5 ms·

Most people voting/supporting these kinds of things believe there is a dastardly "other" that this will apply to more than it will apply to them. There are plen

Most people voting/supporting these kinds of things believe there is a dastardly "other" that this will apply to more than it will apply to them. There are plenty of recent political endeavors where this was extremely obvious and loudly detailed and, yet... So much of the large-scale political nastiness these days isn't because a rising minority wants to enforce fair rules that everyone has to abide by together. They want rules that suppress the opportunities of someone else and are certain that the rules won't suppress them. You can argue that there's little difference between one side or the other, but it's like a game cube -- in one direction it's left vs right, flip the cube and it's rich vs poor, spin the cube again, it's majority race/religion against others. The dastardly part is that, say, the propaganda of one orientation of the cube is often accepted by the oppressed parties of another orientation of cube.

O__________O 4y ago
Agree. Another possibility (or possibly expansion of your points) is that people feel that they are being responsible by amplifying the predictability of their current environment without realizing the potential for it to destabilize it instead. Honestly puzzled by topic and it’s one that spent a lot of time and effort trying to impact. Ultimately, I want to believe people understand they’re making an informed choice, but obviously concerned and puzzled by the pattern, which is neither new, nor likely to fade away, especially as AI‘s role advances in societies. That said, I have hope, and believe future is truly open to those willing to take the time to make a positive difference.
int_19h 4y ago
> They want rules that suppress the opportunities of someone else and are certain that the rules won't suppress them. It should be noted that some of this sentiment comes from people who used the same techniques themselves to disrupt social arrangement, and who want to suppress them precisely because they know that it can work. Here's what one Soviet dissident had to say on the subject of human rights after USSR was gone: "I always knew that only the decent people should have rights, and the indecent ones should not. ... Personally, I've had enough. Some time ago we [dissidents] and the USA have used this concept as a ram against the USSR and communists. This concept has served its purpose, and we should stop lying about human rights and promoting their defenders, lest we undermine ourselves." It's rarely that blatant, but you can kinda sorta see similar sentiments in e.g. the explanations of why ACLU "evolves" on free speech.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Agree, it’s very common pattern, one that in part is caused by power grabs, but also by people suddenly realizing they now the ones in control and if they fail, they’re next on the chopping blocks. Would be curious about the evolution on ACLU on free speech you referenced. Does this article cover your understanding, or is it something else? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
  - int_19h 4y ago
    It's one of the many articles covering it; Wikipedia has a few more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Accusations_of_lost_impartiality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... But I think it's best to go directly to the source, which would be the 2018 ACLU memo that triggered the attention and judge for yourself: https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621AC... To be fair to ACLU, they did backtrack somewhat on all this. Speaking as a member who joined years before this became somehow contentious for the organization, I hope that it'll get back on track, but I'm pessimistic about it - I think the zeitgeist is too contrary, and historically, ACLU did waver at such times (e.g. on defending rights of communists in 1930-50s).
    - O__________O 4y ago
      Thanks, generally agree with your assessment. Might be wrong, but it’s likely that only real solution is for the organization to introduce controls that attempt to put distance between the donors and operations of organization. Issue is donors, especially large ones, are very aware that organizations crave additional funds and often willing to bend the operations and positioning of an organization to gain them. Beyond that, free speech is complex topic, so one for which I am sure I lack an even partial understanding of. I can easily see how hate speech is outsides of free speech in part because it feels without fail it’s only matter of time before someone takes the words to heart and lashes out in violence. Given it appears only four lawyers at ACLU actually engage in free speech litigation according to prior article I linked to, beyond ACLU brand recognition and legacy funding, likely be worth funding and alternative organization instead of waiting for ACLU to default on its founding principals; possible retired ACLU free speech attorneys would be willing to mentor and advise these new attorneys. Lastly, ACLU might easily address issue by making their potential case review assessments public and requiring those assessments include disclosure of any conflicting values and beliefs related to the case, especially case which they choose not to represent.

O__________O 4y ago

Agree. Another possibility (or possibly expansion of your points) is that people feel that they are being responsible by amplifying the predictability of their current environment without realizing the potential for it to destabilize it instead. Honestly puzzled by topic and it’s one that spent a lot of time and effort trying to impact. Ultimately, I want to believe people understand they’re making an informed choice, but obviously concerned and puzzled by the pattern, which is neither new, nor likely to fade away, especially as AI‘s role advances in societies. That said, I have hope, and believe future is truly open to those willing to take the time to make a positive difference.

int_19h 4y ago

> They want rules that suppress the opportunities of someone else and are certain that the rules won't suppress them. It should be noted that some of this sentiment comes from people who used the same techniques themselves to disrupt social arrangement, and who want to suppress them precisely because they know that it can work. Here's what one Soviet dissident had to say on the subject of human rights after USSR was gone: "I always knew that only the decent people should have rights, and the indecent ones should not. ... Personally, I've had enough. Some time ago we [dissidents] and the USA have used this concept as a ram against the USSR and communists. This concept has served its purpose, and we should stop lying about human rights and promoting their defenders, lest we undermine ourselves." It's rarely that blatant, but you can kinda sorta see similar sentiments in e.g. the explanations of why ACLU "evolves" on free speech.

O__________O 4y ago
Agree, it’s very common pattern, one that in part is caused by power grabs, but also by people suddenly realizing they now the ones in control and if they fail, they’re next on the chopping blocks. Would be curious about the evolution on ACLU on free speech you referenced. Does this article cover your understanding, or is it something else? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
- int_19h 4y ago
  It's one of the many articles covering it; Wikipedia has a few more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Accusations_of_lost_impartiality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... But I think it's best to go directly to the source, which would be the 2018 ACLU memo that triggered the attention and judge for yourself: https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621AC... To be fair to ACLU, they did backtrack somewhat on all this. Speaking as a member who joined years before this became somehow contentious for the organization, I hope that it'll get back on track, but I'm pessimistic about it - I think the zeitgeist is too contrary, and historically, ACLU did waver at such times (e.g. on defending rights of communists in 1930-50s).
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Thanks, generally agree with your assessment. Might be wrong, but it’s likely that only real solution is for the organization to introduce controls that attempt to put distance between the donors and operations of organization. Issue is donors, especially large ones, are very aware that organizations crave additional funds and often willing to bend the operations and positioning of an organization to gain them. Beyond that, free speech is complex topic, so one for which I am sure I lack an even partial understanding of. I can easily see how hate speech is outsides of free speech in part because it feels without fail it’s only matter of time before someone takes the words to heart and lashes out in violence. Given it appears only four lawyers at ACLU actually engage in free speech litigation according to prior article I linked to, beyond ACLU brand recognition and legacy funding, likely be worth funding and alternative organization instead of waiting for ACLU to default on its founding principals; possible retired ACLU free speech attorneys would be willing to mentor and advise these new attorneys. Lastly, ACLU might easily address issue by making their potential case review assessments public and requiring those assessments include disclosure of any conflicting values and beliefs related to the case, especially case which they choose not to represent.