3 ms·

It's so easy to think it's easy to figure out the "right" speech, just the "good" speech. I can't express it any better than the "What you can't say" essay: >

It's so easy to think it's easy to figure out the "right" speech, just the "good" speech. I can't express it any better than the "What you can't say" essay: > It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise. > Is our time any different? To anyone who has read any amount of history, the answer is almost certainly no. It would be a remarkable coincidence if ours were the first era to get everything just right. There are always risks to free speech, and there are always those who want you to believe that it's worth the cost of free speech. It'll improve society, they say. What constitutes "bad" speech is as obvious to you as it was to Nazi supporters: it's speech that they deem to be b̶a̶t̶s̶h̶i̶t̶ ̶c̶r̶a̶z̶y̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶a̶s̶ bad at the time. Step 1: immediately dismiss certain speech with cocksure confidence that you'll always be right. Check Step 2: mock others as "incapable" of differentiating good speech from bad speech like you can. Check Step 3: demand the silence of obviously bad speech. Pending...

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
The problem with your entire approach to this is that is effectively in denial of what the proponents of the most controversial speech actually say. They do not subscribe to the scientific method. They do not believe in the use of historical analysis. They do not, in fact, believe in free speech at all. I'm happy for there to be speech from people who believe in controversial ideas that I do not agree with, on the condition that they agree to a methodology by which we can establish truthiness But the nature of today's most controversial speech is that is utterly denies any attempt to establish a methodology. I don't want to "dismiss certain speech". I want to avoid speech that is predicated on denying its own fallibility, on denying that there can be any independent investigation of its own truthiness, on asserting that it is based on secret knowledge that if the listener could only share would immediately establish the utter truth of it all. The conspiracies that have become popular on the right generally fall into this category. You cannot question QAnon, you can only believe. You cannot question "there is no anthropogenic warming", you can only hand-wave. Useful speech is always subject to interrogation. Is always subject to self-doubt. Is always subject to invalidation. Is always contingent. So ... I don't care what the content of speech is. I care about what the conditions for speech are. Speech that does not admit to interrogation, self-doubt, invalidation and contingency is bad, regardless of its content. I am not advocating for the silencing of speech that counts as "bad" by this metric, I am asserting that its presence in our culture causes problems.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  > They do not, in fact, believe in free speech at all. And when they appear on HN and other forums to advocate for the removal of free speech, I'll defend and advocate for free speech just the same. Beyond that, it doesn't matter what they say or think, nor does it matter how insane or infallible you believe their speech is. I'm not going to pre-emptively silence them to prepare for a world in which they hypothetically silence me. > I am asserting that its presence in our culture causes problems Sure I guess, although that seemed fairly obvious to me. A lot of things cause problems, what matters is how we deal with them. If you're not advocating for the silencing of speech that you count as "bad", then we're in agreement. This thread is about limiting free speech on social media, and I'm glad to hear you don't support that.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

The problem with your entire approach to this is that is effectively in denial of what the proponents of the most controversial speech actually say. They do not subscribe to the scientific method. They do not believe in the use of historical analysis. They do not, in fact, believe in free speech at all. I'm happy for there to be speech from people who believe in controversial ideas that I do not agree with, on the condition that they agree to a methodology by which we can establish truthiness But the nature of today's most controversial speech is that is utterly denies any attempt to establish a methodology. I don't want to "dismiss certain speech". I want to avoid speech that is predicated on denying its own fallibility, on denying that there can be any independent investigation of its own truthiness, on asserting that it is based on secret knowledge that if the listener could only share would immediately establish the utter truth of it all. The conspiracies that have become popular on the right generally fall into this category. You cannot question QAnon, you can only believe. You cannot question "there is no anthropogenic warming", you can only hand-wave. Useful speech is always subject to interrogation. Is always subject to self-doubt. Is always subject to invalidation. Is always contingent. So ... I don't care what the content of speech is. I care about what the conditions for speech are. Speech that does not admit to interrogation, self-doubt, invalidation and contingency is bad, regardless of its content. I am not advocating for the silencing of speech that counts as "bad" by this metric, I am asserting that its presence in our culture causes problems.

themacguffinman 6y ago
> They do not, in fact, believe in free speech at all. And when they appear on HN and other forums to advocate for the removal of free speech, I'll defend and advocate for free speech just the same. Beyond that, it doesn't matter what they say or think, nor does it matter how insane or infallible you believe their speech is. I'm not going to pre-emptively silence them to prepare for a world in which they hypothetically silence me. > I am asserting that its presence in our culture causes problems Sure I guess, although that seemed fairly obvious to me. A lot of things cause problems, what matters is how we deal with them. If you're not advocating for the silencing of speech that you count as "bad", then we're in agreement. This thread is about limiting free speech on social media, and I'm glad to hear you don't support that.