5 ms·

So just to be clear, it makes it hard for him to be polite because if he complains about doing a minimal amount of work to not be rude, I say something?

Longhanks 6y ago
It’s really ironic that the very argument you’re trying to provoke is what makes discussing with people like you hard.
bananaface 6y ago
The point is that he didn't even say anything and you jumped down his throat. Imagine if he had.
- ritchiea 6y ago
  He did say something, he said that it bothers him to have to shape the way he speaks to other people so that they are not offended. And what exactly is weird about that? Sounds like life to me. And that he misunderstands free speech which is about the government not being able to imprison you or legally punish you for speech.
  - tristor 6y ago
    Free speech is a philosophical concept, it happens to be enshrined in law in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to prevent the government for imprisoning you for your speech, but it is first and foremost the philosophical concept, not the law. That concept used to be part of the social mores of the United States and much of the Western world, it isn't really any longer as your own commentary here demonstrates. The social mores have shifted, and while you may not be imprisoned, real tangible consequences (which are arguably unfair and inappropriate) can occur for trying to have a real meaningful conversation with someone based on your own honest beliefs. You are arguing essentially that those consequences are not only acceptable, but laudable, because you see it as "just desserts". Trying to distract from the serious philosophical issue by hyperfocusing on the legal non-issue is a common tactic of people who endorse bullying and "cancel culture" tactics to suppress other's speech. Your arguments here have been subtly insulting and not in good faith, and I don't think are the way people should behave on HN, but ironically, I'm responding to you in good faith because I fully support (philosophically) your right to say those things and you are acting within the rules.
    - ritchiea 6y ago
      You clearly have a narrow view of the history of the United States because before the 1960's a black person could be murdered by a mob for saying the wrong thing to a white person. And those mob murderers would not be prosecuted. You call that a philosophical protection of free speech inshrined within the culture? Also, you ever hear of anyone in America being punished for saying they're a communist or homosexual? Or is that fiction to you as well? To any degree free speech was a thing, it was most often selectively afforded to white men. And now it is that same group who coincidentally seems to complain the loudest that they no longer can say exactly what they wish without consequences.
      - tristor 6y ago
        > To any degree free speech was a thing, it was most often selectively afforded to white men. This is true, and unsurprising given the historical context. In fact, the Constitution was written as such with the original intention of providing those freedoms primarily to the benefit of not just white men, but land-owning white men. Crofters, smallholders, and other types of land-owners wanted to be put on the same tier of political power as others, when previously they were stifled under the aristocracy. That was the defining feature of the American Revolution and the things which followed. But your reply to me is primarily just a form of whataboutism and fails to refute or respond to my core point. My view of history is neither narrow nor incomplete, insofar as it applies to the racial and gender injustices that existed in the US. This also has pretty much nothing to do with the philosophical basis of free speech.
        ritchiea 6y ago
        It’s not whataboutism because the fact that the value of free speech was only granted to a privileged few addresses your argument that the USA once valued free speech and things have changed. If free speech was only granted to a privileged few why should we ever think of it as some societal value that was lost? It appears to me that the privileged few that saw themselves in the demographic gifted free speech are the the people who are angry their speech is criticized. We all still have free speech by the definition of the constitution but now there are decentralized public means to criticize the powerful. And there is popular sentiment supporting that criticism.

Longhanks 6y ago

It’s really ironic that the very argument you’re trying to provoke is what makes discussing with people like you hard.

bananaface 6y ago

The point is that he didn't even say anything and you jumped down his throat. Imagine if he had.

ritchiea 6y ago
He did say something, he said that it bothers him to have to shape the way he speaks to other people so that they are not offended. And what exactly is weird about that? Sounds like life to me. And that he misunderstands free speech which is about the government not being able to imprison you or legally punish you for speech.
- tristor 6y ago
  Free speech is a philosophical concept, it happens to be enshrined in law in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to prevent the government for imprisoning you for your speech, but it is first and foremost the philosophical concept, not the law. That concept used to be part of the social mores of the United States and much of the Western world, it isn't really any longer as your own commentary here demonstrates. The social mores have shifted, and while you may not be imprisoned, real tangible consequences (which are arguably unfair and inappropriate) can occur for trying to have a real meaningful conversation with someone based on your own honest beliefs. You are arguing essentially that those consequences are not only acceptable, but laudable, because you see it as "just desserts". Trying to distract from the serious philosophical issue by hyperfocusing on the legal non-issue is a common tactic of people who endorse bullying and "cancel culture" tactics to suppress other's speech. Your arguments here have been subtly insulting and not in good faith, and I don't think are the way people should behave on HN, but ironically, I'm responding to you in good faith because I fully support (philosophically) your right to say those things and you are acting within the rules.
  - ritchiea 6y ago
    You clearly have a narrow view of the history of the United States because before the 1960's a black person could be murdered by a mob for saying the wrong thing to a white person. And those mob murderers would not be prosecuted. You call that a philosophical protection of free speech inshrined within the culture? Also, you ever hear of anyone in America being punished for saying they're a communist or homosexual? Or is that fiction to you as well? To any degree free speech was a thing, it was most often selectively afforded to white men. And now it is that same group who coincidentally seems to complain the loudest that they no longer can say exactly what they wish without consequences.
    - tristor 6y ago
      > To any degree free speech was a thing, it was most often selectively afforded to white men. This is true, and unsurprising given the historical context. In fact, the Constitution was written as such with the original intention of providing those freedoms primarily to the benefit of not just white men, but land-owning white men. Crofters, smallholders, and other types of land-owners wanted to be put on the same tier of political power as others, when previously they were stifled under the aristocracy. That was the defining feature of the American Revolution and the things which followed. But your reply to me is primarily just a form of whataboutism and fails to refute or respond to my core point. My view of history is neither narrow nor incomplete, insofar as it applies to the racial and gender injustices that existed in the US. This also has pretty much nothing to do with the philosophical basis of free speech.
      - ritchiea 6y ago
        It’s not whataboutism because the fact that the value of free speech was only granted to a privileged few addresses your argument that the USA once valued free speech and things have changed. If free speech was only granted to a privileged few why should we ever think of it as some societal value that was lost? It appears to me that the privileged few that saw themselves in the demographic gifted free speech are the the people who are angry their speech is criticized. We all still have free speech by the definition of the constitution but now there are decentralized public means to criticize the powerful. And there is popular sentiment supporting that criticism.