6 ms·

I haven't done enough research to really add to this discussion, other than I feel any reasonable or commonly-held belief is better discussed than cancelled. I'

I haven't done enough research to really add to this discussion, other than I feel any reasonable or commonly-held belief is better discussed than cancelled. I'm glad that the author shares her perspective. The first step to being right is being wrong. That's also the second step, and probably the next dozen or hundred steps are also wrong. If we cancel people for being wrong, nobody will truly be right, they will just mimic correctness like an overfit ML model. I am not saying that the author is wrong or that she's right. Just that it's a reasonable or common enough belief to be discussed.

PaulStatezny 5y ago
> If we cancel people for being wrong, nobody will truly be right, they will just mimic correctness And that's assuming that the angry mob majority's viewpoint is actually right. When it's wrong, they'll mimic incorrectness.
fullshark 5y ago
In other words, you're glad she was brave enough to put her name on a position, instead of being bullied into silence after an insincere apology.
spamizbad 5y ago
She's a billionaire. You can't silence her. It's cry-bullying as far as I'm concerned. You can indeed have "bad" or "wrong" opinions. But if you're a pubic figure, you'll be judged by the public for it.
- gotoeleven 5y ago
  This argument, which Ive seen in many forms, that twitter mobs are actually just free speech against someone's opinion, is disingenuous. What happens now is not just an argument where two sides offer their arguments on an issue. It's a full on total war against the target--friends and employers and anyone else affiliated with them are targeted and pressured and bullied into withdrawing their support for the target. This withdrawal of support gives the impression that everyone is against the target and they must have some horrible, tiny minority opinion. This isn't true, people are just afraid to speak up. The transgender movement isn't convincing anyone this way, they're just making everyone shut up. Everyone knows there are actual, essential differences between women and transwomen and anyone who claims there aren't is either deluded or cowed. JK Rowling has tons of money so there's not much they can do but most people don't.
  - spamizbad 5y ago
    > This argument, which Ive seen in many forms, that twitter mobs are actually just free speech against someone's opinion, is disingenuous Ok explain to me, as an American, how joining a so-called “Twitter Mob” is somehow not covered under my right of free speech and assembly: especially if it’s done within the confines of the Twitter TOS. The word “mob” gets tossed around but really it’s just a bunch of people saying “I don’t like person X and I think they’re bad and their ideas are bad.” — liking and retweeting each other. If you want to be crude you could call it a circle-jerk but it’s hardly a gestapo.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      > it’s just a bunch of people saying “I don’t like person X and I think they’re bad and their ideas are bad.” You're kidding, right? I've seen these "bunches of people" go out and actively try to harm the targets of their hatred. I've seen them stalk, harass and dox people. I've seen them create wiki articles about their targets in order to hurt them more efficiently. I've seen them try to get people fired or have their sponsors cut them off. I've seen them falsely accuse people of serious crimes and actively attempt to ruin their reputation. In my country, I've seen one particular person not only get sued but be condemned by the justice system twice due to false accusations and defamation.
      - spamizbad 5y ago
        Sounds like you’re against free speech and trying to argue that being critical online of public figures is akin to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Obviously when people cross the line and break the law that’s not protected speech, but merely talking with your friends about how much you dislike a public figure doesn’t constitute violence. Speech is not violence. You have to permit critical discourse, even if it’s frothy and passionate and absurd. That is a human right. That is the essence of liberalism.
