5 ms·

It is not a well-thought-out post. It uses a bunch of emotionally-loaded but content-free trigger phrases like "elitist bullshit" and "nanny-state toadies" rath

It is not a well-thought-out post. It uses a bunch of emotionally-loaded but content-free trigger phrases like "elitist bullshit" and "nanny-state toadies" rather than well-supported arguments, and is being spam-downvoted for that reason.

dvt 6y ago
It definitionally is elitist bullshit though -- Mattheij's entire post implies that he knows better. Sure the term might trigger you, but that doesn't make it any less true. To wit, I personally would've been much more scathing: I mean, has he even heard of John Stewart Mill? There's been a lot of trial and error here, and the blog post conveniently ignores it all.
- tyrust 6y ago
  >has he even heard of John Stewart Mill I read On Liberty recently in the hopes of shining some light on the moderation debate. Unfortunately it came up short. I think Mill either ignored or did not anticipate just how dangerous a viral bad idea can be on a global scale. The closest he comes in the essay does argue that inflammatory speech should be punished: >No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn‐dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn‐dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Is there some other writing from him that you're referring to that provides more relevant info?
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    Read “Kindly Inquisitors” by Johnathan Rausch and then read it again. It should be required reading in schools which, ironically, would be against his entire argument.
    - tyrust 6y ago
      Are you able to briefly summarize the ideas presented in it? "Go read $book" sort of ends the conversation otherwise.
      - nemo44x 6y ago
        “ His 1993 book Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought (published by the University of Chicago Press; expanded in 2013) defends free speech and robust criticism, even when it is racist or sexist and even when it hurts.” From the authors Website. Simple to Google - it has been reprinted Ted countless times and is very popular since being published in the early/mid 1990’s.
        tyrust 6y ago
        Sure, the point isn't for me to Google it but to have a conversation here. Thanks for the info, though.
        nemo44x 6y ago
        I have another post in this thread that touches on its ideas.
        erik_seaberg 6y ago
        Thank you, a drawback of “read this public domain book” is that (while I should read it anyway) the HN thread will be long dead when I finish.
        nemo44x 6y ago
        Yeah, but I can guarantee that you own't have to wait long around here (or elsewhere) for the principles of that book to be relevant to a conversation.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - dvt 6y ago
    > I think Mill either ignored or did not anticipate just how dangerous a viral bad idea can be on a global scale. I'll be as charitable as I can here, but the fact that you're even willing to call an idea "dangerous" tells me that you didn't quite understand Mill. Ideas, even though they might be "good" or "bad" -- do no harm. Ideas are meant to be thrown in the marketplace where the stifling of ideas hurts not the idea itself (or its inceptor), but rather everyone else. So an idea like "Bill Gates started COVID" might be a bad one, but Mill's argument is that I would be deprived if, say, Facebook or Twitter, would censor it. Mill has no problems with ideas, but he does have a problem with harm (this is much more narrow). See, for example, how he differentiates between the two when he writes about the French Revolution[1]. [1] https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/jsmill/diss-disc/french-rev.html https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/jsmill/diss-disc/fren...
