4 ms·

This must be bullshit, in some way or another. Sure—you shouldn’t just come out and advocate the death penalty for homosexuals. But I don’t believe 81% are in f

This must be bullshit, in some way or another. Sure—you shouldn’t just come out and advocate the death penalty for homosexuals. But I don’t believe 81% are in favor of something like that. And anything less drastic, I don’t see much hesitation to express those views in public. In fact the last 18 months have seen weekly protests professing a host of views that I had considered extinct. …and, of course, HN eats it up.

rayiner 5y ago
Or, you know, making factual observations about refugees.
- avs733 5y ago
  thats the kicker. BOTH of those could easily fall under the single strawman question that this article bases its flawed argument off of. Views that you could 'feel' not free to express could include: - Stating facts about their political opponents - Expressing their acceptance of NAMBLA - Enjoying pineapple on pizza You can't reduce your argument to a single decontextualized question about how people feel in general. Show me some qualitative data on how people, in German, interpret that question and then we can talk about how badly the article abuses that one poll question.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    I agree that contextualizing the question could help, but that doesn’t mean the poll question is useless. We expect “acceptance of NAMBLA” to be a pretty unusual view in the public. The fact that 80% of the public has some views they’d feel uncomfortable expressing suggests that either: 1) There is a “long tail” to controversial ideas, and while each idea may be held by a small number of individuals, holding at least one such idea is common across the population had a whole. 2) There are widely held ideas that the public nonetheless feels uncomfortable talking about. In the first case, that suggests that society had more than just a handful of ideas (like Holocaust denial or support for pedophilia) that are deemed beyond public discussion. In the second case, that suggests suppression of views held by the majority. Either way that’s a pretty telling statistic.
    - avs733 5y ago
      The poll question isn't useless because it lacks context, it lacks context specifically because it is a loaded question. The question is operating by design. This hand waving about 'uncomfortable talking about' and 'long tails' is all designed as cover for bad faith arguments about the concept of free speech. This entire effort is a bald faced exercise in laundering right wing ideology as uncriticizable, and speech by those outside of the right as some form of 'not speech' when it is critical of the ideas. Being uncomfortable talking about something is not prima facia evidence you are being silenced, it is only evidence that you are being silent. You aren't entitled, and have no right, to be comfortable when you share controversial ideas. This is why there isn't a difference between your 1 and 2. 2 does not suggest suppression. 2 could just as easily suggest growth of a society or a cultural characteristic that someone from the US misunderstands.
      - rayiner 5y ago
        > Being uncomfortable talking about something is not prima facia evidence you are being silenced, it is only evidence that you are being silent. You aren't entitled, and have no right, to be comfortable when you share controversial ideas. I don’t know about the German perspective, but in the U.S. folks spent a lot of time not only making legal space for controversial ideas, but making cultural space for them. You may not have a “right” to be comfortable sharing controversial ideas, but a society where people feel free to do so is arguably better than one where people don’t.

rayiner 5y ago

Or, you know, making factual observations about refugees.

avs733 5y ago
thats the kicker. BOTH of those could easily fall under the single strawman question that this article bases its flawed argument off of. Views that you could 'feel' not free to express could include: - Stating facts about their political opponents - Expressing their acceptance of NAMBLA - Enjoying pineapple on pizza You can't reduce your argument to a single decontextualized question about how people feel in general. Show me some qualitative data on how people, in German, interpret that question and then we can talk about how badly the article abuses that one poll question.
- rayiner 5y ago
  I agree that contextualizing the question could help, but that doesn’t mean the poll question is useless. We expect “acceptance of NAMBLA” to be a pretty unusual view in the public. The fact that 80% of the public has some views they’d feel uncomfortable expressing suggests that either: 1) There is a “long tail” to controversial ideas, and while each idea may be held by a small number of individuals, holding at least one such idea is common across the population had a whole. 2) There are widely held ideas that the public nonetheless feels uncomfortable talking about. In the first case, that suggests that society had more than just a handful of ideas (like Holocaust denial or support for pedophilia) that are deemed beyond public discussion. In the second case, that suggests suppression of views held by the majority. Either way that’s a pretty telling statistic.
  - avs733 5y ago
    The poll question isn't useless because it lacks context, it lacks context specifically because it is a loaded question. The question is operating by design. This hand waving about 'uncomfortable talking about' and 'long tails' is all designed as cover for bad faith arguments about the concept of free speech. This entire effort is a bald faced exercise in laundering right wing ideology as uncriticizable, and speech by those outside of the right as some form of 'not speech' when it is critical of the ideas. Being uncomfortable talking about something is not prima facia evidence you are being silenced, it is only evidence that you are being silent. You aren't entitled, and have no right, to be comfortable when you share controversial ideas. This is why there isn't a difference between your 1 and 2. 2 does not suggest suppression. 2 could just as easily suggest growth of a society or a cultural characteristic that someone from the US misunderstands.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      > Being uncomfortable talking about something is not prima facia evidence you are being silenced, it is only evidence that you are being silent. You aren't entitled, and have no right, to be comfortable when you share controversial ideas. I don’t know about the German perspective, but in the U.S. folks spent a lot of time not only making legal space for controversial ideas, but making cultural space for them. You may not have a “right” to be comfortable sharing controversial ideas, but a society where people feel free to do so is arguably better than one where people don’t.