        matheusmoreira 5y ago
        > Obviously when people cross the line They often do. In fact, the outrage these people generate is amplified by social media. They end up causing real damage because of it. > You have to permit critical discourse, even if it’s frothy and passionate and absurd. I agree. I just don't like how justified and virtually untouchable these literal mobs are. They will call people out over some controversial post but I've seen them post stuff like "kill all men" with absolute impunity. I've seen them literally laugh at people who pointed that out. People need to see them for what they are: a bunch of hating bullies who found acceptable targets they can safely lash out against. I don't want them jailed. I want people to stop taking them seriously. That's where their power comes from.
enumjorge 5y ago
Agreed. The issue I see is that the internet has allowed everyone to more directly participate in public discourse, and that sadly hasn’t scaled as well as we would have hoped. It’s hard having nuanced, constructive discussions with strangers online. Social networks aren’t incentivized for it, and our monkey brains aren’t wired for it. I do think that allowing people to be wrong works better than beating people over the head—assuming the person making the argument is actually interested in having a discussion versus simply digging their heels—but I don’t know where this type of discourse is supposed to happen in today’s world.
sofixa 5y ago
> I haven't done enough research to really add to this discussion, other than I feel any reasonable or commonly-held belief is better discussed than cancelled The problem is, what is "reasonable and commonly-held belied"? I'm certain theories that some "races" are better than others or that the Jews something something banks global domination are commonly-held ( certainly not by the majority of people, but a not insignificant amount of them nonetheless). What do you do then? Personally i don't think there's a point in arguing with such people ( you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get into). (Just starting a philosophical debate on the very serious issue by giving a dark example of how quickly it gets dirty. I think that the issue discussed by JK Rowling is much more nuanced, and i see her point, unlike the not hypothetical idiots who send racial slurs to footballers on Twitter whose point i don't see and think they deserve to lose their jobs and Twitter accounts)
- chmod600 5y ago
  "The problem is, what is 'reasonable and commonly-held belief'?" If it is held by lots of well-meaning people who are open to hearing reasonable arguments and potentially changing their mind over time. If an opinion really only survives by pure belief and faith, then not much will be learned by discussing it. Take something like trans atheletic competition. A lot of people haven't thought much about it. Maybe they are worried that girls' atheletics will suffer because the top athletes will all be trans (in many sports), which could be discouraging for the lower levels of competition, and basically make them no fun. If someone comes up with a plan that's still fun and inspiring for everyone, then I think many people will change their minds. But there's no widespread knowledge and consensus on what that might look like, so I'd say people resistent to trans athletics for that reason are still reasonable people. I'd also like to be clear that pure beliefs can still be "right" and moral, but it's just not worth discussing them because nobody's mind will change based on reason.
zephrx1111 5y ago
I see how awkward you are when saying this
readflaggedcomm 5y ago
>they will just mimic correctness This depends on the culture. Mimicking mainstream opinion is not a traditional ideal in many parts of the world, which is why some geographies are underrepresented.

