3 ms·

"Both can be threatening." I submit that if one is threatened by others disagreeing with or not appreciating one's contribution to a discussion, one needs to f

"Both can be threatening." I submit that if one is threatened by others disagreeing with or not appreciating one's contribution to a discussion, one needs to find a more harmonious discussion.

chrischen 17y ago
When I say threatening I mean with the intent to discourage. so when you down vote someone you disagree with you essentially discourage them from voicing their opinion. Why? Because when I'm downvoted I'm being punished. I don't want to be punished, so I either leave the community and decrease the variation in opinions or refrain from voicing it again. Is that what we want to allow here, or anywhere? We ignore the kkk. We do not jail them. That is essentially what freedom of speech is about. Furhermore we can't all have a consensus on every topic. It's good to have differing opinions and it's unavoidable to have disagreements. Being voted down for having opposing viewpoints is inevitable if the system permits it. So to have a perfectly free speech community, we shouldn't provide the mechanism to condemn speech. We can however provide the mechanism to delete spam and blatantly trollish comments and perhaps even blatantly negative comments. But to give the majority the ability to hurt the minority will have negative long term consequences to the community. So no one should have to think to themselves, "are people going to like what I say or should I just keep it to myself?" when posting a comment. No one benefits from that and we could all one day miss out on a great learning opportunity.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Discouragement is not punishment. "We ignore the kkk." Living in a state that actually occasionally has KKK rallies, "we" sure as Hell don't ignore them. We surround them with counter-protesters whenever they march in their sheets - and outnumber them by many multiples. We look at people ranting on about those dirty, criminal n---s and how America used to be white and pure and call them stupid fucking racists. No, we don't jail them, we don't attack them, we don't fine them, we don't even raise the price of our groceries when they come in the store. We downvote them.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    Down voting is an official active punishment that is meant to discourage. Down voting is a form of punishment. Ignoring is not a form of punishment. It's passive. What you describe may be mistaken as an active form of punishment, but you're essentially up voting the non racists, not down voting the racists. You aren't punishing the racists for their behavior so much as you are showing support for the other side. You rally more anti-racists, but they still have the right to do what they were doing, and even up the numbers on their side too. That is what I would like to see here. I want to see people pushing support to what they believe, not punishing those that disagree. So let's say there is a hypothetical racial argument here. One guy is racist, the other guy is not. Your example is analogous to everyone up voting the non racist as a form of protest.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      I'm afraid you genuinely make no sense.
      - chrischen 17y ago
        Please explain? How is not you surrounding the racists with anti-racists not up voting the anti racists? You're showing more support for the anti-racists, not punishing the racists for holding their opinion. Not directly at least. We can't punish them directly by means of jailing or criminal prosecution just for holding their views. However you can indirectly suppress them by showing more support for the other side, just as you can still indirectly punish bad comments through up voting everyone else. Up voting everyone else is not only a nicer way but a better way in terms of freedom of speech.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  We ignore the kkk. No, I decry the KKK. And the FBI infiltrated the KKK, and private lawsuits have largely bankrupted the KKK. The KKK gets plenty of push-back, and deserves every bit of the push-back it gets.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    We should ignore the KKK. Obviously there will be times they will step out of simply just speech and opinion, and for that they should be punished. If they act out on their hate and prejudice that is. But if all they are doing is expressing an opinion then let them, for it is not for you to judge who shall have the right opinions in this country. If you disagree, simply ignore them, for truth shall hold them accountable and you shall be vindicated without effort. But if you condemn their thoughts then you exhibit fear. For any righteous man would not fear a wrong idea, because reality shall not let a wrong idea prevail. So if you truly believe your ideas are right then let those who disagree do so in peace. Reality shall punish them enough for their ignorance. Also our laws are designed to encourge only ignoring. Why else can't we just jail them right there? Because there is no thought police, and you shalln't be one either! EDIT: It may be true that they do deserve all negative actions directed towards them. I just want to make it clear that I do not support the KKK. I think physical and emotional attacks from the KKK do justify corrective action against them. I'd also like to add that the best way to raise a child is to ignore them when they get angry, not punish. I think that was researched somewhere or something.
    - tokenadult 17y ago
      But if all they are doing is expressing an opinion then let them, for it is not for you to judge who shall have the right opinions in this country. Allow me to disagree openly with that opinion by posting a reply. :) The KKK opinions are so disrespectful to my fellow citizens, so factually mistaken, and so verified historically as causes of violence and social backwardness that I don't just ignore them. I dispute wrong opinions such as those of the KKK. (And I dispute similar opinions posted here on HN, even at the risk of my comments being downvoted, because it is important to provide refutation of such opinions for onlookers.) About your legal advice, you are mistaken. The current law on free speech in the United States is precisely designed to allow (and, indeed, encourage) open and continual refutation of mistaken ideas on public policy. That is the whole point of the American experiment in free speech. About your parenting advice, as the father of four children I call on you to provide references to your sources if you expect to convince me that you have useful advice on parenting. Who did the research, and how? http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html Are you a parent yourself? How many child-years of parenting experience do you have?

