3 ms·

Let's look back at who these "undesirable people" who were being excluded/ostracized were throughout history, shall we, and see how well your "While you have a

Let's look back at who these "undesirable people" who were being excluded/ostracized were throughout history, shall we, and see how well your "While you have a right of free speech, the rest of us have the right not to listen to you, nor to be forced to listen to you, nor to interact with you" dismissal holds up.

foldr 1y ago
You can certainly ostracize people who don’t deserve to be ostracized, but it doesn’t follow from that that all social ostracization is inherently bad. Freedom of association and freedom of speech can be used for bad ends as well as good, like most freedoms.
- marknutter 1y ago
  Who gets to decide what ostracization is good and what ostracization is bad?
  - foldr 1y ago
    I don't think anyone decides that as such. Organizations and individuals decide who they do or don't want to associate with. If it turns out that very few people want to associate with you, then you've been ostracized. Your question is like asking "Who decides which people should be friends?", or "Who decides who should be popular?"
    - Jensson 1y ago
      > Organizations and individuals decide who they do or don't want to associate with No they don't, there are laws against that, for example you can't decide to ostracize black people from your company, you will get sued for that.
      - foldr 1y ago
        Hmm? There are laws against some forms of discrimination, but organizations have freedom of association just as individuals do. For example, political affiliation is not a protected class, so (in some states and some contexts) it is perfectly legal for a private company to decline to hire someone on the basis of their political views.
  - temp0826 1y ago
    And who would hold everyone in the group to that standard? How do you stop a lynch mob?
    - Jensson 1y ago
      The police, that is how we stopped lynch mobs in the past.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    Thinking in terms of the US constitution and the laws built on top if it, ostracization by the government is forbidden and ostracization by private citizens and entities is not.
    - Jensson 1y ago
      > ostracization by the government is forbidden and ostracization by private citizens and entities is not. So its fine to fire all black people to ostracize them? No, of course not, so no you are wrong here, there are more limitations than that, people have rights protecting them from a lot of ostracism.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        Yes, there are some narrow carve-outs, to encourage ostracization on the basis of behavior rather than the basis of identity. This works because people can choose to not be jerks, but they can't choose to not be black.
        naasking 1y ago
        > This works because people can choose to not be jerks, but they can't choose to not be black. What if they could? People can change gender identity nowadays, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that people could change their phenotypical characteristics (transracialism is a hotly debated topic).
sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Ostracization is an absolutely critical tool in the marketplace of ideas. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the dynamics of the Internet have made some tools more or less suitable for purpose as what they used to be, but the idea that we can just assert "no ostracization" is flatly insane and totally antithetical to the marketplace of ideas.
jgeada 1y ago
Like I said "Not saying this as a value judgement, just that this practice is ancient." Heck, downvotes here in HN are basically the same thing. If a statement doesn't comply with both the explicit rules and implicit assumptions and culture here, it will be downvoted to oblivion. And it is one of the major mechanisms that HN uses to ensure this site remains useful and relevant even with the large number of participants.
- marknutter 1y ago
  And that leads to a monoculture and echo chambers.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Just because something applies some negative pressure on diversity of thought doesn't mean it necessarily "leads to a monoculture and echo chambers." If you're in a car that's going way too fast, do you tell the driver not to touch the brakes because it "leads to us never reaching our destination?" Anyway, we're currently seeing the reign of the "cancel culture is the big problem" crybabies. Turns out they just thought the state should have the power to decide who's allowed to have an opinion.

foldr 1y ago

You can certainly ostracize people who don’t deserve to be ostracized, but it doesn’t follow from that that all social ostracization is inherently bad. Freedom of association and freedom of speech can be used for bad ends as well as good, like most freedoms.

marknutter 1y ago
Who gets to decide what ostracization is good and what ostracization is bad?
- foldr 1y ago
  I don't think anyone decides that as such. Organizations and individuals decide who they do or don't want to associate with. If it turns out that very few people want to associate with you, then you've been ostracized. Your question is like asking "Who decides which people should be friends?", or "Who decides who should be popular?"
  - Jensson 1y ago
    > Organizations and individuals decide who they do or don't want to associate with No they don't, there are laws against that, for example you can't decide to ostracize black people from your company, you will get sued for that.
    - foldr 1y ago
      Hmm? There are laws against some forms of discrimination, but organizations have freedom of association just as individuals do. For example, political affiliation is not a protected class, so (in some states and some contexts) it is perfectly legal for a private company to decline to hire someone on the basis of their political views.
- temp0826 1y ago
  And who would hold everyone in the group to that standard? How do you stop a lynch mob?
  - Jensson 1y ago
    The police, that is how we stopped lynch mobs in the past.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  Thinking in terms of the US constitution and the laws built on top if it, ostracization by the government is forbidden and ostracization by private citizens and entities is not.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    > ostracization by the government is forbidden and ostracization by private citizens and entities is not. So its fine to fire all black people to ostracize them? No, of course not, so no you are wrong here, there are more limitations than that, people have rights protecting them from a lot of ostracism.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      Yes, there are some narrow carve-outs, to encourage ostracization on the basis of behavior rather than the basis of identity. This works because people can choose to not be jerks, but they can't choose to not be black.
      - naasking 1y ago
        > This works because people can choose to not be jerks, but they can't choose to not be black. What if they could? People can change gender identity nowadays, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that people could change their phenotypical characteristics (transracialism is a hotly debated topic).

sorcerer-mar 1y ago

Ostracization is an absolutely critical tool in the marketplace of ideas. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the dynamics of the Internet have made some tools more or less suitable for purpose as what they used to be, but the idea that we can just assert "no ostracization" is flatly insane and totally antithetical to the marketplace of ideas.

jgeada 1y ago

Like I said "Not saying this as a value judgement, just that this practice is ancient." Heck, downvotes here in HN are basically the same thing. If a statement doesn't comply with both the explicit rules and implicit assumptions and culture here, it will be downvoted to oblivion. And it is one of the major mechanisms that HN uses to ensure this site remains useful and relevant even with the large number of participants.

marknutter 1y ago
And that leads to a monoculture and echo chambers.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Just because something applies some negative pressure on diversity of thought doesn't mean it necessarily "leads to a monoculture and echo chambers." If you're in a car that's going way too fast, do you tell the driver not to touch the brakes because it "leads to us never reaching our destination?" Anyway, we're currently seeing the reign of the "cancel culture is the big problem" crybabies. Turns out they just thought the state should have the power to decide who's allowed to have an opinion.