3 ms·

> nobody is claiming that he can't say that, merely that he shouldn't No, there is no practical difference between the "can't" and "shouldn't", if your intent

by js8 5y ago

> nobody is claiming that he can't say that, merely that he shouldn't No, there is no practical difference between the "can't" and "shouldn't", if your intent is to participate in the punishment for what someone does. (Maybe you feel, as an individual, you cannot influence it. But in fact you can easily become part of the mob that does have the real power of punishing somebody.) > Pretending that we should all just ignore him telling a fan to "shove it up your ass" Yes, of course we should ignore it, it was just a heckler. Even a heckler can be a fan. Everybody can be an a* sometimes, and deserves to be called out about it. > As compared to what, mind reading? Compared to his actions, of course. If you don't have additional information, only words, think twice about acting upon such information. > you're upgrading this to "morality" when my original point was about whether I wanted to do business with him It's of course up to you. But why wouldn't you want to do business with him anymore for other reason than to uphold a moral standard? It isn't like he cheated you, in fact we probably agree that Factorio is a great product. The morality comes into it from reasoning about your response. In any case, I was speaking in a larger context. People do this all the time. For example, there are people who think Linus Torvalds is worse than Bill Gates because of the harsh words he sometimes uses (in public). To me, that is a very superficial way of looking at things. And same here, I think Kovarex is one of very few capitalists who actually deserve all the money they got. And that's so sad about all this "cancel culture" thing. It's boycotting people who are not necessarily the worst, just easy targets. > So what, I can't make my own decisions based on someone else's behavior because there are other issues? You can do whatever you want, all I am saying is you "shouldn't".

ashtonkem 5y ago
> No, there is no practical difference between the "can't" and "shouldn't", if your intent is to participate in the punishment for what someone does. (Maybe you feel, as an individual, you cannot influence it. But in fact you can easily become part of the mob that does have the real power of punishing somebody.) Oh the irony of attacking free speech in order to protect it. How, prey tell, do you intend to differentiate between those who are using their speech legitimately and who is part of "the mob"?
- js8 5y ago
  > How, prey tell, do you intend to differentiate I don't think I need to do it (why would I have to?), but it seems pretty straightforward. The online lynching mobs cross the line when they cause real world consequences for the lynched. (However, it is hard to predict in advance that the mob will happen and what the consequences will be. That's why people should be generally cautious about such participations.) In other words, the punishment should be proportional to the crime. Kovarex got his comment deleted and that should close the issue and end the drama.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Yeah, that's what I expected, a proposal to silence the speech of some people to protect others. Maybe you haven't thought enough about free speech, not me? I think Ken White covered this dichotomy best, in this case a few years ago over a guy name Pax who got fired for his intemperate speech. See below. > The foundation of "witch hunt" rhetoric is the notion that some free speech (say, Pax's) is acceptable, and other free speech (say, the speech of people criticizing and ridiculing Pax and his employer) is not. You can try to find a coherent or principled way to reconcile that, but you will fail. https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/
    - js8 5y ago
      I simply think there is a difference between criticism (saying you disagree or even cursing someone) and punishment (withdrawing funding, getting somebody fired). And I also think that the whole point of free speech is to be free of societal consequences of it, whether they have government authority stamp or not, because it's IMHO impossible to discern that either (and I think the former Soviet regimes, which started in good faith of inclusive community, and ended up authoritarian, show exactly that problem).
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        > I simply think there is a difference between criticism (saying you disagree or even cursing someone) and punishment (withdrawing funding, getting somebody fired). What an extremely weird take. Are you saying I don’t have the right to decide who to do business with based on what they say, or that that’s somehow inappropriate? Restraining the right of free association to protect free speech is an awful idea. > And I also think that the whole point of free speech is to be free of societal consequences of it You are wrong. Full stop. Free speech is about the right to say what you want without the government punishing you for it. This also includes the freedom to express disapproval or opprobrium. The ability to express disapproval is fundamental to free speech, any attempt to curtail that is in fact an attempt to curtail free speech itself. If you wish to speak without social consequences, speak anonymously. This is the exact reason why the Supreme Court has held that anonymous speech is a right, to speak controversial ideas without suffering social consequences. Also, you’re criticizing me for considering not buying a future DLC. Under your own theory, aren’t you being anti free speech for criticizing me? > whether they have government authority stamp or not, If you can’t tell the difference between government action and individual people expressing an opinion, that seems like a problem specific to you and not this society. > and I think the former Soviet regimes, which started in good faith of inclusive community, and ended up authoritarian, show exactly that problem Ironic, given that you’re proposing authoritarian responses to protect free speech.

by js8 5y ago

ashtonkem 5y ago

> No, there is no practical difference between the "can't" and "shouldn't", if your intent is to participate in the punishment for what someone does. (Maybe you feel, as an individual, you cannot influence it. But in fact you can easily become part of the mob that does have the real power of punishing somebody.) Oh the irony of attacking free speech in order to protect it. How, prey tell, do you intend to differentiate between those who are using their speech legitimately and who is part of "the mob"?

js8 5y ago
> How, prey tell, do you intend to differentiate I don't think I need to do it (why would I have to?), but it seems pretty straightforward. The online lynching mobs cross the line when they cause real world consequences for the lynched. (However, it is hard to predict in advance that the mob will happen and what the consequences will be. That's why people should be generally cautious about such participations.) In other words, the punishment should be proportional to the crime. Kovarex got his comment deleted and that should close the issue and end the drama.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Yeah, that's what I expected, a proposal to silence the speech of some people to protect others. Maybe you haven't thought enough about free speech, not me? I think Ken White covered this dichotomy best, in this case a few years ago over a guy name Pax who got fired for his intemperate speech. See below. > The foundation of "witch hunt" rhetoric is the notion that some free speech (say, Pax's) is acceptable, and other free speech (say, the speech of people criticizing and ridiculing Pax and his employer) is not. You can try to find a coherent or principled way to reconcile that, but you will fail. https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/
  - js8 5y ago
    I simply think there is a difference between criticism (saying you disagree or even cursing someone) and punishment (withdrawing funding, getting somebody fired). And I also think that the whole point of free speech is to be free of societal consequences of it, whether they have government authority stamp or not, because it's IMHO impossible to discern that either (and I think the former Soviet regimes, which started in good faith of inclusive community, and ended up authoritarian, show exactly that problem).
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      > I simply think there is a difference between criticism (saying you disagree or even cursing someone) and punishment (withdrawing funding, getting somebody fired). What an extremely weird take. Are you saying I don’t have the right to decide who to do business with based on what they say, or that that’s somehow inappropriate? Restraining the right of free association to protect free speech is an awful idea. > And I also think that the whole point of free speech is to be free of societal consequences of it You are wrong. Full stop. Free speech is about the right to say what you want without the government punishing you for it. This also includes the freedom to express disapproval or opprobrium. The ability to express disapproval is fundamental to free speech, any attempt to curtail that is in fact an attempt to curtail free speech itself. If you wish to speak without social consequences, speak anonymously. This is the exact reason why the Supreme Court has held that anonymous speech is a right, to speak controversial ideas without suffering social consequences. Also, you’re criticizing me for considering not buying a future DLC. Under your own theory, aren’t you being anti free speech for criticizing me? > whether they have government authority stamp or not, If you can’t tell the difference between government action and individual people expressing an opinion, that seems like a problem specific to you and not this society. > and I think the former Soviet regimes, which started in good faith of inclusive community, and ended up authoritarian, show exactly that problem Ironic, given that you’re proposing authoritarian responses to protect free speech.