10 ms·

> I remember years ago you could have a discussion and express your opinion and it was fine. I also remember when racism, xenophobia, slandering women, and gen

by samtp 4y ago

> I remember years ago you could have a discussion and express your opinion and it was fine. I also remember when racism, xenophobia, slandering women, and generally ignorant talk was accepted and chuckled at. Thankfully, women are now expected to express opinions at dinner parties and minorities aren't run out of town for having the audacity to exist in the same neighborhood.

SheepSlapper 4y ago
It only took 7 minutes for someone to come in and do... almost exactly what the above poster was describing. There's no way this isn't a simulation.
- csallen 4y ago
  Hacker News is a discussion forum. Not only that, but it's one where the culture is defined by a contrarian-yet-intellectual spirit. It's the last place anyone should come to share opinions without expecting a response, likely a critical one.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    > It's the last place anyone should come to share opinions without expecting a response, likely a critical one. Sure, but this topic is "special" in the sense that the response GP is complaining about is about the most uncritical, non-contrarian, obvious possible one. If you view conversations as a multiplayer gradient descent, then making an accusation - even an implied and/or non-specific - of racism, sexism, bigotry and associated "sins", is like making a huge sinkhole on the optimization surface: a very deep local minimum, nearly impossible to walk out of. It's so easy for anyone to do this, and the effect is both immediate and so obvious, that when someone does that, it's hard not to see it as a deliberate attempt at shutting down the conversation. It's equivalent of someone pulling a gun in the middle of what the other person thought was friendly sparring.
- samtp 4y ago
  So free speech to express any opinion but not free speech to respond to opinions expressed? 99% of the time that someone decries the "death of free speech", it boils down to them not wanting to hear criticism for expressing ignorant or hateful ideas. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. And if you do say something that is stupid or is harmful to others, you should expect push back. If you have no defense for that push back, it's a clear sign that you should either re-evaluate your opinion or express yourself in a more thoughtful manner. This is a lesson that most people learn in grade school. But one of the big issues today is that a lot of people believe that others not accepting their opinion is a form of persecution. They are so self-centered that criticism of what they say is taken as an insult to them personally. Criticism of these people lead to no moments of self-reflection and no moments of personal growth. The big question for me is how do we move past this moment without a large number of people realizing that they are acting like spoiled children. Speech is as free as it's ever been. What's different is an entitlement behind expressing opinions that destroys any meaningful discussion.
  - jimbokun 4y ago
    "But one of the big issues today is that a lot of people believe that others not accepting their opinion is a form of persecution. They are so self-centered that criticism of what they say is taken as an insult to them personally. Criticism of these people lead to no moments of self-reflection and no moment" The colloquial term for these people is "woke".
    - samtp 4y ago
      Well under oath in court, DeSantis General Counsel Ryan Newman defined woke as: “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them” [0] https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article269675311.html https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article269675... What do you think is wrong with the belief that there are systemic injustices in American society that should be addressed?
      - jimbokun 4y ago
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Apparently only the top-level GP is allowed to push back on what other people say or do, but when the OP you're replying to exercises their right to free speech to do the same, it's the end of the world. It's an interesting double standard.
  - SheepSlapper 4y ago
    It's not the end of the world, I was just poking fun at a goofball who didn't see the irony in his kneejerk response. I'm a free speech absolutist, so I support his right to say whatever the heck he wants. That's how I know he's a goofy dude, I read a bunch of his replies in this thread and he CONTINUES to put his foot in his mouth. Also, this hyperbolic style of response (end of the world, racism, xenophobia, the other million examples in the thread) is part of what the OP was saying is a problem today. Nuance in dialog seems to be lost, and the second someone disagrees instead of coming back with a well reasoned response, it's "oh so you YEARN for the days when minorities weren't even considered human?!" and the conversation ends. That's boring. Strive to be less boring. It's not comfortable but it's worthwhile.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      I would rather die than not engage in joking hyperbole.
- lukas099 4y ago
  Your standard of proof for 'this is a simulation' seems low to me...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
maxdoop 4y ago
And what about if they said “COVID might’ve been a lab leak ?” You have valid examples, yes, but GP comment has a point as well.
- samtp 4y ago