"Both can be threatening." I submit that if one is threatened by others disagreeing with or not appreciating one's contribution to a discussion, one needs to find a more harmonious discussion.

chrischen 17y ago

When I say threatening I mean with the intent to discourage. so when you down vote someone you disagree with you essentially discourage them from voicing their opinion. Why? Because when I'm downvoted I'm being punished. I don't want to be punished, so I either leave the community and decrease the variation in opinions or refrain from voicing it again. Is that what we want to allow here, or anywhere? We ignore the kkk. We do not jail them. That is essentially what freedom of speech is about. Furhermore we can't all have a consensus on every topic. It's good to have differing opinions and it's unavoidable to have disagreements. Being voted down for having opposing viewpoints is inevitable if the system permits it. So to have a perfectly free speech community, we shouldn't provide the mechanism to condemn speech. We can however provide the mechanism to delete spam and blatantly trollish comments and perhaps even blatantly negative comments. But to give the majority the ability to hurt the minority will have negative long term consequences to the community. So no one should have to think to themselves, "are people going to like what I say or should I just keep it to myself?" when posting a comment. No one benefits from that and we could all one day miss out on a great learning opportunity.

Semiapies 17y ago
Discouragement is not punishment. "We ignore the kkk." Living in a state that actually occasionally has KKK rallies, "we" sure as Hell don't ignore them. We surround them with counter-protesters whenever they march in their sheets - and outnumber them by many multiples. We look at people ranting on about those dirty, criminal n---s and how America used to be white and pure and call them stupid fucking racists. No, we don't jail them, we don't attack them, we don't fine them, we don't even raise the price of our groceries when they come in the store. We downvote them.
- chrischen 17y ago
  Down voting is an official active punishment that is meant to discourage. Down voting is a form of punishment. Ignoring is not a form of punishment. It's passive. What you describe may be mistaken as an active form of punishment, but you're essentially up voting the non racists, not down voting the racists. You aren't punishing the racists for their behavior so much as you are showing support for the other side. You rally more anti-racists, but they still have the right to do what they were doing, and even up the numbers on their side too. That is what I would like to see here. I want to see people pushing support to what they believe, not punishing those that disagree. So let's say there is a hypothetical racial argument here. One guy is racist, the other guy is not. Your example is analogous to everyone up voting the non racist as a form of protest.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    I'm afraid you genuinely make no sense.
    - chrischen 17y ago
      Please explain? How is not you surrounding the racists with anti-racists not up voting the anti racists? You're showing more support for the anti-racists, not punishing the racists for holding their opinion. Not directly at least. We can't punish them directly by means of jailing or criminal prosecution just for holding their views. However you can indirectly suppress them by showing more support for the other side, just as you can still indirectly punish bad comments through up voting everyone else. Up voting everyone else is not only a nicer way but a better way in terms of freedom of speech.
tokenadult 17y ago
We ignore the kkk. No, I decry the KKK. And the FBI infiltrated the KKK, and private lawsuits have largely bankrupted the KKK. The KKK gets plenty of push-back, and deserves every bit of the push-back it gets.
- chrischen 17y ago
  We should ignore the KKK. Obviously there will be times they will step out of simply just speech and opinion, and for that they should be punished. If they act out on their hate and prejudice that is. But if all they are doing is expressing an opinion then let them, for it is not for you to judge who shall have the right opinions in this country. If you disagree, simply ignore them, for truth shall hold them accountable and you shall be vindicated without effort. But if you condemn their thoughts then you exhibit fear. For any righteous man would not fear a wrong idea, because reality shall not let a wrong idea prevail. So if you truly believe your ideas are right then let those who disagree do so in peace. Reality shall punish them enough for their ignorance. Also our laws are designed to encourge only ignoring. Why else can't we just jail them right there? Because there is no thought police, and you shalln't be one either! EDIT: It may be true that they do deserve all negative actions directed towards them. I just want to make it clear that I do not support the KKK. I think physical and emotional attacks from the KKK do justify corrective action against them. I'd also like to add that the best way to raise a child is to ignore them when they get angry, not punish. I think that was researched somewhere or something.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    But if all they are doing is expressing an opinion then let them, for it is not for you to judge who shall have the right opinions in this country. Allow me to disagree openly with that opinion by posting a reply. :) The KKK opinions are so disrespectful to my fellow citizens, so factually mistaken, and so verified historically as causes of violence and social backwardness that I don't just ignore them. I dispute wrong opinions such as those of the KKK. (And I dispute similar opinions posted here on HN, even at the risk of my comments being downvoted, because it is important to provide refutation of such opinions for onlookers.) About your legal advice, you are mistaken. The current law on free speech in the United States is precisely designed to allow (and, indeed, encourage) open and continual refutation of mistaken ideas on public policy. That is the whole point of the American experiment in free speech. About your parenting advice, as the father of four children I call on you to provide references to your sources if you expect to convince me that you have useful advice on parenting. Who did the research, and how? http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html Are you a parent yourself? How many child-years of parenting experience do you have?