3 ms·

There is nothing to be said for it. People in aggregate do not respond to wishes -- they respond to incentives. Wishing that people would behave in a particul

by zorpner 11y ago

There is nothing to be said for it. People in aggregate do not respond to wishes -- they respond to incentives. Wishing that people would behave in a particular way without examining why they aren't is an absurdity, particularly when that wish explicitly preserves the status quo at the expense of people who have only speech.

scintill76 11y ago
It seems a bit bleak to imply nobody will ever do anything moral unless they have an incentive. Isn't morality worth pursuing even if it's not systematically enforceable? I'll examine why people aren't more tolerant: because it feels good to mob together and knock someone down a peg when they annoy you; show them who's boss. White girl joking about AIDs? Someone pretending to be disrespectful at a patriotic gravesite?[0] Bury them, then we'll feel better. Is that kind of ugly speech really something that should ideally be preserved? Is it the best way to minimize the (also non-ideal) speech it was retaliating against? Who are the people "who have only speech", whose best or only option to protect themselves is to use their smartphone to connect to the internet and gloat "We are about to watch this @JustineSacco bitch get fired. In REAL time."? What actual threat was there to protect against? Sure, leave the retaliation protected by law, but I think the level they're taking it to is morally reprehensible. For what it's worth, my original comment was written with those two cases in mind more than, say, posting a Klansman-oriented art installation in public without warning or explanation. That might actually approach "shouting fire in the theater" territory. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like the "speaker" was treated as badly as the other cases, so I think I'm justified in not addressing it for now. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tw...

by zorpner 11y ago

scintill76 11y ago

It seems a bit bleak to imply nobody will ever do anything moral unless they have an incentive. Isn't morality worth pursuing even if it's not systematically enforceable? I'll examine why people aren't more tolerant: because it feels good to mob together and knock someone down a peg when they annoy you; show them who's boss. White girl joking about AIDs? Someone pretending to be disrespectful at a patriotic gravesite?[0] Bury them, then we'll feel better. Is that kind of ugly speech really something that should ideally be preserved? Is it the best way to minimize the (also non-ideal) speech it was retaliating against? Who are the people "who have only speech", whose best or only option to protect themselves is to use their smartphone to connect to the internet and gloat "We are about to watch this @JustineSacco bitch get fired. In REAL time."? What actual threat was there to protect against? Sure, leave the retaliation protected by law, but I think the level they're taking it to is morally reprehensible. For what it's worth, my original comment was written with those two cases in mind more than, say, posting a Klansman-oriented art installation in public without warning or explanation. That might actually approach "shouting fire in the theater" territory. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like the "speaker" was treated as badly as the other cases, so I think I'm justified in not addressing it for now. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tw...