4 ms·

>there is no reason you shouldn't still be a Free Speech absolutist (I still am) so long as you don't fall for the disinformation that Free Speech means freedom

>there is no reason you shouldn't still be a Free Speech absolutist (I still am) so long as you don't fall for the disinformation that Free Speech means freedom from social consequences. That's your definition of free speech and censorship. Others use those terms in a more broad sense. But even if you don't like that they do that, you should invoke the principle of charity and actually argue the point that is being made ... Namely, malevolent self-serving actors, sometimes represented by major journalistic institutions, are whipping up the social media mob, during the time of mass hysteria, to destroy the lives of political and cultural opponents, as well as anyone that gets caught up in that drag net. Is that a problem? Are we OK with that? Do we have permission from you to talk about this as a problem? The article in question demonstrates examples of this. "Just take a second to ponder how infantile and despotic, in equal parts, all of this is. This NYT reporter used her platform to virtually jump out of her desk to run to the teacher and exclaim: he used the r word! This is what she tried for months to accomplish: to catch people in private communications using words that are prohibited or ideas that are banned to tell on them to the public" We know why she did that and what her aims were. Is that OK for a NY Times reporter to do? Is that something to highlight as an issue? Or are you still stuck arguing semantics and definitions of words while missing the entire point.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xoa 6y ago
>That's your definition of free speech and censorship. It's both the US legal definition and the correct definition, because anything else becomes self-contradicting. Forcing someone to say or support another person's speech is never Free Speech. And that's what denying them the right to not speak, not help, and not associate with someone else means. >Namely, malevolent self-serving actors, sometimes represented by major journalistic institutions, are whipping up the social media mob, during the time of mass hysteria, to destroy the lives of political and cultural opponents, as well as anyone that gets caught up in that drag net. What a load of hooey. This is just you having a pathetic meltdown over other people's exercise of their freedom to not like people being gigantic assholes. >Is that a problem? Are we OK with that? Do we have permission from you to talk about this as a problem? Of course you don't need my permission to be a snowflake and spout garbage, that's your Freedom of Speech after all. And in nobody needs yours to call you out on it, dislike it, refuse to support you, refuse to have anything to do with you, and encourage others to do the same. And you can do the same, and try to rally others to your point. And they can counter. And around and around it goes, that's the point. >We know why she did that and what her aims were. Do we now? Do we know about Greenwalds anti-speech agenda too? >Is that OK for a NY Times reporter to do? Is that something to highlight as an issue? It's her freedom of speech to do so, so long as it's actually true as opposed to defamation. It's ours to criticize should we wish it, to shame the reporter, to refuse to further support the NYT, or of course merely to dismiss it as silly. Or for that matter some people may honesty think the reporter has a point. But to believe in Free Speech is believe this is all a process that should play out without anyone being shot. >Or are you still stuck arguing semantics and definitions of words while missing the entire point. I think that's your projection. This is a matter of fundamental principle and the application or not of hard power, not semantics. It is you who are running away from that.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  This is not a free speech issue under your (one true and only correct) definition of free speech. Imagine a bully goes up to a citizen and tells them to be quiet about, say, potholes on their street because if they don't "it would be unfortunate should you and your spouse lose your jobs and your professional reputations destroyed". In this analogy, there is no threat of violence. Nothing the bully said was illegal as far as I can tell. But when a bystander looks at this and says it's wrong and unethical for a bully to do that, guys like you crawl out of the woodwork and start yelling about Free Speech rights of the bully. But we're not talking about Free Speech rights. We're talking about the ethics of mobilizing the social media mob to destroy people's lives, frequently over nothing other than vague innuendo. As far as I know in any of these situations, no laws are broken, and yet, there is something deeply wrong here. Here's another example: Because we are living through a kind of a mass hysteria moment, the similarity to 'Salem witch trials' is quite striking. In that case, teenage girls accused hundreds of people of witchcraft and consequently those people would be ostracized and their lives destroyed (for the sake of argument, let's ignore the small number of people who were put to death because we would both agree that is wrong on another level). If someone highlights this as a major issue, do you go out, frothing at the mouth, and yell about free speech rights of the teenage girls? Isn't that missing the entire point? >It's her freedom of speech to do so, so long as it's actually true as opposed to defamation. The irony in all this is you didn't even bother reading the article ... or the HN headline. She did defame Andreessen because she maliciously and malevolently asserted something that he said, that he didn't say (when called out about it she fell back on 'well, it was male voice' which was another lie). But even if he said this 'r-word' in context of explaining the WSB phenomena, this malevolent 'reporter' is doing the same thing as the Salem teenage girls did when they accused others of witchcraft. In this case, she's accusing Andreessen of blaspheming against holy tenants of wokeism in order to paint him as a bigot so the mob will do the rest. Why? So that his public image and professional reputation would be destroyed and maybe she gets a higher profile and a raise. When people point out this is wrong, you yell about Free Speech.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