  ...then they should be expected to back it up with a reasonable argument and supporting facts. If they can't do that, then they should expect push back. Even if they can do that they should expect push back - because that is how conversations work. After all, what is the point in discussing something if ideas are not challenged or expected to have a sound argument behind them? To feel that you should be able to say anything you want and people cannot make a counter-point is absurd and quite selfish.
  - brightball 4y ago
    Those people were deplatformed and deamplified, rather than debated. GP definitely has a valid point as do you. Speech was not equally free if the counter points weren’t allowed, which allowed a lot of people to say anything they want for a long time.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      In other words, they had reputations and those reputations were damaged by the position they took. That's how reputations work. "I will defend to your death the right to say it, but not the right to say it from my stage."
    - samtp 4y ago
      1. Do you have an example of someone who has been deplatformed (kicked off Youtube, Twitter, etc) for simply saying that COVID came from a lab outbreak? Because I'm pretty sure they also had some strong opinions on other topics and/or engaged in online harassment. 2. Do you have any evidence that they we "deamplified" as a conscious decision by employees of the platform? Or did their opinions expressed simply lose them following and/or not generate their normal engagement? If their deamplification was a conscious decision by employees of the platform - how is that not also an expression of free speech by those employees and/or the platform? Should private companies not be allowed to moderate content on their platforms as they see fit? If the deamplification was a result of them losing following and/or not generating normal engagement - what do you expect to happen here? People can express any opinion they want, but people are also completely free to not listen or engage.
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
GP: I remember when this good thing still existed. You: I remember also when this unrelated set of things existed at the same time. That's a great non sequitur you just spewed out. In case your Latin is rusty, that translates to "it does not follow".
- samtp 4y ago
  Pointing out that there was never a time when everything was all rosy and dandy is not a non sequitur. It's pointing out that their view of history is naive and not grounded in reality. To call these two points unrelated is to not understand the subject at hand.
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    > Pointing out that there was never a time when everything was all rosy and dandy is not a non sequitur. But it is. Also, no one was making such a claim, either, so why point it out in the first place? > It's pointing out that their view of history is naive and not grounded in reality Says who? You? I'd venture to guess GP's view is grounded in reality much more than yours is. For instance, there is plenty of racism today, and it's mainly from the people of the same political party that's been most racist from its beginning: https://www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-democratic-partys-history-slavery-jim-crow-kkk/ https://www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-de.... All that's changed is that in this party it's now in vogue to be racist against whites. > To call these two points unrelated is to not understand the subject at hand. You could in fact relate them. You could say probably what you meant, which is: "today's censorship is great because it silences all those evil racist bigots that used to be able to speak their minds." And to that, I would reply that your view is not grounded in reality! Take, for instance, this lawsuit: https://www.dailywire.com/news/lawsuit-illinois-school-district-forced-students-on-privilege-walks-compared-whiteness-to-the-devil https://www.dailywire.com/news/lawsuit-illinois-school-distr... "Stacy Deemar, a middle school drama teacher, sued the school district over its curriculum allegedly forcing students to participate in “privilege walks” separated by race, comparing “whiteness” to the devil, and other lessons that pit “different racial groups against each other,” according to the suit." Unfortunately, this kind of racism thrives under today's speech police. And, from: https://www.dailywire.com/news/pathetic-megyn-kelly-slams-sally-field-for-apologizing-for-being-white-during-lifetime-achievement-award-acceptance-speech https://www.dailywire.com/news/pathetic-megyn-kelly-slams-sa... "Sally Field ... apologized for being white during her acceptance speech for a Lifetime Achievement Award at the 2023 Screen Actors Guild Awards on Sunday." Why is she apologizing for being white? That sounds awfully racist! And, lastly: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bicycling-doctor-allegedly-murdered-by-man-who-reportedly-muttered-about-white-privilege https://www.dailywire.com/news/bicycling-doctor-allegedly-mu... "A California emergency room doctor out for a ride on his mountain bike was allegedly murdered Wednesday by a man who police said struck him from behind with his vehicle, then jumped out and repeatedly stabbed him while, according to a witness, decrying “white privilege.”" It looks like this kind of openly accepted hate speech is getting people killed! The present day certainly isn't rosy either. Maybe it's even worse than it used to be!