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      You're not arguing against the post you replied to. You say "Mill says ideas are not dangerous". The poster said "I think Mill didn't know how dangerous they can be". The poster has already acknowledged what Mill's position was, and has said that they suspect that his position is wrong.
      - dvt 6y ago
        > You're not arguing against the post you replied to Yeah, I'm not granting the premise that an idea can be "dangerous" (neither would Mill) -- I think the burden is on @tyrust proving how/why/when ideas are "dangerous" because that's kind of a tall order.
        tyrust 6y ago
        It is a tall order! To make it a little easier (and hopefully clear up a potential semantic misunderstanding), I don't mean the idea itself, but its communication and implied call to action. Ideas rattling around in your head certainly aren't going to cause any harm. The trite example is shouting "fire" in a movie theater. Hate speech or other inciting speech are other examples; this article mentions recent destruction of 5G towers. Mill argues that the truth will win out, but doesn't (to my recollection) acknowledge the consequences that happen in the meantime. (I haven't had a chance to read the French Revolution thing you linked, I'll reply to that comment once I do)
- classified 6y ago
  It‘s even worse than elitist, it‘s ultimately totalitarian and fascist. Any notion of freedom that doesn‘t include the freedom to be wrong is absurd and meaningless.
core-questions 6y ago
Do I really need to think hard about my support for basic human freedoms, every single time I see someone write a "well thought out" post about why they want to take them away? Is this kind of tensiment worthy of some kind of "well supported argument"? Will citing the great philosophers of history change any minds here? Do I need to quote S. G. Tallentyre, will her tired catchphrase strike home? If the article had been about how we don't deserve the right to vote, or the right to free association, because we might vote for the wrong people or hang out with the wrong people, would you react the same way? Those rights are just as important, I believe. There comes a point at which the feeling is, oh great, here we go, we've found yet another moneyed professional who has decided that because they personally agree with everything the establishment says, does, and wants, there can be no reason why anyone would want to dissent without being immoral and evil and so forth. Time to shut down people's freedom so they stop saying such annoying things, and then we can finally relax, all the problems in society will be gone! If only we can make sure that only the Ministry of Truth vets every single thing before people say it, then we can make sure that pandemics never happen, that nobody ever gets mad enough to harm someone else, that nobody ever has a bad day ever again. It will be fantastic! It will be like LinkedIn, everywhere! Nobody will have anything negative to say, and so therefore nobody will ever have anything negative to think. Perfect. Can't wait. Yes, he's a nanny-state toady. Anyone who wants to use the powers of surveillance capitalism to tell me what I can and cannot say and think is precisely that. It's not meant to be a nice thing to day, it's meant to engage you emotionally, because your freedom is being threatened as much as mine is by sentiments like this. How much of an argument do I need to summon, when generations of my ancestors and those of many, many people in the west fought for these rights as a new pinnacle of human achievement? Do I really need to expend a ton of personal effort explaining to you why I don't think giving corporate HR departments the ultimate arbitrary authority over what is acceptable to say is the proper way to run society? Are you so hoodwinked? Are you a proud, outspoken person who somehow has zero critique of the current social order?

