7 ms·

Respectfully, it is my opinion that arresting anyone who says something, in real life, on a blog or whispering to themselves, that is not a direct threat or inc

Respectfully, it is my opinion that arresting anyone who says something, in real life, on a blog or whispering to themselves, that is not a direct threat or inciting physical violence is wrong.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
That makes a lot of sense if you think that only direct calls for violence result in violence. There's a slow burning genocide afoot that's taking place though "reasoned debates," that serves as a counterexample. It's, however, a lot easier to relabel it as something else than accept that speech falling outside "inciting physical violence" could be the cause.
- SlickNixon 4y ago
  >There's a slow burning genocide afoot Sounds like you're inciting a call to violent action.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Do you realize what you just did? You equate pointing out the existence of a genocide with a "call to violent action". In a conversation where a "call to violent action" is used to mean something which is worthy of arrest. Your comment, in the context of this conversation, argues in favour of arresting anyone who points out that a genocide is taking place. That is extremely dangerous.
    - SlickNixon 4y ago
      >You equate pointing out the existence of a genocide with a "call to violent action" I take it you favor a more passive approach. >Your comment, in the context of this conversation, argues in favour of arresting anyone who points out that a genocide is taking place. That is extremely dangerous. This is exactly what my comment was arguing. I wrote that comment not as a reflection of my personal views, but to highlight the consequences of prosecuting individuals for statements which aren't direct threats. I don't believe arresting and prosecuting individuals for making such statements is justified. I agree that the context of this conversation argues in favor of arresting anyone who points out that genocide is taking place, and I agree that accepting it as a precedent is extremely dangerous. You've elucidated my reasoning on the subject perfectly.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  What "slow burning genocide" are you referring to here? Because, without knowing the specifics, this sounds like extreme hyperventilating.
  - slg 4y ago
    There is always a lot of debate about how you define a word like genocide. The UN definition outlines several actions that qualify as genocide but specifically limits it to attacks on a community of people based on race, religion, ethnicity, or nationality. Actions like preventing medical care and removing kids from their parents would qualify as genocide according to that UN definition. The US is guilty of both those things (and more) when it comes to our treatment of trans people. However, trans people clearly aren't a singular racial, religious, ethnic, or national group. That means they can't technically be the victims of a genocide according to that UN definition, but that is an awfully uncomfortable technically we need to not be guilty of genocide.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      You could be right. Was that really kelseyfrog's point, though? Or was it Israel's treatment of Palestinians? Or Russia's treatment of Ukraine? Or China's treatment of the Uighurs? Or the police treatment of blacks? Or the Great Replacement theory? I honestly can't tell. And, once we know what was actually being claimed, then we can debate whether it meets the definition of genocide. I really hate vague-posting like kelseyfrog's post. Don't hint. If you have a claim to make, make it. (Just to be clear, this last paragraph is not aimed at the parent.)
      - slg 4y ago
        I obviously can't know for sure without them chiming in. However, the context made me immediately think of trans people. It was in a conversation about issues specific to the US, UK, and Australia so I doubt they are talking about China's treatment of Uyghurs. They mentioned "reasoned debates" and the anti-trans contingent often defends themselves by saying they are "just asking questions" or are looking for reasoned debates about high school girls volleyball. OP also called out the speech that leads to violence even if it isn't a direct call to violence. That seems to be a reference to the way that numerous conservative figures have started using "pedo groomers" as a slur to describe people who participate in drag shows, are trans, or even just generally LGBT+ people. Someone just recently heard all that rhetoric, walked into an LGBT+ bar that does drag shows, murdered 5 people, and injured over a dozen more. One of the reasons people are vague on HN about these issues is because a simple "The US is committing genocide against trans people" comment is more likely to be downvoted and flagged as being political. We often can only talk about these things here by hinting at them. Ironic considering how pro free speech this community claims to be.
- bscphil 4y ago
