3 ms·

I don’t know why HN seems to have a culture of confusing minority opinions for toxicity and hate. If you are against gay marriage there’s nothing at all toxic

by Spivak 4y ago

I don’t know why HN seems to have a culture of confusing minority opinions for toxicity and hate. If you are against gay marriage there’s nothing at all toxic or hateful about that. Hell, I know gay people who were against gay marriage when the public debate was at its peak. Where it’s toxic is if any time a gay person talks about wedding planning, posts a meme about the phrase “her wife” having good energy, or shares art of two guys at the altar you appear in the replies to get on your soapbox and start an argument about gay marriage. Nobody asked. Alternatively, just like HN, if your account is entirely flamebait about gay marriage nobody wants to see that and you’ll get the hammer. Where it’s hate is when you express the that you’re against gay marriage because you don’t want to see gay people to be out in public, you think affection between two men is disgusting and unnatural, you call their sexual orientation a lifestyle choice, call gay people pedos, or otherwise pick on, doxx, belittle, or dehumanize gay people. Like y’all, it isn’t that hard to expressly minority opinions without being toxic or hateful. I express minority opinions constantly and have never once even been worried about the banhammer.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
It did not use too, but it is hard for me to tell where/when the shift happened. All I know for sure is that anyone with mildly stronger views on 1st amendment are called speech absolutists. It is extra annoying, because 'hate speech' is mostly recently made up term to stifle free speech AND, more importantly, does not exist anywhere in US constitution. << Like y’all, it isn’t that hard to expressly minority opinions without being toxic or hateful. You can, but it becomes a game of using language that it is harder to pinpoint ( hence silliness like Xi banning 8 for infinity ). All the while majority opinion can be as hateful as is deemed necessary ( and no one complains because it is the majority ) creating yet another echo-chamber we so sorely need. FWIW, this trend is now being challenged. edit: I like calling spade a spade. You can dislike it all you want, but I am personally less and less willing to comply with other person's sensibilities[1]. [1]https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763...
- Spivak 4y ago
  > because 'hate speech' is mostly recently made up term to stifle free speech AND, more importantly, does not exist anywhere in US constitution Which is why dirty commie liberals like me want to get a national hate speech law passed just like other countries have. Canada (which passed in the 1989) Ireland (passed in 1989) New Zeland (passed in 1993) Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, UK, Iceland, Denmark So I don't know your definition of recent is but it's been around for a bit. And the term "free speech absolutist" just another instance of a very deep rooted fundamental difference between red vs blue which is freedom vs liberty. It crops up all over the place: freedom from vs freedom to, equality vs equity. Both sides actually want free speech, the blue side just argues that speech is more free when it's not stifled by hate.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    << just like other countries have. I moved from the old country partly cuz of Lèse-majesté laws regarding ruling elite and clergy. Forgive me, but other countries having X type laws does not automatically constitute a valid argument to enact anything similar here. I now personally see it as an indirect way to circumvent original framework of this country having failed to do it directly. In short, I am going to use a very, very old argument. If everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you do it too? << is more free when it's not stifled by hate. Fascinating statement and I would love you to elaborate further, because to me it is contradictory. Freedom of speech is called freedom of speech for a reason. It is not called freedom with asterisk to account for other person's perception of your communication. That is not freedom. It is the opposite of freedom. Frankly, what you are proposing inevitably results in an echo chamber. It is cool if that if it is what you want. It is not what I want. You seem reasonable. I am willing to engage. Convince me 'free speech' is more free when it is restricted.
  - jmatthews 4y ago
    I know I will 100% regret posting anything remotely viewed as political here but this... Both sides actually want free speech, the blue side just argues that speech is more free when it's not stifled by hate. Is the most alarming doublethink I have seen in some time.
devjab 4y ago
> If you are against gay marriage I didn't use being against "gay marriage" as the example though. I used being against "gay people" as the example.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Oops, I wasn't referencing anything specific when I typed this up. I can see how that is confusing. But yes, I agree with you. I won't say that there's no way to be against gay people without being hateful but it feels like an incredibly tough needle to thread.
muyuu 4y ago
> Like y’all, it isn’t that hard to expressly minority opinions without being toxic or hateful. I express minority opinions constantly and have never once even been worried about the banhammer. I've been banned from several subreddits for simply disagreeing with majority views, and pretty much every time it was in a neutral or respectful tone. ----- PS: the entire concept of "toxic" seems "new age-y" and pseudo-religious. People refer to things being toxic as a substitute for "evil" and "taboo" - stuff that brings uncomfortable or negative associations, and in this manner they are embedding their projection of a civil religion onto others, which is an act of aggression in itself in a medium that is supposed not to have such rules. Note that they say "toxic" and not just "rude" which would imply a certain common, traditional culture that most people would be expected to know and to some extent abide by. Toxic takes the place of the figure of "rudeness", "bad manners" and "heresy" but instead of based off a longstanding tradition, culture and religion, based of a newfangled atheist civil religion that a lot of people simply don't accept or don't want to play ball with. Their very presence and their discourse is seen as contaminating society, thus "toxic" - this is exactly equivalent to the moral worldview of a religious fanatic. And those "heretics" are dealt with with medieval intolerance as there is no discussion to be had on these "values" from their point of view. You see in this people the fervour, hatred and emotional response you'd expect from an inquisitor who just witnessed wanton heresy or a taboo being broken, and that is exactly how more often than not mods behave in these platforms. Their interest in expanding their ideology and protecting themselves and others from heretics motivates them to put a lot of free labour in these endeavours, which is hard to compete with.