xoa 6y ago

>That's your definition of free speech and censorship. It's both the US legal definition and the correct definition, because anything else becomes self-contradicting. Forcing someone to say or support another person's speech is never Free Speech. And that's what denying them the right to not speak, not help, and not associate with someone else means. >Namely, malevolent self-serving actors, sometimes represented by major journalistic institutions, are whipping up the social media mob, during the time of mass hysteria, to destroy the lives of political and cultural opponents, as well as anyone that gets caught up in that drag net. What a load of hooey. This is just you having a pathetic meltdown over other people's exercise of their freedom to not like people being gigantic assholes. >Is that a problem? Are we OK with that? Do we have permission from you to talk about this as a problem? Of course you don't need my permission to be a snowflake and spout garbage, that's your Freedom of Speech after all. And in nobody needs yours to call you out on it, dislike it, refuse to support you, refuse to have anything to do with you, and encourage others to do the same. And you can do the same, and try to rally others to your point. And they can counter. And around and around it goes, that's the point. >We know why she did that and what her aims were. Do we now? Do we know about Greenwalds anti-speech agenda too? >Is that OK for a NY Times reporter to do? Is that something to highlight as an issue? It's her freedom of speech to do so, so long as it's actually true as opposed to defamation. It's ours to criticize should we wish it, to shame the reporter, to refuse to further support the NYT, or of course merely to dismiss it as silly. Or for that matter some people may honesty think the reporter has a point. But to believe in Free Speech is believe this is all a process that should play out without anyone being shot. >Or are you still stuck arguing semantics and definitions of words while missing the entire point. I think that's your projection. This is a matter of fundamental principle and the application or not of hard power, not semantics. It is you who are running away from that.

macspoofing 6y ago
This is not a free speech issue under your (one true and only correct) definition of free speech. Imagine a bully goes up to a citizen and tells them to be quiet about, say, potholes on their street because if they don't "it would be unfortunate should you and your spouse lose your jobs and your professional reputations destroyed". In this analogy, there is no threat of violence. Nothing the bully said was illegal as far as I can tell. But when a bystander looks at this and says it's wrong and unethical for a bully to do that, guys like you crawl out of the woodwork and start yelling about Free Speech rights of the bully. But we're not talking about Free Speech rights. We're talking about the ethics of mobilizing the social media mob to destroy people's lives, frequently over nothing other than vague innuendo. As far as I know in any of these situations, no laws are broken, and yet, there is something deeply wrong here. Here's another example: Because we are living through a kind of a mass hysteria moment, the similarity to 'Salem witch trials' is quite striking. In that case, teenage girls accused hundreds of people of witchcraft and consequently those people would be ostracized and their lives destroyed (for the sake of argument, let's ignore the small number of people who were put to death because we would both agree that is wrong on another level). If someone highlights this as a major issue, do you go out, frothing at the mouth, and yell about free speech rights of the teenage girls? Isn't that missing the entire point? >It's her freedom of speech to do so, so long as it's actually true as opposed to defamation. The irony in all this is you didn't even bother reading the article ... or the HN headline. She did defame Andreessen because she maliciously and malevolently asserted something that he said, that he didn't say (when called out about it she fell back on 'well, it was male voice' which was another lie). But even if he said this 'r-word' in context of explaining the WSB phenomena, this malevolent 'reporter' is doing the same thing as the Salem teenage girls did when they accused others of witchcraft. In this case, she's accusing Andreessen of blaspheming against holy tenants of wokeism in order to paint him as a bigot so the mob will do the rest. Why? So that his public image and professional reputation would be destroyed and maybe she gets a higher profile and a raise. When people point out this is wrong, you yell about Free Speech.