by samtp 4y ago

SheepSlapper 4y ago

It only took 7 minutes for someone to come in and do... almost exactly what the above poster was describing. There's no way this isn't a simulation.

csallen 4y ago
Hacker News is a discussion forum. Not only that, but it's one where the culture is defined by a contrarian-yet-intellectual spirit. It's the last place anyone should come to share opinions without expecting a response, likely a critical one.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  > It's the last place anyone should come to share opinions without expecting a response, likely a critical one. Sure, but this topic is "special" in the sense that the response GP is complaining about is about the most uncritical, non-contrarian, obvious possible one. If you view conversations as a multiplayer gradient descent, then making an accusation - even an implied and/or non-specific - of racism, sexism, bigotry and associated "sins", is like making a huge sinkhole on the optimization surface: a very deep local minimum, nearly impossible to walk out of. It's so easy for anyone to do this, and the effect is both immediate and so obvious, that when someone does that, it's hard not to see it as a deliberate attempt at shutting down the conversation. It's equivalent of someone pulling a gun in the middle of what the other person thought was friendly sparring.
samtp 4y ago
So free speech to express any opinion but not free speech to respond to opinions expressed? 99% of the time that someone decries the "death of free speech", it boils down to them not wanting to hear criticism for expressing ignorant or hateful ideas. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. And if you do say something that is stupid or is harmful to others, you should expect push back. If you have no defense for that push back, it's a clear sign that you should either re-evaluate your opinion or express yourself in a more thoughtful manner. This is a lesson that most people learn in grade school. But one of the big issues today is that a lot of people believe that others not accepting their opinion is a form of persecution. They are so self-centered that criticism of what they say is taken as an insult to them personally. Criticism of these people lead to no moments of self-reflection and no moments of personal growth. The big question for me is how do we move past this moment without a large number of people realizing that they are acting like spoiled children. Speech is as free as it's ever been. What's different is an entitlement behind expressing opinions that destroys any meaningful discussion.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  "But one of the big issues today is that a lot of people believe that others not accepting their opinion is a form of persecution. They are so self-centered that criticism of what they say is taken as an insult to them personally. Criticism of these people lead to no moments of self-reflection and no moment" The colloquial term for these people is "woke".
  - samtp 4y ago
    Well under oath in court, DeSantis General Counsel Ryan Newman defined woke as: “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them” [0] https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article269675311.html https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article269675... What do you think is wrong with the belief that there are systemic injustices in American society that should be addressed?
    - jimbokun 4y ago
heavyset_go 4y ago
Apparently only the top-level GP is allowed to push back on what other people say or do, but when the OP you're replying to exercises their right to free speech to do the same, it's the end of the world. It's an interesting double standard.
- SheepSlapper 4y ago
  It's not the end of the world, I was just poking fun at a goofball who didn't see the irony in his kneejerk response. I'm a free speech absolutist, so I support his right to say whatever the heck he wants. That's how I know he's a goofy dude, I read a bunch of his replies in this thread and he CONTINUES to put his foot in his mouth. Also, this hyperbolic style of response (end of the world, racism, xenophobia, the other million examples in the thread) is part of what the OP was saying is a problem today. Nuance in dialog seems to be lost, and the second someone disagrees instead of coming back with a well reasoned response, it's "oh so you YEARN for the days when minorities weren't even considered human?!" and the conversation ends. That's boring. Strive to be less boring. It's not comfortable but it's worthwhile.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    I would rather die than not engage in joking hyperbole.
lukas099 4y ago
Your standard of proof for 'this is a simulation' seems low to me...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

maxdoop 4y ago

And what about if they said “COVID might’ve been a lab leak ?” You have valid examples, yes, but GP comment has a point as well.

