livelihood. That is the definition of censorship of ideas. And if someone were to ask a question that is ridiculous, is the answer to cancel them or to engage in a discussion and educate them? That is the essence of free speech.
      - UncleMeat 6y ago
        > Sorry, are you saying black-on-black crime is thoroughly discredited? No. The specific discussion of black-on-black crime is about the idea that nobody is discussing it, which is just false on its face. This is distinct from questioning whether black people are often the victims of crimes committed by other black people. People are allowed to ask questions. I just ask two things. 1. That when somebody provides you with an answer, you stop asking the question. 2. That you recognize when a question has been weaponized as a means to dismiss activism and analysis rather than as a means to expand activism and expand analysis. This is the same as my point about Milankovich cycles. They are real things. But "what about Milankovich cycles" is a weaponized idea among climate deniers designed to convince people that the experts haven't considered this, when they really have. Similarly, "what about black on black crime" is a weaponized idea designed to convince people that experts haven't considered this, when they really have. Experts have concluded clearly that the existence and even high frequency of black-on-black crime absolutely does not dismantle claims about white supremacy and systemic racism. Similarly, experts have concluded clearly that the existence of Milankovich cycles does not dismantle claims about climate change and the role of carbon emissions.

UncleMeat 6y ago

Sure it is. It is a question of degree, but "people are being hurt" is 100% why we have all sorts of laws ranging from preventing dumping waste in rivers to false advertising. In this case, a lot of people believe that people are being hurt extremely badly for centuries by racist systems and that some kinds of speech contribute directly to supporting those racist systems. "We can't protect people without turning fascist" is a really rough take.

ping_pong 6y ago
I was talking about when it comes to speech and ideas. Not crimes. Don't be disingenous. Ideas that crossover to discrimination or fraud are actions that are criminal and we have laws against this. People who discriminate against others can be charged or sued, which is perfectly okay. But if someone quotes someone who asks the question "why do people not talk about black-on-black crime?" and then their entire livelihood is at risk just for asking a question, that is fascism and censorship of ideas. This is what Matt Tabbiti talks about in his article https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i.... The problem is that "banning every thought or idea that hurts people" it has crossed over to just simple thoughts and discussions, which is wrong. People need to be tougher. If you're "hurt" by an idea, then you are fragile. That's the whole point about talking, discussing, arguing and ultimately agreeing or disagreeing.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  I think the history of Blood Libel is instructive here. The story of Simon of Trent was spread both maliciously and foolishly and led directly to the murders of a large number of jewish people and played a role in centuries long persecution of european jews. The example you mention is interesting because I think it is a good example of a statement that is both spread maliciously and foolishly. There has been both deep study and serious activism surrounding "black on black crime" yet this phrase persists because it is powerful ammunition from people who seek to persist white supremacy to convince people that people that activism is just whining and should be ignored. If you stood up in a Q&A session at a sociology conference on criminology and asked this you'd be outing yourself as truly ignorant of the field - the same as if you stood up in a Q&A session at an atmospheric science conference and asked "what about milankovitch cycles". The heterodox academy tips their hand when they bring up examples of thoroughly discredited ideas as things that they should be able to force people to take seriously.
  - ping_pong 6y ago
    Sorry, are you saying black-on-black crime is thoroughly discredited? I'm not saying that blacks haven't suffered immeasurably due to white racism, but if a journalist retweets a link to an interview of a black activist that asks the question about black-on-black crime, and then the journalist gets attacked as racist, that's too many levels of indirection. It sounds like people aren't even allowed to ask the question unless they wish to be fearful about their careers and livelihood. That is the definition of censorship of ideas. And if someone were to ask a question that is ridiculous, is the answer to cancel them or to engage in a discussion and educate them? That is the essence of free speech.
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      > Sorry, are you saying black-on-black crime is thoroughly discredited? No. The specific discussion of black-on-black crime is about the idea that nobody is discussing it, which is just false on its face. This is distinct from questioning whether black people are often the victims of crimes committed by other black people. People are allowed to ask questions. I just ask two things. 1. That when somebody provides you with an answer, you stop asking the question. 2. That you recognize when a question has been weaponized as a means to dismiss activism and analysis rather than as a means to expand activism and expand analysis. This is the same as my point about Milankovich cycles. They are real things. But "what about Milankovich cycles" is a weaponized idea among climate deniers designed to convince people that the experts haven't considered this, when they really have. Similarly, "what about black on black crime" is a weaponized idea designed to convince people that experts haven't considered this, when they really have. Experts have concluded clearly that the existence and even high frequency of black-on-black crime absolutely does not dismantle claims about white supremacy and systemic racism. Similarly, experts have concluded clearly that the existence of Milankovich cycles does not dismantle claims about climate change and the role of carbon emissions.