4 ms·

I wasn't calling for curtailing speech in any way, but instead mitigating out of control feedback loops that result from the public's way of disincentivizing un

I wasn't calling for curtailing speech in any way, but instead mitigating out of control feedback loops that result from the public's way of disincentivizing undesirable speech, which is calling it out. I don't want racist and white supremacists spreading their rhetoric, so I want societal pressure to continue to work as it does against those people. At the same time, I don't want merely unpopular opinions getting the full weight of societal pressure causing problems for people that merely want to discuss what are actually open questions. Reducing this to simply a matter of free speech or not is missing the point. This is a matter of figuring out how to deal with the negative effects of free speech when we care enough about free speech that limiting it in some way is not on the table.

bb88 6y ago
> I don't want racist and white supremacists spreading their rhetoric That ship has sailed. > At the same time, I don't want merely unpopular opinions getting the full weight of societal pressure causing problems for people that merely want to discuss what are actually open questions. Free speech isn't just about who gets to speak what, it's about who decides who gets to read/listen/watch what they want. That's basically the crux of censorship, right? I don't want mob induced censorship any more than I want government censorship. In the end, cancel culture is people who choose not to use free speech to push their agenda, but instead threatens other's livelihood or shame critics of an unpopular position into silence.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > mob induced censorship That's called "living in a community". It's impossible to interact with other people without providing some level of acceptance or rejection of what they are doing, whether on purpose or accident, whether they interpret you correctly or not. Even just walking away communicates something.this isn't always bad, it's how we enforce norms that are not laws. Lie or act in a way I do not approve of and I can choose to stop or limit my interactions with you, and I can express my opinion to others. I this way I am censoring you in a small way. It's how humans interact, and it's useful and good when used in moderation for good causes. When not used in moderation, and when a million people jump on a single person and express enough displeasure to cause severe ramifications for relatively small offenses, then it's not good. I don't want to see racist rhetoric in the same way I don't want to see poor behavior at others expenses. That is, I want it allowed, but for people to face somewhat appropriate ramifications for the offense, to discourage them from spouting it everywhere people do t want to see it. To be clear, I mean it in the literal, bit colloquial sense, in that it's a preference, not a call to censor others be preventing it entirely, as overreactions are what I'm arguing against.
  - bb88 6y ago
    > That's called "living in a community". Except cancel culture is anything but community driven. It's social media driven -- which in itself is a platform to get more views to sell you more ads. The more the platform can draw your ire, the more ads it sells, the more ire the platform spreads, etc. The problem is that words aren't which we argue our politics by anymore. It's now who has the biggest weapon to personally destroy those that speak out.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      It is still a community driving it even if the configuration is different.
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  > I don't want mob induced censorship any more than I want government censorship. So what you want is to be able to say whatever you like, and suffer no consequences from that speech. Sorry, the First Amendment does not guarantee consequence-free speech, particularly if your speech is a pack of lies or racist, or as occurs so often, both. I would add that after a decade of watching the First Amendment cited almost exclusively to protect hate speech from psychopaths, my respect for it is badly tarnished.
  - bb88 6y ago
    Sorry, autocratic rule by those on the left is still autocratic rule. > The First Amendment does not guarantee consequence-free speech. Civics 101. My right to through my fist stops at your face. Simple. Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, etc. etc. Political speech, ie, expressing ones viewpoint, is and has always been protected by the First Amendment -- even if it's false or racist speech. > I would add that after a decade of watching the First Amendment cited almost exclusively to protect hate speech from psychopaths... What would you replace it with? Seriously. Are you going to punish people for lying? Lock them up for something just slightly racist? Who do we trust to make these judgements? Republican appointed judges? What?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Civics 101. [...] Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, etc. etc. > Are you going to punish people for lying? We punish people for lies that cause harm all the time. Though a bad example to use (because it is dicta unsupported by the law at the time in a particularly repugnant case suppressing core political speech that was later overturned, so that the quote at issue was never part of the substantive case law itself, wasn't particularly supported by the substantive case law, and was issued in a case now widely recognized as having been wrongly decided), the quote you wave your hand in the vague direction of about falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is also an odd one to raise if you are going to turn around and sneer at that idea.
      - bb88 6y ago
tomcam 6y ago
Luckily here in the United States we have a clever mechanism to deal with the negative effects of free speech. It is called the Bill of Rights, and it works really well. In fact it is the best such system in history.

