3 ms·

I’ve been very surprised at how quickly the American left has turned its back on free speech. I guess that’s why they’ve stopped calling themselves “liberal”, i

by dqpb 4y ago

I’ve been very surprised at how quickly the American left has turned its back on free speech. I guess that’s why they’ve stopped calling themselves “liberal”, instead calling themselves “progressive”. Much like how the American right has stopped calling the US a democracy, instead calling it a republic. Or how Google changed their motto from the specific “don’t be evil”, to the ambiguous “do the right thing”. After all, whose to say that being evil isn’t sometimes the right thing… The problem of course, is that if you bootstrap on good principles and then replace them with dubious principles, your past success is no longer predictive of future success. It’s like ripping out your home’s foundation - what good is it now that the house is built? It’s just getting in the way of that sweet basement you want to add. Edit: as I rack up downvotes, I see that complaining about the Left, Right, and Google in a single post on HN is a losing strategy :)

lucideer 4y ago
> Edit: as I rack up downvotes... Just for clarity, these are likely because you didn't read the article. Your comment does not relate to the article content in any way - it seems to be based on an interpretation of the title.
- dqpb 4y ago
  > Freedom of expression and democracy are intimately linked, and both are deteriorating on a global scale. The article isn't talking about the US. But my claim is that US left-wing is attacking free-speech and the US right-wing is attacking democracy. I don't know how much more hand-holding I can provide to indicate that "deteriorating on a global scale" includes the US.
bena 4y ago
As to the "Don't be evil" vs "Do the right thing", they're both rather ambiguous, but "Don't be evil" is passive, it's easier to condone inaction. I'm going to try and use an example where we won't have to argue the semantics of whether or not standing by is "evil". You see someone trip and fall on their face. They're a little busted up, bloody nose, a few scrapes, but nothing major. Walking past them and not helping them at all is "not evil". It's not "good" either. It's completely neutral. The right thing to do is to help the person up and see if they need anything. Now, to ramp it up. If I see someone getting stabbed, I can easily justify staying out of it. I'm not the one stabbing. I don't know the situation. My only goal is to "not be evil". And since I'm not stabbing, I'm walking on, because I'm not the one being evil here. I can justify that decision in the framework of "don't be evil", but I can't in the framework of "do the right thing". And of course, they're both slightly disguised trolley problems. "Don't be evil". What is evil? What does it mean to not be it? Where's the line where inaction stops being neutral and starts being evil? And of course, if I believe something to not be evil, there is not end to what I could do. The same issue arises with "Do the right thing". We have to define the right thing. And sometimes doing nothing is the right thing. Sometimes the right thing is letting the bad thing happen because experience is the best teacher.

by dqpb 4y ago

lucideer 4y ago

> Edit: as I rack up downvotes... Just for clarity, these are likely because you didn't read the article. Your comment does not relate to the article content in any way - it seems to be based on an interpretation of the title.

dqpb 4y ago
> Freedom of expression and democracy are intimately linked, and both are deteriorating on a global scale. The article isn't talking about the US. But my claim is that US left-wing is attacking free-speech and the US right-wing is attacking democracy. I don't know how much more hand-holding I can provide to indicate that "deteriorating on a global scale" includes the US.

bena 4y ago

As to the "Don't be evil" vs "Do the right thing", they're both rather ambiguous, but "Don't be evil" is passive, it's easier to condone inaction. I'm going to try and use an example where we won't have to argue the semantics of whether or not standing by is "evil". You see someone trip and fall on their face. They're a little busted up, bloody nose, a few scrapes, but nothing major. Walking past them and not helping them at all is "not evil". It's not "good" either. It's completely neutral. The right thing to do is to help the person up and see if they need anything. Now, to ramp it up. If I see someone getting stabbed, I can easily justify staying out of it. I'm not the one stabbing. I don't know the situation. My only goal is to "not be evil". And since I'm not stabbing, I'm walking on, because I'm not the one being evil here. I can justify that decision in the framework of "don't be evil", but I can't in the framework of "do the right thing". And of course, they're both slightly disguised trolley problems. "Don't be evil". What is evil? What does it mean to not be it? Where's the line where inaction stops being neutral and starts being evil? And of course, if I believe something to not be evil, there is not end to what I could do. The same issue arises with "Do the right thing". We have to define the right thing. And sometimes doing nothing is the right thing. Sometimes the right thing is letting the bad thing happen because experience is the best teacher.