4 ms·

> I've never heard anyone complain about the term black market It is not the most used term in the world. Why not try gimp, git, white/blacklist, etc? > or wa

> I've never heard anyone complain about the term black market It is not the most used term in the world. Why not try gimp, git, white/blacklist, etc? > or want to pretend that slavery doesn't go on in the middle east To be frank I was unaware that slavery was a thing in the middle east until I stumbled upon the GP's post so I presume that such a thought is not that rare. Are you sure that you just did not talk about the topic with your friends? > I think that the idea that free speech is under attack is entirely a fabrication This is probably due to your personal beliefs. I presume that you consider it free speech as long as your own beliefs are not being censored. Just in another post in this thread you talked about how firing that professor would be an ok thing to do https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23638867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23638867 As for examples of free speech being attacked. Check out the whole Stallman case from last year, or the Assange case, or the Damore case, or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635384 - there was even a case with a ruby github project not that long ago. I personally was accused of being a pedophile and there was a "petition" to ban me from a server that I dwelled on (by someone who was not even a member) because I dared to defend Stallman's right to speech. > if anything leftist and social justice circles LOVE offensive content As long as it is offensive against the people who they dislike, yes. > there's a good reason ... see use of "retard" or "spastic", or the fact that "aspergers" is ... It is not a fact of nature that there is a good reason to avoid these terms, rather, it is your personal opinion - accusing them of ignoring what you consider as a good reason when they do not consider it as such one is not logically inconsistent.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> Are you sure that you just did not talk about the topic with your friends? Note that GP mentions that they're involved in left wing/social justice circles. Many of those circles involve activism that extends beyond the US, so being aware of things like international sex trafficking, forms of slavery, etc. is probably more likely in those circles than in an average person. > Just in another post in this thread you talked about how firing that professor would be an ok thing to do I don't think GP said what you claim they said. > As for examples of free speech being attacked. Check out the whole Stallman case from last year, or the Assange case, or the Damore case Stallman wasn't about speech. He was a missing stair at best, and at worst someone who repeatedly abused his position to harass women. Are you going to argue that sexual harassment should be protected by the principle of speech? I admit I'm not particularly informed about Assange, but as far as I can tell the charges against him are for soliciting espionage/hacking. In other words, requesting other people commit crimes for him (and in other cases for aiding in crimes). I don't think those things should be protected acts, even if you believe that Assange has been a force for good (which I don't). It's like trying to defend Snowden on free speech grounds. No, he committed crimes. Arguably the crimes he committed were done with a good moral purpose, but he violated multiple laws. Assange doesn't have the defenses Snowden did (whistleblowing). As for Damore, as someone who spoke with Damore on his "document", I can say that from my personal interactions, HN gives him way too much credit. I formed my opinions on his document from my interactions with it and with him, prior to any media attention, and the martyrdom he is given is undeserved. The UCLA professor is under investigation not for "reading the letter from a birmingham jail" but for refusing to self censor after multiple students requested that he do so (and he can't be fired anyway). It's more complicated than "he read a speech".
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > Many of those circles involve activism that extends beyond the US Most of these circles involve online circle-jerking, often intermixed with US and less commonly European politics. They tend to be slightly more informed than the lower-than-average layperson but not by much. An actual activist on the subject of slavery (such as AHappyCamper) should be much more informed on the subject than the average "social justice" activist. > I don't think GP said what you claim they said. "When you have such a significant power over someone's higher education and therefore their life earnings, I don't think it's unfair to scrutinise these people's views further than had they little structural power." is what they said as a reply to people petitioning for someone to be fired from their job for something that they said on twitter. Admittedly I might have misinterpreted what they meant but I do not think I did. If they want they can correct me. > Stallman wasn't about speech It certainly was about speech. Most people that were outraged made sure to mention about how bad of a person he was for what he posted in the email or what he said in his personal blog. > and at worst someone who repeatedly abused his position to harass women There were some (mostly ableist) hearsay claims that were getting repeated by some people (such as the door label thing [which someone else put up by the way https://medium.com/@whoisylvia/richard-stallman-has-been-vilified-by-those-who-dont-know-him-a3907b25b4c7 https://medium.com/@whoisylvia/richard-stallman-has-been-vil...] or one where they though that he was ESR [https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/correction_regarding_an_erroneous_allegation] https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/correction_regarding_an_e...) but they were disputed by subsequent publications. > Are you going to argue that sexual harassment should be protected by the principle of speech? No, unless if you are going to redefine sexual harassment to include statement like "would you like to have dinner together?" or "this is a nice shirt". > I don't think those things should be protected acts And I will have to disagree. All victimless crimes -including this one- should not be crimes at all. > which I don't Why is that? > It's like trying to defend Snowden on free speech grounds Which would be an absolutely valid defence. Whistleblowing is an instance of exercising one's freedom of speech. > Assange doesn't have the defenses Snowden did (whistleblowing). While he did not do the leaking to the public himself he did do the publishing, which is yet another instance of exercising one's freedom of speech. > As for Damore, as someone who spoke with Damore on his "document", I can say that from my personal interactions, HN gives him way too much credit. I formed my opinions on his document from my interactions with it and with him, prior to any media attention I have not spoken with him and I do not really care what his character or personal opinions are like nor do I think that this kind of personal attack against him is relevant to the topic. > and the martyrdom he is given is undeserved They explicitly asked for feedback. In addition if I remember correctly google said that they want a diversity of opinion (or did they say that they would not fire people for dissenting opinions? I can't remember sadly, I will try to find it) - I would say that he deserves at least a martyrdom status just for this. > not for "reading the letter from a birmingham jail" More like for "not reading a censored version of the letter rather than the original" - which is a more specific version of "reading the letter from a birmingham jail" - so it is correct. > for refusing to self censor after multiple students requested that he do so Yes, and they were calling for him to be fired for that. If this is not an attack on the freedom of speech then I do not know what is. > and he can't be fired anyway This is irrelevant (and he can certainly be fired)