  > There's a slow burning genocide afoot that's taking place though "reasoned debates," that serves as a counterexample. I don't know if this is the right place to share a feeling, but I'm going to try to express it anyway. I'm not sure whether you're right about this or not, but I think you might be, and it makes me sad almost more than you could believe. It genuinely depresses me. The claim seems to be nothing short of saying that at the end of the day, all human intelligence sums to a net negative, at least in this area. That we're not collectively capable of rational discourse. That ultimately, we're so blinded by hate for the Other that debating our differences might actually lead to worse outcomes than if we just pulled guns to solve our problems. We're all ultimately just stumbling around in the dark. Maybe, one day, the light of humanity is doomed to go out. I suspect that one reason liberals, rationalists, civil libertarians, and their allies are so insistent on free speech and an open public square is that they can't really bring themselves to take this possibility seriously. Or, to the extent they do, they think we have to ignore the possibility, because in the event this turns out to be true, who cares about humanity anyway? Maybe the American attitude toward free speech is just a reflection of optimism about human nature?
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  I think that the perpetrators of violence carry the responsibility for it, not the people who may have inspired them. Since perpetrators are agents, the cause of violence terminates at the decision making process of the perpetrator. The best way to address violence is to arrest and imprison perpetrators. Attempting to control second-order factors that may influence behaviour is a very short road to tyranny. How do we decide which factors to control for? Who gets to make this decision? How do we know in retrospect that such a decision was mistaken? The only justice lies in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers. Also, how "slow burning" does a "genocide" have to be before it's indistinguishable from a normal process of cultural shift and assimilation? (honest question)
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    I think this makes sense if we're ok with the number of perpetrators going up due to being convinced it's ok to perpetrate. > Attempting to control second-order factors that may influence behaviour is a very short road to tyranny. How do we decide which factors to control for? Who gets to make this decision? How do we know in retrospect that such a decision was mistaken? The only justice lies in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers. It is very hard to read this as not sealioning. Is there a way you could rephrase it so that it doesn't come across that way?
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      > the number of perpetrators going up due to being convinced it's ok to perpetrate It's an inevitable consequence of power (read: to do harm) being distributed rather than concentrated. With distributed power you're at the mercy of group dynamics and trends. However the risks of concentrated power have borne out to be much more severe. > rephrase it so that it doesn't come across [as sealioning] I'm genuinely mystified as to what distinguishes "well-intentioned" use of authority to control people from what we see as obviously tyrannical. What principle would you use to distinguish between the kind of control over speech exercised by the UK and what is commonplace in China? Or are you willing to concede that these are different degrees of the same thing? I'm simply arguing that this "thing" (the use of authority to limit speech) should be avoided at all costs in a free society.
mort96 4y ago
Right, so someone could be justly "arrested for a tweet" in your eyes, if that tweet contains a direct threat or inciting physical violence. If someone was arrested for tweeting something which is clearly not arrest-worthy, say someone was arrested for tweeting that the UK monarchy is bad, I would probably write that someone was "arrested for being critical of the monarchy", not that someone was "arrested for a tweet".
- dylan604 4y ago
  It depends on if you are writing a click bait headline to get higher engagement or not. So, someone paid to write those headlines would absolutely say arrest due to tweet and ignore the content of the tweet. >I would probably write suggests that you are not a click bait headline writer.
KptMarchewa 4y ago
And I disagree, stuff like american Westbrook Church protesting on funerals should be illegal and I'm glad it is in my country.
- refurb 4y ago
  It's pretty typical for people who live in authoritarian systems to actually support the authoritarian laws.
  - aaplok 4y ago
    Just as typical as it is for people who live in democratic countries to support democratic laws. I'm not quite sure what you expect us to conclude here.
    - refurb 4y ago
      The point is that one shouldn't expect people to stand up and say "that's an authoritarian law"! It doesn't work that way. Authoritarian laws get passed because people want them.
      - aaplok 4y ago
        > Authoritarian laws get passed because people want them. I don't think I agree. Almost by definition authorianism doesn't acknowledge what people want. A law passed because people want it would be either democratic or populist, depending on whom you ask. I think that the issue here is that all laws are authoritarian at some level, since the principle of a law is to impose. And indeed most citizens would probably support most laws. That doesn't really make the law "bad" or "good" per se, though.
    - ralusek 4y ago
      Democracy isn't the opposite of authoritarianism... Imagine you're a gay person, and marrying the person you love is illegal in your country. The authoritarianism of that isn't contingent on whether that law was put into place by a man in a scary suit or your fellow citizens voting.