dvt 6y ago

It definitionally is elitist bullshit though -- Mattheij's entire post implies that he knows better. Sure the term might trigger you, but that doesn't make it any less true. To wit, I personally would've been much more scathing: I mean, has he even heard of John Stewart Mill? There's been a lot of trial and error here, and the blog post conveniently ignores it all.

tyrust 6y ago
>has he even heard of John Stewart Mill I read On Liberty recently in the hopes of shining some light on the moderation debate. Unfortunately it came up short. I think Mill either ignored or did not anticipate just how dangerous a viral bad idea can be on a global scale. The closest he comes in the essay does argue that inflammatory speech should be punished: >No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn‐dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn‐dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Is there some other writing from him that you're referring to that provides more relevant info?
- nemo44x 6y ago
  Read “Kindly Inquisitors” by Johnathan Rausch and then read it again. It should be required reading in schools which, ironically, would be against his entire argument.
  - tyrust 6y ago
    Are you able to briefly summarize the ideas presented in it? "Go read $book" sort of ends the conversation otherwise.
    - nemo44x 6y ago
      “ His 1993 book Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought (published by the University of Chicago Press; expanded in 2013) defends free speech and robust criticism, even when it is racist or sexist and even when it hurts.” From the authors Website. Simple to Google - it has been reprinted Ted countless times and is very popular since being published in the early/mid 1990’s.
      - tyrust 6y ago
        Sure, the point isn't for me to Google it but to have a conversation here. Thanks for the info, though.
        nemo44x 6y ago
        I have another post in this thread that touches on its ideas.
        erik_seaberg 6y ago
        Thank you, a drawback of “read this public domain book” is that (while I should read it anyway) the HN thread will be long dead when I finish.
        nemo44x 6y ago
        Yeah, but I can guarantee that you own't have to wait long around here (or elsewhere) for the principles of that book to be relevant to a conversation.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- dvt 6y ago
  > I think Mill either ignored or did not anticipate just how dangerous a viral bad idea can be on a global scale. I'll be as charitable as I can here, but the fact that you're even willing to call an idea "dangerous" tells me that you didn't quite understand Mill. Ideas, even though they might be "good" or "bad" -- do no harm. Ideas are meant to be thrown in the marketplace where the stifling of ideas hurts not the idea itself (or its inceptor), but rather everyone else. So an idea like "Bill Gates started COVID" might be a bad one, but Mill's argument is that I would be deprived if, say, Facebook or Twitter, would censor it. Mill has no problems with ideas, but he does have a problem with harm (this is much more narrow). See, for example, how he differentiates between the two when he writes about the French Revolution[1]. [1] https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/jsmill/diss-disc/french-rev.html https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/jsmill/diss-disc/fren...
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    You're not arguing against the post you replied to. You say "Mill says ideas are not dangerous". The poster said "I think Mill didn't know how dangerous they can be". The poster has already acknowledged what Mill's position was, and has said that they suspect that his position is wrong.
    - dvt 6y ago
      > You're not arguing against the post you replied to Yeah, I'm not granting the premise that an idea can be "dangerous" (neither would Mill) -- I think the burden is on @tyrust proving how/why/when ideas are "dangerous" because that's kind of a tall order.
      - tyrust 6y ago
        It is a tall order! To make it a little easier (and hopefully clear up a potential semantic misunderstanding), I don't mean the idea itself, but its communication and implied call to action. Ideas rattling around in your head certainly aren't going to cause any harm. The trite example is shouting "fire" in a movie theater. Hate speech or other inciting speech are other examples; this article mentions recent destruction of 5G towers. Mill argues that the truth will win out, but doesn't (to my recollection) acknowledge the consequences that happen in the meantime. (I haven't had a chance to read the French Revolution thing you linked, I'll reply to that comment once I do)
classified 6y ago
It‘s even worse than elitist, it‘s ultimately totalitarian and fascist. Any notion of freedom that doesn‘t include the freedom to be wrong is absurd and meaningless.

core-questions 6y ago

Do I really need to think hard about my support for basic human freedoms, every single time I see someone write a "well thought out" post about why they want to take them away? Is this kind of tensiment worthy of some kind of "well supported argument"? Will citing the great philosophers of history change any minds here? Do I need to quote S. G. Tallentyre, will her tired catchphrase strike home? If the article had been about how we don't deserve the right to vote, or the right to free association, because we might vote for the wrong people or hang out with the wrong people, would you react the same way? Those rights are just as important, I believe. There comes a point at which the feeling is, oh great, here we go, we've found yet another moneyed professional who has decided that because they personally agree with everything the establishment says, does, and wants, there can be no reason why anyone would want to dissent without being immoral and evil and so forth. Time to shut down people's freedom so they stop saying such annoying things, and then we can finally relax, all the problems in society will be gone! If only we can make sure that only the Ministry of Truth vets every single thing before people say it, then we can make sure that pandemics never happen, that nobody ever gets mad enough to harm someone else, that nobody ever has a bad day ever again. It will be fantastic! It will be like LinkedIn, everywhere! Nobody will have anything negative to say, and so therefore nobody will ever have anything negative to think. Perfect. Can't wait. Yes, he's a nanny-state toady. Anyone who wants to use the powers of surveillance capitalism to tell me what I can and cannot say and think is precisely that. It's not meant to be a nice thing to day, it's meant to engage you emotionally, because your freedom is being threatened as much as mine is by sentiments like this. How much of an argument do I need to summon, when generations of my ancestors and those of many, many people in the west fought for these rights as a new pinnacle of human achievement? Do I really need to expend a ton of personal effort explaining to you why I don't think giving corporate HR departments the ultimate arbitrary authority over what is acceptable to say is the proper way to run society? Are you so hoodwinked? Are you a proud, outspoken person who somehow has zero critique of the current social order?