4 ms·

I'm confused, what is the lesson here? That quote seems to get thrown around so often that it can be applied to anytime that anyone gets criticized for anything

I'm confused, what is the lesson here? That quote seems to get thrown around so often that it can be applied to anytime that anyone gets criticized for anything. The moderator's statement appears to be asking for more help with moderation, not advocating for less moderation or advocating for more hateful behavior to be allowed.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
> That quote seems to get thrown around so often that it can be applied to anytime that anyone gets criticized for anything. That's the point. It serves to show the perils of judging people by what they say, particularly if single offence against some perceived norms becomes a standard for punishment. And there's another quote from that same period: "like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children" (Jacques Mallet du Pan).
- Guthur 6y ago
  The point should be deeper than that, the character, methods and legacy of the Cardinal Richelieu are the important aspects. The man cement centralised power within France by through a multitude of authoritarian methods. And so in my opinion it's the motives behind such a statement that are important.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  I have to say, that still doesn't mean much to me here. In a real court system, we judge people by their actions and behaviors, sometimes their speech can play into that. I assume that's what the author was referring to. (Apparently the origin of this quote is not clear, but it does seem to come from that same time period) This can't be compared to social media, the only way to judge anyone in the context of a social media platform is by what they say. That's all there is on these platforms, if you take that away, there's nothing left. You are judging someone every time you make a decision whether to like/follow/reply/retweet or not. If your view is that all that doesn't matter and the speech is meaningless, then it follows that any perceived punishments are also meaningless.
bsder 6y ago
There are two lessons: 1) Language is imprecise. We do not communicate with the idea that our words have a unique, specific meaning. This means that you can do things like quote my statements out of context in order to change their intent. 2) People are not perfect. You can almost always find some "fault" in even the best people. People should not be punished for a "fault" unless it does measurable harm to someone else.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Also that meaning is created by the listener, not defined by the speaker. Anything you say can be misinterpreted, either genuinely or maliciously. The message communicated is whatever the listener hears, with all their history, biases and intentions.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  Those don't seem to matter here, the business apparently is saying that the language was precise and they were experiencing measurable harm from it.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

> That quote seems to get thrown around so often that it can be applied to anytime that anyone gets criticized for anything. That's the point. It serves to show the perils of judging people by what they say, particularly if single offence against some perceived norms becomes a standard for punishment. And there's another quote from that same period: "like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children" (Jacques Mallet du Pan).

Guthur 6y ago
The point should be deeper than that, the character, methods and legacy of the Cardinal Richelieu are the important aspects. The man cement centralised power within France by through a multitude of authoritarian methods. And so in my opinion it's the motives behind such a statement that are important.
cycloptic 6y ago
I have to say, that still doesn't mean much to me here. In a real court system, we judge people by their actions and behaviors, sometimes their speech can play into that. I assume that's what the author was referring to. (Apparently the origin of this quote is not clear, but it does seem to come from that same time period) This can't be compared to social media, the only way to judge anyone in the context of a social media platform is by what they say. That's all there is on these platforms, if you take that away, there's nothing left. You are judging someone every time you make a decision whether to like/follow/reply/retweet or not. If your view is that all that doesn't matter and the speech is meaningless, then it follows that any perceived punishments are also meaningless.

bsder 6y ago

There are two lessons: 1) Language is imprecise. We do not communicate with the idea that our words have a unique, specific meaning. This means that you can do things like quote my statements out of context in order to change their intent. 2) People are not perfect. You can almost always find some "fault" in even the best people. People should not be punished for a "fault" unless it does measurable harm to someone else.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
Also that meaning is created by the listener, not defined by the speaker. Anything you say can be misinterpreted, either genuinely or maliciously. The message communicated is whatever the listener hears, with all their history, biases and intentions.
cycloptic 6y ago
Those don't seem to matter here, the business apparently is saying that the language was precise and they were experiencing measurable harm from it.