4 ms·
Interesting that you seem to imply that you would be just fine with canceling people or with the chilling effects of speaking if the "kind of speech" fit some c
by mhuffman 4y ago
Interesting that you seem to imply that you would be just fine with canceling people or with the chilling effects of speaking if the "kind of speech" fit some criteria that you personally have.
- ParetoOptimal 4y agoWould you cancel the speech of people infringing on free speech?
- mhuffman 4y agoI don't understand what you mean by that. How do you infringe on free speech with free speech?
- ParetoOptimal 4y agoGetting someone cancelled by revealing heinous crimes they committed. Making forbidden word lists and convincing your company to adopt them.
- mhuffman 4y agoOk, I see. No I would not cancel or end the careers of those people that did that. My true hope is that people can come to the understanding that ignoring people that try to do that is the proper approach. Just like I don't want to hurt people that believe in flat Earth. I just ignore them as kooks. People that make forbidden word lists and people that call the employers of people because they disagree with them should be ignored and this should become socially acceptable. Also, I will note that in both of your examples it wasn't free speech but specific actions taken by a person.
- shadowgovt 4y agoOh, there's several ways. Simply driving down the SNR by out-speaking someone is the easiest, which is why so many forums have rules of etiquette or time-boxing. Inducing a speaker's audience to leave by making the environment so odious that they voluntarily stop associating there.
- shadowgovt 4y agoAs, well, a human being, yes: I am just fine with refraining from volunteering my time or attention to people who fit or do not fit some criteria. It's called "freedom of association."