Respectfully, it is my opinion that arresting anyone who says something, in real life, on a blog or whispering to themselves, that is not a direct threat or inciting physical violence is wrong.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

That makes a lot of sense if you think that only direct calls for violence result in violence. There's a slow burning genocide afoot that's taking place though "reasoned debates," that serves as a counterexample. It's, however, a lot easier to relabel it as something else than accept that speech falling outside "inciting physical violence" could be the cause.

SlickNixon 4y ago
>There's a slow burning genocide afoot Sounds like you're inciting a call to violent action.
- mort96 4y ago
  Do you realize what you just did? You equate pointing out the existence of a genocide with a "call to violent action". In a conversation where a "call to violent action" is used to mean something which is worthy of arrest. Your comment, in the context of this conversation, argues in favour of arresting anyone who points out that a genocide is taking place. That is extremely dangerous.
  - SlickNixon 4y ago
    >You equate pointing out the existence of a genocide with a "call to violent action" I take it you favor a more passive approach. >Your comment, in the context of this conversation, argues in favour of arresting anyone who points out that a genocide is taking place. That is extremely dangerous. This is exactly what my comment was arguing. I wrote that comment not as a reflection of my personal views, but to highlight the consequences of prosecuting individuals for statements which aren't direct threats. I don't believe arresting and prosecuting individuals for making such statements is justified. I agree that the context of this conversation argues in favor of arresting anyone who points out that genocide is taking place, and I agree that accepting it as a precedent is extremely dangerous. You've elucidated my reasoning on the subject perfectly.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
What "slow burning genocide" are you referring to here? Because, without knowing the specifics, this sounds like extreme hyperventilating.
- slg 4y ago
  There is always a lot of debate about how you define a word like genocide. The UN definition outlines several actions that qualify as genocide but specifically limits it to attacks on a community of people based on race, religion, ethnicity, or nationality. Actions like preventing medical care and removing kids from their parents would qualify as genocide according to that UN definition. The US is guilty of both those things (and more) when it comes to our treatment of trans people. However, trans people clearly aren't a singular racial, religious, ethnic, or national group. That means they can't technically be the victims of a genocide according to that UN definition, but that is an awfully uncomfortable technically we need to not be guilty of genocide.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    You could be right. Was that really kelseyfrog's point, though? Or was it Israel's treatment of Palestinians? Or Russia's treatment of Ukraine? Or China's treatment of the Uighurs? Or the police treatment of blacks? Or the Great Replacement theory? I honestly can't tell. And, once we know what was actually being claimed, then we can debate whether it meets the definition of genocide. I really hate vague-posting like kelseyfrog's post. Don't hint. If you have a claim to make, make it. (Just to be clear, this last paragraph is not aimed at the parent.)
    - slg 4y ago
      I obviously can't know for sure without them chiming in. However, the context made me immediately think of trans people. It was in a conversation about issues specific to the US, UK, and Australia so I doubt they are talking about China's treatment of Uyghurs. They mentioned "reasoned debates" and the anti-trans contingent often defends themselves by saying they are "just asking questions" or are looking for reasoned debates about high school girls volleyball. OP also called out the speech that leads to violence even if it isn't a direct call to violence. That seems to be a reference to the way that numerous conservative figures have started using "pedo groomers" as a slur to describe people who participate in drag shows, are trans, or even just generally LGBT+ people. Someone just recently heard all that rhetoric, walked into an LGBT+ bar that does drag shows, murdered 5 people, and injured over a dozen more. One of the reasons people are vague on HN about these issues is because a simple "The US is committing genocide against trans people" comment is more likely to be downvoted and flagged as being political. We often can only talk about these things here by hinting at them. Ironic considering how pro free speech this community claims to be.
bscphil 4y ago
> There's a slow burning genocide afoot that's taking place though "reasoned debates," that serves as a counterexample. I don't know if this is the right place to share a feeling, but I'm going to try to express it anyway. I'm not sure whether you're right about this or not, but I think you might be, and it makes me sad almost more than you could believe. It genuinely depresses me. The claim seems to be nothing short of saying that at the end of the day, all human intelligence sums to a net negative, at least in this area. That we're not collectively capable of rational discourse. That ultimately, we're so blinded by hate for the Other that debating our differences might actually lead to worse outcomes than if we just pulled guns to solve our problems. We're all ultimately just stumbling around in the dark. Maybe, one day, the light of humanity is doomed to go out. I suspect that one reason liberals, rationalists, civil libertarians, and their allies are so insistent on free speech and an open public square is that they can't really bring themselves to take this possibility seriously. Or, to the extent they do, they think we have to ignore the possibility, because in the event this turns out to be true, who cares about humanity anyway? Maybe the American attitude toward free speech is just a reflection of optimism about human nature?
thegrimmest 4y ago
I think that the perpetrators of violence carry the responsibility for it, not the people who may have inspired them. Since perpetrators are agents, the cause of violence terminates at the decision making process of the perpetrator. The best way to address violence is to arrest and imprison perpetrators. Attempting to control second-order factors that may influence behaviour is a very short road to tyranny. How do we decide which factors to control for? Who gets to make this decision? How do we know in retrospect that such a decision was mistaken? The only justice lies in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers. Also, how "slow burning" does a "genocide" have to be before it's indistinguishable from a normal process of cultural shift and assimilation? (honest question)
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  I think this makes sense if we're ok with the number of perpetrators going up due to being convinced it's ok to perpetrate. > Attempting to control second-order factors that may influence behaviour is a very short road to tyranny. How do we decide which factors to control for? Who gets to make this decision? How do we know in retrospect that such a decision was mistaken? The only justice lies in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers. It is very hard to read this as not sealioning. Is there a way you could rephrase it so that it doesn't come across that way?
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    > the number of perpetrators going up due to being convinced it's ok to perpetrate It's an inevitable consequence of power (read: to do harm) being distributed rather than concentrated. With distributed power you're at the mercy of group dynamics and trends. However the risks of concentrated power have borne out to be much more severe. > rephrase it so that it doesn't come across [as sealioning] I'm genuinely mystified as to what distinguishes "well-intentioned" use of authority to control people from what we see as obviously tyrannical. What principle would you use to distinguish between the kind of control over speech exercised by the UK and what is commonplace in China? Or are you willing to concede that these are different degrees of the same thing? I'm simply arguing that this "thing" (the use of authority to limit speech) should be avoided at all costs in a free society.

