4 ms·

It's very dangerous to think the way you do, and I'm glad I live in a country where freedom of speech is a fundamental right.

• krapp 6y ago
  Come now. "Very dangerous to think the way you do?" That's tantamount to wrongthink, and not very pro free-speech of you.
  • p1esk 6y ago
    Yes, I believe it is dangerous to think the way he does. If you believe it's dangerous to think the way I do, fine. Feel free to label it any way you want, wrongthink or whatever. As long as we all are allowed to express our opinions publicly, we will be fine.
    • krapp 6y ago
      >As long as we all are allowed to express our opinions publicly, we will be fine. But then, what's the danger in their way of thinking? Surely you don't believe that a particular idea or form of speech can be inherently harmful? You would be running up against the paradox of tolerance then, which seems to be sympathetic to bmitc's argument.
      • p1esk 6y ago
        I believe the way of thinking that Hitler or Lenin pursued was dangerous. However, I don't believe their views should had been censored at the time, or should be censored now. There are things within their views that should not be tolerated though, such as a direct call to kill someone. Or something like saying "bomb" on the airplane. Certain things in certain circumstances override our right to free speech. Spreading lies is not one them, in my opinion.
        • krapp 6y ago
          It seems like an arbitrary line in the sand to me. You mention Hitler as an example of dangerous thinking, but of course the culture that led to the Holocaust fed on the spread of lies and conspiracy theory. Lies can do a lot more harm than mere threats, because unlike direct threats, lies can be memetic and self-sustaining, they alter a person's view of reality.
          • p1esk 6y ago
            So to prevent a next Hitler, should we censor anyone expressing or spreading dangerous misinformation, or should we publicly point out how dangerous their views are and try to engage in a debate? What else can we do?
            • krapp 6y ago
              We can do both. What you and nearly everyone who argues from your point of view fails to concede is that that these are not mutually opposed strategies. It is possible to censor dangerous information without falling down a slippery slope towards arbitrary thought-policing and Orwellian dystopia, or to at least attempt to slow the spread of dangerous misinformation by not allowing it to be normalized or given equal weight to truth, and it is possible to do so while attempting to engage the open-minded few. In a world where the only thing one could do about the next Hitler is politely and civilly ask him and his neo-Nazi cohort for a vigorous series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates, one will be told to get lost while they go on about their business of saturating every platform they can with their propaganda and poisoning the well of public discourse. And then what? Their strategy is more effective than yours. What can you do when your only option can be rendered ineffective simply by ignoring it and mocking it with Facebook memes? You've already lost the battle.
              • p1esk 6y ago
                It is possible to censor dangerous information without falling down a slippery slope towards arbitrary thought-policing and Orwellian dystopia You made an extraordinary claim without providing any evidence or explanation. It's like saying "faster than light travel is possible". How is it possible? Has anyone done that successfully? More specifically, who's going to be the censor? Who will decide whether what I write is a dangerous misinformation or not? How will they decide that? How are they going to censor it (removing my comments on HN, cutting off my internet, fining me, arresting me, sending a predator drone after me)? This is really scary. This is exactly how the next Hitler can emerge.
      • satyrnein 6y ago
        I think the charitable interpretation is that the parent believes it is dangerous to enact policies based on that way of thinking, not that those thoughts in the abstract are harmful.
        • krapp 6y ago
          Everyone with a political opinion wants to enact policies based on that way of thinking. Speech is the medium by which thought becomes policy. These can't be cleanly separated or considered in isolation. Believing that there are potential dangers to enacting certain ideas is not fundamentally different than considering the ideas themselves to be dangerous. After all, that is exactly what people who want racists, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, etc. are worried about - those ideas gaining acceptance and being put into action.
  • bmitc 6y ago
    Apparently it's dangerous to want to understand things and improve the situations we find ourselves in, which is all I suggest we do. This is exactly why the U.S. is headed where it's headed. The U.S. is full of people that blindly think that a group of guys 200-300 years ago somehow landed upon a perfect system that somehow fixes all issues of human emotion and behavior and protects against technological developments like the Internet which they couldn't even fathom at the time, while at the same time not caring that even the system they laid out has been eroded in the interest of consolidating power and corporations.