5 ms·

The >"radical free speech" crowd understands hurting other people's feelings, they just don't believe anyone should be compelled by law not to hurt someone el

The >"radical free speech" crowd understands hurting other people's feelings, they just don't believe anyone should be compelled by law not to hurt someone else's feelings.

ritchiea 6y ago
There have never been laws against hurting people's feelings. And no one is advocating for laws against hurting people's feelings. We're telling you, if you act like an asshole other people might not like it and that's fair. And that you can get fired for being an asshole. And that the law is merely that the government will not imprison you for being an asshole.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  The obvious example is misgendering and the whole Jordan Peterson debacle comes to mind. >We're telling you, if you act like an asshole other people might not like it and that's fair. Trust me abrasive people understand this, some of them get off on it. >And that you can get fired for being an asshole. I agree if you're an asshole it is grounds for firing. I've worked with some real abusive dickheads before who should have been fired. The difficulty is in judging what is crossing the line. I've worked at places where people should have been fired (constant abusive sex jokes) and weren't because they held too much power. I've also worked at places where you could get fired for publicly having conservative opinions and where you were constantly walking on eggshells. It's a real tyrany in both cases but I don't see an obvious solution.
  - TeaDrunk 6y ago
    Jordan Peterson railed against a guideline that, from what I understand, had no consequences to him. He blew it up as if he was being persecuted but the actual law was just “hey please consider using people’s preferred pronouns”.
    - nicky0 6y ago
      That isn't a good summary of the bill, and it didn't even mention preferred pronouns. What it actually did was add "gender identity or expression" to a list of protected characteristics to be considered when prosecuting hate speech and as a factor in criminal sentencing. (Peterson's interpretation was that it would have the effect of making misgendering or failure to use preferred pronouns into hate speech, thus that it was a law that amounted to compelled speech.)
      - darkerside 6y ago
        Is he a lawyer? I'd be curious to know if this is a valid legal opinion or fear-mongering.
        lreeves 6y ago
        Haha of course he isn't. Trained as a clinical psychologist.
        plorkyeran 6y ago
        His interpretation of the law is entirely nonsense, and he was told as much by actual lawyers many times.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - TeaDrunk 6y ago
        Oh so it's even more silly and blown up than I thought. I'd go back to correct myself but unfortunately I can't since the post is too old. Thanks for correcting me!
        nicky0 6y ago
        Do remember though that Peterson's submissions against the bill (alongside Gad Saad if I remember right) was not really all that silly and blown up. It was the subsequent reaction where people said "this guy is a far right transphbic bigot" and blew it all out of proportion and made him famous. And then there was the whole Lindsay Shepherd/Wilkred Laurier affair. What I am saying is you might think JP lit a stupid fire, but don't forget that a lot of people came along and poured a lot of oil it. I find it a bit odd that people are mad at a guy for having concerns about a proposed law and raising them as part of the bill's scrutiny process. And don't forget that in the end, the lawmakers weren't persuaded by his arguments, and passed the law anyway. Would people rather live in a world where laws are passed without scrutiny, everybody keeops quiet and nobody makes a fuss? I still think somewhere underneath all the nonsense a lot of valuable public discussions were had.
  - ritchiea 6y ago
    I dunno. Start a company where you only hire people with conservative views. Many people from marginalized backgrounds like myself grow up in a world where we have to hold our tongues about how we really feel about things to fit into a dominant culture. Otherwise we get denied opportunities. Boo fucking hoo you can't say exactly what you want at all times and get every possible opportunity and be celebrated as some kind of a hero. Welcome to real life where other people's opinions matter and sometimes people don't like yours.
    - partyboat1586 6y ago
      I'm not complaining. I like that companies can be selective. Means I don't have to work with venomous people like yourself. >Welcome to real life where other people's opinions matter and sometimes people don't like yours. Been here since the beginning. Nothing to wake up to.
watwut 6y ago
I dont think it is entirely true. I have many times seen people argue that something like offence does not exist. Or that "hurt feelings" are basically your own fault. Or that put downs or insults are all just about your own weak feelings. Including on HN.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  Yes there is some overlap in the groups but they are not the same group.
- darkerside 6y ago
  Well, it is true that you are responsible for the way that you feel, and you can choose not only how to externally react to what people to say, but even teach yourself to internally process those messages as constructively as you want to. The most powerful thing about words is the power the listener gives them. I hope I've successfully fallen between the cracks of the perspective you outlined.
  - mistersquid 6y ago
    > The most powerful thing about words is the power the listener gives them. Human beings are neurologically wired to biologically respond to communication from other beings. A classic example is nursing women who express milk when hearing a baby cry. There are many other examples of involuntary responses to environmental stimulus, much of which include human communication. Loud noises cause involuntarily muscular response, sexual display increases heart rates, threatening behavior (including language) floods the bloodstream with cortisol. In other words, we may (if we're lucky) modulate our actions in response to what people say to us but there is much evidence to suggest we have little to no control over the feelings that words may elicit.
    - darkerside 6y ago
      I have much now control over my thoughts and feelings in response to words than I used to. Here, for example, almost ridiculously, I felt a moment of anger that someone who so clearly had missed my point would so confidently respond with examples that are not relevant to it. That lasted a microsecond. I've learned to tell myself a different story. You're not being properly obtuse, your actually have a different set of life experiences and intuitions than I do, and that leads you to interpret my words in a way that I didn't intend. There's nothing to be angry about there. If you call me a racial slur, and I honestly don't give a shit, what power do you have over me?