joshuamorton 6y ago

> Are you sure that you just did not talk about the topic with your friends? Note that GP mentions that they're involved in left wing/social justice circles. Many of those circles involve activism that extends beyond the US, so being aware of things like international sex trafficking, forms of slavery, etc. is probably more likely in those circles than in an average person. > Just in another post in this thread you talked about how firing that professor would be an ok thing to do I don't think GP said what you claim they said. > As for examples of free speech being attacked. Check out the whole Stallman case from last year, or the Assange case, or the Damore case Stallman wasn't about speech. He was a missing stair at best, and at worst someone who repeatedly abused his position to harass women. Are you going to argue that sexual harassment should be protected by the principle of speech? I admit I'm not particularly informed about Assange, but as far as I can tell the charges against him are for soliciting espionage/hacking. In other words, requesting other people commit crimes for him (and in other cases for aiding in crimes). I don't think those things should be protected acts, even if you believe that Assange has been a force for good (which I don't). It's like trying to defend Snowden on free speech grounds. No, he committed crimes. Arguably the crimes he committed were done with a good moral purpose, but he violated multiple laws. Assange doesn't have the defenses Snowden did (whistleblowing). As for Damore, as someone who spoke with Damore on his "document", I can say that from my personal interactions, HN gives him way too much credit. I formed my opinions on his document from my interactions with it and with him, prior to any media attention, and the martyrdom he is given is undeserved. The UCLA professor is under investigation not for "reading the letter from a birmingham jail" but for refusing to self censor after multiple students requested that he do so (and he can't be fired anyway). It's more complicated than "he read a speech".

dependenttypes 6y ago
> Many of those circles involve activism that extends beyond the US Most of these circles involve online circle-jerking, often intermixed with US and less commonly European politics. They tend to be slightly more informed than the lower-than-average layperson but not by much. An actual activist on the subject of slavery (such as AHappyCamper) should be much more informed on the subject than the average "social justice" activist. > I don't think GP said what you claim they said. "When you have such a significant power over someone's higher education and therefore their life earnings, I don't think it's unfair to scrutinise these people's views further than had they little structural power." is what they said as a reply to people petitioning for someone to be fired from their job for something that they said on twitter. Admittedly I might have misinterpreted what they meant but I do not think I did. If they want they can correct me. > Stallman wasn't about speech It certainly was about speech. Most people that were outraged made sure to mention about how bad of a person he was for what he posted in the email or what he said in his personal blog. > and at worst someone who repeatedly abused his position to harass women There were some (mostly ableist) hearsay claims that were getting repeated by some people (such as the door label thing [which someone else put up by the way https://medium.com/@whoisylvia/richard-stallman-has-been-vilified-by-those-who-dont-know-him-a3907b25b4c7 https://medium.com/@whoisylvia/richard-stallman-has-been-vil...] or one where they though that he was ESR [https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/correction_regarding_an_erroneous_allegation] https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/correction_regarding_an_e...) but they were disputed by subsequent publications. > Are you going to argue that sexual harassment should be protected by the principle of speech? No, unless if you are going to redefine sexual harassment to include statement like "would you like to have dinner together?" or "this is a nice shirt". > I don't think those things should be protected acts And I will have to disagree. All victimless crimes -including this one- should not be crimes at all. > which I don't Why is that? > It's like trying to defend Snowden on free speech grounds Which would be an absolutely valid defence. Whistleblowing is an instance of exercising one's freedom of speech. > Assange doesn't have the defenses Snowden did (whistleblowing). While he did not do the leaking to the public himself he did do the publishing, which is yet another instance of exercising one's freedom of speech. > As for Damore, as someone who spoke with Damore on his "document", I can say that from my personal interactions, HN gives him way too much credit. I formed my opinions on his document from my interactions with it and with him, prior to any media attention I have not spoken with him and I do not really care what his character or personal opinions are like nor do I think that this kind of personal attack against him is relevant to the topic. > and the martyrdom he is given is undeserved They explicitly asked for feedback. In addition if I remember correctly google said that they want a diversity of opinion (or did they say that they would not fire people for dissenting opinions? I can't remember sadly, I will try to find it) - I would say that he deserves at least a martyrdom status just for this. > not for "reading the letter from a birmingham jail" More like for "not reading a censored version of the letter rather than the original" - which is a more specific version of "reading the letter from a birmingham jail" - so it is correct. > for refusing to self censor after multiple students requested that he do so Yes, and they were calling for him to be fired for that. If this is not an attack on the freedom of speech then I do not know what is. > and he can't be fired anyway This is irrelevant (and he can certainly be fired)