mort96 4y ago

Right, so someone could be justly "arrested for a tweet" in your eyes, if that tweet contains a direct threat or inciting physical violence. If someone was arrested for tweeting something which is clearly not arrest-worthy, say someone was arrested for tweeting that the UK monarchy is bad, I would probably write that someone was "arrested for being critical of the monarchy", not that someone was "arrested for a tweet".

dylan604 4y ago
It depends on if you are writing a click bait headline to get higher engagement or not. So, someone paid to write those headlines would absolutely say arrest due to tweet and ignore the content of the tweet. >I would probably write suggests that you are not a click bait headline writer.

KptMarchewa 4y ago

And I disagree, stuff like american Westbrook Church protesting on funerals should be illegal and I'm glad it is in my country.

refurb 4y ago
It's pretty typical for people who live in authoritarian systems to actually support the authoritarian laws.
- aaplok 4y ago
  Just as typical as it is for people who live in democratic countries to support democratic laws. I'm not quite sure what you expect us to conclude here.
  - refurb 4y ago
    The point is that one shouldn't expect people to stand up and say "that's an authoritarian law"! It doesn't work that way. Authoritarian laws get passed because people want them.
    - aaplok 4y ago
      > Authoritarian laws get passed because people want them. I don't think I agree. Almost by definition authorianism doesn't acknowledge what people want. A law passed because people want it would be either democratic or populist, depending on whom you ask. I think that the issue here is that all laws are authoritarian at some level, since the principle of a law is to impose. And indeed most citizens would probably support most laws. That doesn't really make the law "bad" or "good" per se, though.
  - ralusek 4y ago
    Democracy isn't the opposite of authoritarianism... Imagine you're a gay person, and marrying the person you love is illegal in your country. The authoritarianism of that isn't contingent on whether that law was put into place by a man in a scary suit or your fellow citizens voting.