The >"radical free speech" crowd understands hurting other people's feelings, they just don't believe anyone should be compelled by law not to hurt someone else's feelings.

ritchiea 6y ago

There have never been laws against hurting people's feelings. And no one is advocating for laws against hurting people's feelings. We're telling you, if you act like an asshole other people might not like it and that's fair. And that you can get fired for being an asshole. And that the law is merely that the government will not imprison you for being an asshole.

partyboat1586 6y ago
The obvious example is misgendering and the whole Jordan Peterson debacle comes to mind. >We're telling you, if you act like an asshole other people might not like it and that's fair. Trust me abrasive people understand this, some of them get off on it. >And that you can get fired for being an asshole. I agree if you're an asshole it is grounds for firing. I've worked with some real abusive dickheads before who should have been fired. The difficulty is in judging what is crossing the line. I've worked at places where people should have been fired (constant abusive sex jokes) and weren't because they held too much power. I've also worked at places where you could get fired for publicly having conservative opinions and where you were constantly walking on eggshells. It's a real tyrany in both cases but I don't see an obvious solution.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  Jordan Peterson railed against a guideline that, from what I understand, had no consequences to him. He blew it up as if he was being persecuted but the actual law was just “hey please consider using people’s preferred pronouns”.
  - nicky0 6y ago
    That isn't a good summary of the bill, and it didn't even mention preferred pronouns. What it actually did was add "gender identity or expression" to a list of protected characteristics to be considered when prosecuting hate speech and as a factor in criminal sentencing. (Peterson's interpretation was that it would have the effect of making misgendering or failure to use preferred pronouns into hate speech, thus that it was a law that amounted to compelled speech.)
    - darkerside 6y ago
      Is he a lawyer? I'd be curious to know if this is a valid legal opinion or fear-mongering.
      - lreeves 6y ago
        Haha of course he isn't. Trained as a clinical psychologist.
      - plorkyeran 6y ago
        His interpretation of the law is entirely nonsense, and he was told as much by actual lawyers many times.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - TeaDrunk 6y ago
      Oh so it's even more silly and blown up than I thought. I'd go back to correct myself but unfortunately I can't since the post is too old. Thanks for correcting me!
      - nicky0 6y ago
        Do remember though that Peterson's submissions against the bill (alongside Gad Saad if I remember right) was not really all that silly and blown up. It was the subsequent reaction where people said "this guy is a far right transphbic bigot" and blew it all out of proportion and made him famous. And then there was the whole Lindsay Shepherd/Wilkred Laurier affair. What I am saying is you might think JP lit a stupid fire, but don't forget that a lot of people came along and poured a lot of oil it. I find it a bit odd that people are mad at a guy for having concerns about a proposed law and raising them as part of the bill's scrutiny process. And don't forget that in the end, the lawmakers weren't persuaded by his arguments, and passed the law anyway. Would people rather live in a world where laws are passed without scrutiny, everybody keeops quiet and nobody makes a fuss? I still think somewhere underneath all the nonsense a lot of valuable public discussions were had.
- ritchiea 6y ago
  I dunno. Start a company where you only hire people with conservative views. Many people from marginalized backgrounds like myself grow up in a world where we have to hold our tongues about how we really feel about things to fit into a dominant culture. Otherwise we get denied opportunities. Boo fucking hoo you can't say exactly what you want at all times and get every possible opportunity and be celebrated as some kind of a hero. Welcome to real life where other people's opinions matter and sometimes people don't like yours.
  - partyboat1586 6y ago
    I'm not complaining. I like that companies can be selective. Means I don't have to work with venomous people like yourself. >Welcome to real life where other people's opinions matter and sometimes people don't like yours. Been here since the beginning. Nothing to wake up to.

watwut 6y ago

I dont think it is entirely true. I have many times seen people argue that something like offence does not exist. Or that "hurt feelings" are basically your own fault. Or that put downs or insults are all just about your own weak feelings. Including on HN.

partyboat1586 6y ago
Yes there is some overlap in the groups but they are not the same group.
darkerside 6y ago
Well, it is true that you are responsible for the way that you feel, and you can choose not only how to externally react to what people to say, but even teach yourself to internally process those messages as constructively as you want to. The most powerful thing about words is the power the listener gives them. I hope I've successfully fallen between the cracks of the perspective you outlined.
- mistersquid 6y ago
  > The most powerful thing about words is the power the listener gives them. Human beings are neurologically wired to biologically respond to communication from other beings. A classic example is nursing women who express milk when hearing a baby cry. There are many other examples of involuntary responses to environmental stimulus, much of which include human communication. Loud noises cause involuntarily muscular response, sexual display increases heart rates, threatening behavior (including language) floods the bloodstream with cortisol. In other words, we may (if we're lucky) modulate our actions in response to what people say to us but there is much evidence to suggest we have little to no control over the feelings that words may elicit.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    I have much now control over my thoughts and feelings in response to words than I used to. Here, for example, almost ridiculously, I felt a moment of anger that someone who so clearly had missed my point would so confidently respond with examples that are not relevant to it. That lasted a microsecond. I've learned to tell myself a different story. You're not being properly obtuse, your actually have a different set of life experiences and intuitions than I do, and that leads you to interpret my words in a way that I didn't intend. There's nothing to be angry about there. If you call me a racial slur, and I honestly don't give a shit, what power do you have over me?