5 ms·

To point out that there is a modern practice that is similar is relevant to the conversation and not particularly inflammatory. The proper way to converse on H

by javert 11y ago

To point out that there is a modern practice that is similar is relevant to the conversation and not particularly inflammatory. The proper way to converse on HN is to address the content of the comment, not complain that it exists, like speech police. Unless the comment is clearly WAY over the line, like if it were full of racial slurs. This case is not at all like that. These kinds of speech police comments---and there is more than just this one---are what is turning this thread into a flame war. Only a very small part of the political specturm would interpret the comment in question as contra their political views and thus "inflammatory," and I'll leave it to implication which part that is. Hint: It's the part that is the usual culprit for wanting to restrict speech.

elektromekatron 11y ago
Are you really making the argument that people who are liberal with regard to migration are the inverse when it comes to speech?
- javert 11y ago
  No. I said "a very small part of the political specturm," and "liberal with regard to migration" is not a very small part of the political spectrum, it's half of it or more. I'm liberal with regard to migration myself.
pdabbadabba 11y ago
The speech-police impulse must truly be powerful, because apparently even you have been unable to resist it! Or is speech metapolicing somehow more valuable? A wise person once told me that "The proper way to converse on HN is to address the content of the comment, not complain that it exists, like speech police." But I digress. To your point: I think you'll find that I did primarily address the content of the comment, concluding that it drew a false comparison. My suggestion that the comment was probably more inflammatory than valuable was the conclusion of my discussion of the content. I can't quite see that you've given me the same courtesy, though.
- javert 11y ago
  Opposing "speech policing" is standing up for open speech. It is not a variant of "speech policing." To claim that it is is just nasty verbal trickery. It's exactly like one person saying "Criminals use guns to rob people" and another person saying "But police use guns, too, so they're just as bad as criminals." The proper distinction is that criminals use guns to rob, and police use guns to protect. There is a technical name for this trick, "equivocation." It's equating things that are different in essence by referencing superficial similarities. And you've added a helping of sarcasm on top of that, which is never germane to making a rational argument. > I can't quite see that you've given me the same courtesy, though. If I'm standing up for someone who is being "attacked" (for lack of a better term), I can't exactly be courteous to the attacker in the sense you are asking, which is "not disagreeing." Which is not the normal sense of the word "courteous." In the normal sense of "courteous," I have been courteous. The post I made doesn't even reference you personally. This is another equivocation on your part---equating actual courtesy and "not getting called out." Now, I'm going to end this conversation before someone who actually "works at" HN has to come along and ask us to stop. I hope somebody has learned something about equivocation from this comment, which is my intention. Otherwise it would be pointless and I would not post it.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    What you read as sarcasm I had intended to be lighthearted, so I'm sorry about that. But there was also a point buried in there: I think it is clearly not contrary to the ideals of free/open speech to also hold the view that not every comment is productive or welcome in the context of every conversation given the prevailing community norms. This is why it is typically considered rude to bring up religion, politics, or sex at a dinner party, to take just one example. What is going on here is merely that you think that comments suggesting that other comments are a bit out of bounds are themselves out of bounds. Clearly, therefore, we both believe that a conversation ought to have some subject matter limits, so I don't think its fair to suggest that I am somehow anti speech, while you are just here to defend others' rights. We just disagree about what the proper limits of an HN discussion are, nothing more. After all, my original comment was itself speech, speech that, apparently, you would oppose.
deciplex 11y ago
> It's the part that is the usual culprit for wanting to restrict speech. You mean assholes, insecure in their convictions? I don't know that liberals are any more guilty of wanting to restrict speech than anyone else. I do know that, whenever liberals raise issues of free speech, an awful lot of politically-conservative trolls (on this very board! posting in this very thread!) like to come out of the woodwork and bleat on about how free speech was not violated, after all, since Congress passed no law about it, which is all the 1st amendment to the US constitution mentions. As though any violation of free speech requires a literal act of Congress. So no, despite your hint I'm not totally clear on which part of the political spectrum you're referring to.

by javert 11y ago

elektromekatron 11y ago

Are you really making the argument that people who are liberal with regard to migration are the inverse when it comes to speech?

javert 11y ago
No. I said "a very small part of the political specturm," and "liberal with regard to migration" is not a very small part of the political spectrum, it's half of it or more. I'm liberal with regard to migration myself.

pdabbadabba 11y ago

The speech-police impulse must truly be powerful, because apparently even you have been unable to resist it! Or is speech metapolicing somehow more valuable? A wise person once told me that "The proper way to converse on HN is to address the content of the comment, not complain that it exists, like speech police." But I digress. To your point: I think you'll find that I did primarily address the content of the comment, concluding that it drew a false comparison. My suggestion that the comment was probably more inflammatory than valuable was the conclusion of my discussion of the content. I can't quite see that you've given me the same courtesy, though.

javert 11y ago
Opposing "speech policing" is standing up for open speech. It is not a variant of "speech policing." To claim that it is is just nasty verbal trickery. It's exactly like one person saying "Criminals use guns to rob people" and another person saying "But police use guns, too, so they're just as bad as criminals." The proper distinction is that criminals use guns to rob, and police use guns to protect. There is a technical name for this trick, "equivocation." It's equating things that are different in essence by referencing superficial similarities. And you've added a helping of sarcasm on top of that, which is never germane to making a rational argument. > I can't quite see that you've given me the same courtesy, though. If I'm standing up for someone who is being "attacked" (for lack of a better term), I can't exactly be courteous to the attacker in the sense you are asking, which is "not disagreeing." Which is not the normal sense of the word "courteous." In the normal sense of "courteous," I have been courteous. The post I made doesn't even reference you personally. This is another equivocation on your part---equating actual courtesy and "not getting called out." Now, I'm going to end this conversation before someone who actually "works at" HN has to come along and ask us to stop. I hope somebody has learned something about equivocation from this comment, which is my intention. Otherwise it would be pointless and I would not post it.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  What you read as sarcasm I had intended to be lighthearted, so I'm sorry about that. But there was also a point buried in there: I think it is clearly not contrary to the ideals of free/open speech to also hold the view that not every comment is productive or welcome in the context of every conversation given the prevailing community norms. This is why it is typically considered rude to bring up religion, politics, or sex at a dinner party, to take just one example. What is going on here is merely that you think that comments suggesting that other comments are a bit out of bounds are themselves out of bounds. Clearly, therefore, we both believe that a conversation ought to have some subject matter limits, so I don't think its fair to suggest that I am somehow anti speech, while you are just here to defend others' rights. We just disagree about what the proper limits of an HN discussion are, nothing more. After all, my original comment was itself speech, speech that, apparently, you would oppose.

deciplex 11y ago

> It's the part that is the usual culprit for wanting to restrict speech. You mean assholes, insecure in their convictions? I don't know that liberals are any more guilty of wanting to restrict speech than anyone else. I do know that, whenever liberals raise issues of free speech, an awful lot of politically-conservative trolls (on this very board! posting in this very thread!) like to come out of the woodwork and bleat on about how free speech was not violated, after all, since Congress passed no law about it, which is all the 1st amendment to the US constitution mentions. As though any violation of free speech requires a literal act of Congress. So no, despite your hint I'm not totally clear on which part of the political spectrum you're referring to.