4 ms·

Disagree with your disagreement. The Atlantic article is casting shade on free speech. One only needs to read the headline, which is rightly or wrongly what mos

Disagree with your disagreement. The Atlantic article is casting shade on free speech. One only needs to read the headline, which is rightly or wrongly what most eyeballs will ever see. If a headline is “iPhones have a lot of problems” and then body of the article explains that “despite that they are still pretty good” then it fair to characterize it as the parent poster did IMO. No person ever has made the claim that free speech doesn’t have costs.

HWR_14 5y ago
1) Talking about costs isn't casting shade. And the article is talking about the costs (and why they are worth it). 2) It's not a hot-take that titles don't agree with their article's contents. The solution to that is to fix headlines, not to plug our ears and only read headlines and claim nuance is impossible. 3) Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline... for widely known example of (2) > No person ever has made the claim that free speech doesn’t have costs. Considering the entire article was about how people kept responding to nuanced articles by claiming that free speech didn't have costs and that dismissive and wrong, I think people did in fact make that claim.
- newbamboo 5y ago
  Fair enough. I do see where you’re coming from, just thought you made the case a bit too strongly. I feel like given the current environment in which censorship is running rampant, in the opinion of many on both the left and the right, that to assert nobody is questioning the value of free speech seems at least a tad unperceptive if not willfully ignorant. Perhaps I mischaracterise your thinking, and if so I hope no offense is taken. I’ve seen what I perceive to be a cultural shift between the late 80s and today in popular attitudes toward free speech, at least in progressive circles. My perception may be wrong, I fully acknowledge.

HWR_14 5y ago

1) Talking about costs isn't casting shade. And the article is talking about the costs (and why they are worth it). 2) It's not a hot-take that titles don't agree with their article's contents. The solution to that is to fix headlines, not to plug our ears and only read headlines and claim nuance is impossible. 3) Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline... for widely known example of (2) > No person ever has made the claim that free speech doesn’t have costs. Considering the entire article was about how people kept responding to nuanced articles by claiming that free speech didn't have costs and that dismissive and wrong, I think people did in fact make that claim.

newbamboo 5y ago
Fair enough. I do see where you’re coming from, just thought you made the case a bit too strongly. I feel like given the current environment in which censorship is running rampant, in the opinion of many on both the left and the right, that to assert nobody is questioning the value of free speech seems at least a tad unperceptive if not willfully ignorant. Perhaps I mischaracterise your thinking, and if so I hope no offense is taken. I’ve seen what I perceive to be a cultural shift between the late 80s and today in popular attitudes toward free speech, at least in progressive circles. My perception may be wrong, I fully acknowledge.