by Spivak 4y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

It did not use too, but it is hard for me to tell where/when the shift happened. All I know for sure is that anyone with mildly stronger views on 1st amendment are called speech absolutists. It is extra annoying, because 'hate speech' is mostly recently made up term to stifle free speech AND, more importantly, does not exist anywhere in US constitution. << Like y’all, it isn’t that hard to expressly minority opinions without being toxic or hateful. You can, but it becomes a game of using language that it is harder to pinpoint ( hence silliness like Xi banning 8 for infinity ). All the while majority opinion can be as hateful as is deemed necessary ( and no one complains because it is the majority ) creating yet another echo-chamber we so sorely need. FWIW, this trend is now being challenged. edit: I like calling spade a spade. You can dislike it all you want, but I am personally less and less willing to comply with other person's sensibilities[1]. [1]https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763...

Spivak 4y ago
> because 'hate speech' is mostly recently made up term to stifle free speech AND, more importantly, does not exist anywhere in US constitution Which is why dirty commie liberals like me want to get a national hate speech law passed just like other countries have. Canada (which passed in the 1989) Ireland (passed in 1989) New Zeland (passed in 1993) Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, UK, Iceland, Denmark So I don't know your definition of recent is but it's been around for a bit. And the term "free speech absolutist" just another instance of a very deep rooted fundamental difference between red vs blue which is freedom vs liberty. It crops up all over the place: freedom from vs freedom to, equality vs equity. Both sides actually want free speech, the blue side just argues that speech is more free when it's not stifled by hate.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  << just like other countries have. I moved from the old country partly cuz of Lèse-majesté laws regarding ruling elite and clergy. Forgive me, but other countries having X type laws does not automatically constitute a valid argument to enact anything similar here. I now personally see it as an indirect way to circumvent original framework of this country having failed to do it directly. In short, I am going to use a very, very old argument. If everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you do it too? << is more free when it's not stifled by hate. Fascinating statement and I would love you to elaborate further, because to me it is contradictory. Freedom of speech is called freedom of speech for a reason. It is not called freedom with asterisk to account for other person's perception of your communication. That is not freedom. It is the opposite of freedom. Frankly, what you are proposing inevitably results in an echo chamber. It is cool if that if it is what you want. It is not what I want. You seem reasonable. I am willing to engage. Convince me 'free speech' is more free when it is restricted.
- jmatthews 4y ago
  I know I will 100% regret posting anything remotely viewed as political here but this... Both sides actually want free speech, the blue side just argues that speech is more free when it's not stifled by hate. Is the most alarming doublethink I have seen in some time.

devjab 4y ago

> If you are against gay marriage I didn't use being against "gay marriage" as the example though. I used being against "gay people" as the example.

Spivak 4y ago
Oops, I wasn't referencing anything specific when I typed this up. I can see how that is confusing. But yes, I agree with you. I won't say that there's no way to be against gay people without being hateful but it feels like an incredibly tough needle to thread.

muyuu 4y ago

> Like y’all, it isn’t that hard to expressly minority opinions without being toxic or hateful. I express minority opinions constantly and have never once even been worried about the banhammer. I've been banned from several subreddits for simply disagreeing with majority views, and pretty much every time it was in a neutral or respectful tone. ----- PS: the entire concept of "toxic" seems "new age-y" and pseudo-religious. People refer to things being toxic as a substitute for "evil" and "taboo" - stuff that brings uncomfortable or negative associations, and in this manner they are embedding their projection of a civil religion onto others, which is an act of aggression in itself in a medium that is supposed not to have such rules. Note that they say "toxic" and not just "rude" which would imply a certain common, traditional culture that most people would be expected to know and to some extent abide by. Toxic takes the place of the figure of "rudeness", "bad manners" and "heresy" but instead of based off a longstanding tradition, culture and religion, based of a newfangled atheist civil religion that a lot of people simply don't accept or don't want to play ball with. Their very presence and their discourse is seen as contaminating society, thus "toxic" - this is exactly equivalent to the moral worldview of a religious fanatic. And those "heretics" are dealt with with medieval intolerance as there is no discussion to be had on these "values" from their point of view. You see in this people the fervour, hatred and emotional response you'd expect from an inquisitor who just witnessed wanton heresy or a taboo being broken, and that is exactly how more often than not mods behave in these platforms. Their interest in expanding their ideology and protecting themselves and others from heretics motivates them to put a lot of free labour in these endeavours, which is hard to compete with.