3 ms·

This reads like chatGPT generated rubbish. And based on your post history (historically short comments, and then lately more longer-form content like this) I gu

This reads like chatGPT generated rubbish. And based on your post history (historically short comments, and then lately more longer-form content like this) I guess that is the case. While I do agree on most of the points, the conclusion "Tell People That All They Have to Do Is to Not Listen" does not follow and is borderline offensive. Are you really saying that the solution to racism and discrimination is to just ignore it? Here's some points I grabbed from ChatGPT. Complexity of Speech: While the idea of 'just don't listen' might sound simple in theory, it does not consider the nuanced complexities of real-life situations. There are circumstances where hateful or harmful speech can incite actual physical harm or can propagate harmful stereotypes. The Impact on the Vulnerable: Telling people to simply 'not listen' can be especially problematic for vulnerable groups or minorities who are often the target of hate speech. For them, it's not just about ignoring the speech; it's about navigating the real-world implications and potential threats that come with it. A Shared Responsibility: While individuals can choose to 'not listen', it's important to note that platforms, corporations, and societies also play a role in moderating and guiding the discourse.

matt-attack 3y ago
Yes the solution to racist speech is to just ignore it. You seem to be though equating speech with racism. Racism typically takes many other forms. The racism you cannot ignore is when it’s violence, or policies or the like. Neither of those is free speech. So yes if it’s racist * speech* in the sense of truly just words, then yes. Ignore it. I’m really surprised this isn’t obvious.
- dotandgtfo 3y ago
  It's less of an equation and more of a counter example for how absurdly oversimplified and privileged the position of "just ignore it" is. >Yes the solution to racist speech is to just ignore it. Citation needed. As a foreigner living in Germany it's pretty obvious they've drawn different conclusions than that. I'll also point out that there is nothing obvious about how free speech is defined (by Americans). There's obviously limits to speech, it's just been delineated into the constitutional "free speech" and the colloquial notion of "free speech". Which you seem to be conflating (or assuming that I care about). The OP is squarely about the more colloquial understanding of the word.
Mobil1 3y ago
I acknowledge that I am addressing a community of highly educated, intelligent, and sophisticated individuals. In order to maintain respectful discourse, I freely admit to using AI to refine my thoughts and present them in a way that is both concise and informative. However, I am troubled by the fact that I am being judged by my perceived lack of intelligence and education. I understand that free speech comes with a responsibility to not use it to harm others, but only when that harm is not tangental to real harm. We all have the right to live freely, and we should allow others to do the same, regardless of their political, religious, or other dogmatic views.
- dang 3y ago
  Sorry, but we don't allow this on HN. It violates the core principle of the site, which is curiosity. I've banned the account until we get some indication that you won't do this any more.

matt-attack 3y ago

Yes the solution to racist speech is to just ignore it. You seem to be though equating speech with racism. Racism typically takes many other forms. The racism you cannot ignore is when it’s violence, or policies or the like. Neither of those is free speech. So yes if it’s racist * speech* in the sense of truly just words, then yes. Ignore it. I’m really surprised this isn’t obvious.

dotandgtfo 3y ago
It's less of an equation and more of a counter example for how absurdly oversimplified and privileged the position of "just ignore it" is. >Yes the solution to racist speech is to just ignore it. Citation needed. As a foreigner living in Germany it's pretty obvious they've drawn different conclusions than that. I'll also point out that there is nothing obvious about how free speech is defined (by Americans). There's obviously limits to speech, it's just been delineated into the constitutional "free speech" and the colloquial notion of "free speech". Which you seem to be conflating (or assuming that I care about). The OP is squarely about the more colloquial understanding of the word.

Mobil1 3y ago

I acknowledge that I am addressing a community of highly educated, intelligent, and sophisticated individuals. In order to maintain respectful discourse, I freely admit to using AI to refine my thoughts and present them in a way that is both concise and informative. However, I am troubled by the fact that I am being judged by my perceived lack of intelligence and education. I understand that free speech comes with a responsibility to not use it to harm others, but only when that harm is not tangental to real harm. We all have the right to live freely, and we should allow others to do the same, regardless of their political, religious, or other dogmatic views.

dang 3y ago
Sorry, but we don't allow this on HN. It violates the core principle of the site, which is curiosity. I've banned the account until we get some indication that you won't do this any more.