samtp 4y ago
...then they should be expected to back it up with a reasonable argument and supporting facts. If they can't do that, then they should expect push back. Even if they can do that they should expect push back - because that is how conversations work. After all, what is the point in discussing something if ideas are not challenged or expected to have a sound argument behind them? To feel that you should be able to say anything you want and people cannot make a counter-point is absurd and quite selfish.
- brightball 4y ago
  Those people were deplatformed and deamplified, rather than debated. GP definitely has a valid point as do you. Speech was not equally free if the counter points weren’t allowed, which allowed a lot of people to say anything they want for a long time.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    In other words, they had reputations and those reputations were damaged by the position they took. That's how reputations work. "I will defend to your death the right to say it, but not the right to say it from my stage."
  - samtp 4y ago
    1. Do you have an example of someone who has been deplatformed (kicked off Youtube, Twitter, etc) for simply saying that COVID came from a lab outbreak? Because I'm pretty sure they also had some strong opinions on other topics and/or engaged in online harassment. 2. Do you have any evidence that they we "deamplified" as a conscious decision by employees of the platform? Or did their opinions expressed simply lose them following and/or not generate their normal engagement? If their deamplification was a conscious decision by employees of the platform - how is that not also an expression of free speech by those employees and/or the platform? Should private companies not be allowed to moderate content on their platforms as they see fit? If the deamplification was a result of them losing following and/or not generating normal engagement - what do you expect to happen here? People can express any opinion they want, but people are also completely free to not listen or engage.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago

GP: I remember when this good thing still existed. You: I remember also when this unrelated set of things existed at the same time. That's a great non sequitur you just spewed out. In case your Latin is rusty, that translates to "it does not follow".

samtp 4y ago
Pointing out that there was never a time when everything was all rosy and dandy is not a non sequitur. It's pointing out that their view of history is naive and not grounded in reality. To call these two points unrelated is to not understand the subject at hand.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  > Pointing out that there was never a time when everything was all rosy and dandy is not a non sequitur. But it is. Also, no one was making such a claim, either, so why point it out in the first place? > It's pointing out that their view of history is naive and not grounded in reality Says who? You? I'd venture to guess GP's view is grounded in reality much more than yours is. For instance, there is plenty of racism today, and it's mainly from the people of the same political party that's been most racist from its beginning: https://www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-democratic-partys-history-slavery-jim-crow-kkk/ https://www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-de.... All that's changed is that in this party it's now in vogue to be racist against whites. > To call these two points unrelated is to not understand the subject at hand. You could in fact relate them. You could say probably what you meant, which is: "today's censorship is great because it silences all those evil racist bigots that used to be able to speak their minds." And to that, I would reply that your view is not grounded in reality! Take, for instance, this lawsuit: https://www.dailywire.com/news/lawsuit-illinois-school-district-forced-students-on-privilege-walks-compared-whiteness-to-the-devil https://www.dailywire.com/news/lawsuit-illinois-school-distr... "Stacy Deemar, a middle school drama teacher, sued the school district over its curriculum allegedly forcing students to participate in “privilege walks” separated by race, comparing “whiteness” to the devil, and other lessons that pit “different racial groups against each other,” according to the suit." Unfortunately, this kind of racism thrives under today's speech police. And, from: https://www.dailywire.com/news/pathetic-megyn-kelly-slams-sally-field-for-apologizing-for-being-white-during-lifetime-achievement-award-acceptance-speech https://www.dailywire.com/news/pathetic-megyn-kelly-slams-sa... "Sally Field ... apologized for being white during her acceptance speech for a Lifetime Achievement Award at the 2023 Screen Actors Guild Awards on Sunday." Why is she apologizing for being white? That sounds awfully racist! And, lastly: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bicycling-doctor-allegedly-murdered-by-man-who-reportedly-muttered-about-white-privilege https://www.dailywire.com/news/bicycling-doctor-allegedly-mu... "A California emergency room doctor out for a ride on his mountain bike was allegedly murdered Wednesday by a man who police said struck him from behind with his vehicle, then jumped out and repeatedly stabbed him while, according to a witness, decrying “white privilege.”" It looks like this kind of openly accepted hate speech is getting people killed! The present day certainly isn't rosy either. Maybe it's even worse than it used to be!