bb88 6y ago

> I don't want racist and white supremacists spreading their rhetoric That ship has sailed. > At the same time, I don't want merely unpopular opinions getting the full weight of societal pressure causing problems for people that merely want to discuss what are actually open questions. Free speech isn't just about who gets to speak what, it's about who decides who gets to read/listen/watch what they want. That's basically the crux of censorship, right? I don't want mob induced censorship any more than I want government censorship. In the end, cancel culture is people who choose not to use free speech to push their agenda, but instead threatens other's livelihood or shame critics of an unpopular position into silence.

kbenson 6y ago
> mob induced censorship That's called "living in a community". It's impossible to interact with other people without providing some level of acceptance or rejection of what they are doing, whether on purpose or accident, whether they interpret you correctly or not. Even just walking away communicates something.this isn't always bad, it's how we enforce norms that are not laws. Lie or act in a way I do not approve of and I can choose to stop or limit my interactions with you, and I can express my opinion to others. I this way I am censoring you in a small way. It's how humans interact, and it's useful and good when used in moderation for good causes. When not used in moderation, and when a million people jump on a single person and express enough displeasure to cause severe ramifications for relatively small offenses, then it's not good. I don't want to see racist rhetoric in the same way I don't want to see poor behavior at others expenses. That is, I want it allowed, but for people to face somewhat appropriate ramifications for the offense, to discourage them from spouting it everywhere people do t want to see it. To be clear, I mean it in the literal, bit colloquial sense, in that it's a preference, not a call to censor others be preventing it entirely, as overreactions are what I'm arguing against.
- bb88 6y ago
  > That's called "living in a community". Except cancel culture is anything but community driven. It's social media driven -- which in itself is a platform to get more views to sell you more ads. The more the platform can draw your ire, the more ads it sells, the more ire the platform spreads, etc. The problem is that words aren't which we argue our politics by anymore. It's now who has the biggest weapon to personally destroy those that speak out.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    It is still a community driving it even if the configuration is different.
TomSwirly 6y ago
> I don't want mob induced censorship any more than I want government censorship. So what you want is to be able to say whatever you like, and suffer no consequences from that speech. Sorry, the First Amendment does not guarantee consequence-free speech, particularly if your speech is a pack of lies or racist, or as occurs so often, both. I would add that after a decade of watching the First Amendment cited almost exclusively to protect hate speech from psychopaths, my respect for it is badly tarnished.
- bb88 6y ago
  Sorry, autocratic rule by those on the left is still autocratic rule. > The First Amendment does not guarantee consequence-free speech. Civics 101. My right to through my fist stops at your face. Simple. Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, etc. etc. Political speech, ie, expressing ones viewpoint, is and has always been protected by the First Amendment -- even if it's false or racist speech. > I would add that after a decade of watching the First Amendment cited almost exclusively to protect hate speech from psychopaths... What would you replace it with? Seriously. Are you going to punish people for lying? Lock them up for something just slightly racist? Who do we trust to make these judgements? Republican appointed judges? What?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Civics 101. [...] Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, etc. etc. > Are you going to punish people for lying? We punish people for lies that cause harm all the time. Though a bad example to use (because it is dicta unsupported by the law at the time in a particularly repugnant case suppressing core political speech that was later overturned, so that the quote at issue was never part of the substantive case law itself, wasn't particularly supported by the substantive case law, and was issued in a case now widely recognized as having been wrongly decided), the quote you wave your hand in the vague direction of about falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is also an odd one to raise if you are going to turn around and sneer at that idea.
    - bb88 6y ago

tomcam 6y ago

Luckily here in the United States we have a clever mechanism to deal with the negative effects of free speech. It is called the Bill of Rights, and it works really well. In fact it is the best such system in history.