PaulStatezny 5y ago

> If we cancel people for being wrong, nobody will truly be right, they will just mimic correctness And that's assuming that the angry mob majority's viewpoint is actually right. When it's wrong, they'll mimic incorrectness.

fullshark 5y ago

In other words, you're glad she was brave enough to put her name on a position, instead of being bullied into silence after an insincere apology.

spamizbad 5y ago

She's a billionaire. You can't silence her. It's cry-bullying as far as I'm concerned. You can indeed have "bad" or "wrong" opinions. But if you're a pubic figure, you'll be judged by the public for it.

gotoeleven 5y ago
This argument, which Ive seen in many forms, that twitter mobs are actually just free speech against someone's opinion, is disingenuous. What happens now is not just an argument where two sides offer their arguments on an issue. It's a full on total war against the target--friends and employers and anyone else affiliated with them are targeted and pressured and bullied into withdrawing their support for the target. This withdrawal of support gives the impression that everyone is against the target and they must have some horrible, tiny minority opinion. This isn't true, people are just afraid to speak up. The transgender movement isn't convincing anyone this way, they're just making everyone shut up. Everyone knows there are actual, essential differences between women and transwomen and anyone who claims there aren't is either deluded or cowed. JK Rowling has tons of money so there's not much they can do but most people don't.
- spamizbad 5y ago
  > This argument, which Ive seen in many forms, that twitter mobs are actually just free speech against someone's opinion, is disingenuous Ok explain to me, as an American, how joining a so-called “Twitter Mob” is somehow not covered under my right of free speech and assembly: especially if it’s done within the confines of the Twitter TOS. The word “mob” gets tossed around but really it’s just a bunch of people saying “I don’t like person X and I think they’re bad and their ideas are bad.” — liking and retweeting each other. If you want to be crude you could call it a circle-jerk but it’s hardly a gestapo.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > it’s just a bunch of people saying “I don’t like person X and I think they’re bad and their ideas are bad.” You're kidding, right? I've seen these "bunches of people" go out and actively try to harm the targets of their hatred. I've seen them stalk, harass and dox people. I've seen them create wiki articles about their targets in order to hurt them more efficiently. I've seen them try to get people fired or have their sponsors cut them off. I've seen them falsely accuse people of serious crimes and actively attempt to ruin their reputation. In my country, I've seen one particular person not only get sued but be condemned by the justice system twice due to false accusations and defamation.
    - spamizbad 5y ago
      Sounds like you’re against free speech and trying to argue that being critical online of public figures is akin to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Obviously when people cross the line and break the law that’s not protected speech, but merely talking with your friends about how much you dislike a public figure doesn’t constitute violence. Speech is not violence. You have to permit critical discourse, even if it’s frothy and passionate and absurd. That is a human right. That is the essence of liberalism.
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        > Obviously when people cross the line They often do. In fact, the outrage these people generate is amplified by social media. They end up causing real damage because of it. > You have to permit critical discourse, even if it’s frothy and passionate and absurd. I agree. I just don't like how justified and virtually untouchable these literal mobs are. They will call people out over some controversial post but I've seen them post stuff like "kill all men" with absolute impunity. I've seen them literally laugh at people who pointed that out. People need to see them for what they are: a bunch of hating bullies who found acceptable targets they can safely lash out against. I don't want them jailed. I want people to stop taking them seriously. That's where their power comes from.

enumjorge 5y ago

Agreed. The issue I see is that the internet has allowed everyone to more directly participate in public discourse, and that sadly hasn’t scaled as well as we would have hoped. It’s hard having nuanced, constructive discussions with strangers online. Social networks aren’t incentivized for it, and our monkey brains aren’t wired for it. I do think that allowing people to be wrong works better than beating people over the head—assuming the person making the argument is actually interested in having a discussion versus simply digging their heels—but I don’t know where this type of discourse is supposed to happen in today’s world.

sofixa 5y ago

> I haven't done enough research to really add to this discussion, other than I feel any reasonable or commonly-held belief is better discussed than cancelled The problem is, what is "reasonable and commonly-held belied"? I'm certain theories that some "races" are better than others or that the Jews something something banks global domination are commonly-held ( certainly not by the majority of people, but a not insignificant amount of them nonetheless). What do you do then? Personally i don't think there's a point in arguing with such people ( you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get into). (Just starting a philosophical debate on the very serious issue by giving a dark example of how quickly it gets dirty. I think that the issue discussed by JK Rowling is much more nuanced, and i see her point, unlike the not hypothetical idiots who send racial slurs to footballers on Twitter whose point i don't see and think they deserve to lose their jobs and Twitter accounts)

chmod600 5y ago
"The problem is, what is 'reasonable and commonly-held belief'?" If it is held by lots of well-meaning people who are open to hearing reasonable arguments and potentially changing their mind over time. If an opinion really only survives by pure belief and faith, then not much will be learned by discussing it. Take something like trans atheletic competition. A lot of people haven't thought much about it. Maybe they are worried that girls' atheletics will suffer because the top athletes will all be trans (in many sports), which could be discouraging for the lower levels of competition, and basically make them no fun. If someone comes up with a plan that's still fun and inspiring for everyone, then I think many people will change their minds. But there's no widespread knowledge and consensus on what that might look like, so I'd say people resistent to trans athletics for that reason are still reasonable people. I'd also like to be clear that pure beliefs can still be "right" and moral, but it's just not worth discussing them because nobody's mind will change based on reason.

zephrx1111 5y ago

I see how awkward you are when saying this

readflaggedcomm 5y ago

>they will just mimic correctness This depends on the culture. Mimicking mainstream opinion is not a traditional ideal in many parts of the world, which is why some geographies are underrepresented.