Comment by lightgreen
5 years ago
> you want to restrict people from saying things because you think they're saying things you don't like
Of course not. How did you get that from my comment?
5 years ago
> you want to restrict people from saying things because you think they're saying things you don't like
Of course not. How did you get that from my comment?
Your idea of freedom of speech means I'm not free to criticize you.
Constructively criticise, yes please.
But bullying, eg doxxing, petitioning to get fired, calling mob to intimidate etc, that's not exactly freedom of speech.
> But bullying, eg doxxing, petitioning to get fired, calling mob to intimidate etc, that's not exactly freedom of speech.
Yes it is. It's the best way to fight back against speech you disagree with.
5 replies →
Guys, your are perfect example of trigger happy mob. This is the cause of cooling effect. Why would anyone reasonable touch hot topic if you can't even read it without blazing emotions?
I think I've been quite polite and civil here but if you want to provide feedback without being subject to voting here, my email is in my profile.
How am I driving? Let renewiltord@protonmail.com know!
Well, let's get to the bottom of it, shall we?
I will describe a sequence of events. You tell me which acts of speech you want to proscribe and which ones you want to permit.
1. Person A says "I don't like people whose name starts with R. They are disgusting and ugly"
2. Person B says "That's bigoted"
3. Person B tells Person C "A is bigoted because he hates people whose name starts with R"
4. Person C says "That's horrible. We should boycott any business that A is employed at"
5. Person B says "You are right. I will tell everyone"
6. Person A says "This is not fair. I have a right to being employed despite these opinions of mine"
7. Person B says "That's right. And I have a right to not use your employer's services unless you are fired"
8. Person D, overhearing this, finds a big soap box "Everyone! A is bigoted! He hates people whose name starts with R! Join me in boycotting his employer until they fire him"
9. Person E says "If he is fired, I will stop using the product. I'm going to tell everyone about this boycott campaign"
10. Person F says "If he is fired, I will hire him. My company has a lot of R-haters and we get along fine"
Tell me which of these things you will proscribe and which of these things you will permit. I, because I believe in the freedom of speech and association, would permit all of these. In SV, all of these are permissible.
So let's hear what you will do. Name the numbers. That will do.
And if you want to offer more examples to narrow the scope of my belief, please do.
It's easy because you picked an "easy" starting point that B et al are reasonably justified in wanting to "punish". Replace "hates people whose name starts with R" with "thinks illegal immigrants are breaking the law and need to be deported" as an example.
Now you get into a can of worms because it's a reasonable and rationally-defendable point of view that we're dealing with that probably has a 50-50 split in terms of public support. It's an opinion that needs to be discussed rationally without the conversation and people's lives devolving into ugliness.
Right now, people are censoring themselves for fear of repercussions that are very real because we've allowed a very vocal minority (on both sides?) to dominate and force consequences without a demonstrable majority in public-support. As long as there is an "aura" of majority-agreement on a touchy topic, dissent becomes dangerous. And it's self-reinforcing because you don't see any dissenting opinions on it so everyone thinks there is majority-support and dissents even less, causing a landslide.
My position does not change when we make the change you recommend. I still think every one of those things is permissible and must be permissible. I weigh liberty very highly indeed.
If it helps, let's even say Person A says "I like gay people and minorities. They should be treated just as well as heterosexual people and majorities." and then retain the rest mutatis mutandis. My position does not change.
You seem to be advocating mob justice - letting the larger and more aggressive mob win.
Would you still support this model of justice if your mob was the smaller one and you got "cancelled" for expressing your "progressive" ideas? Or would you start calling for things like "proportional response", "due process", "free speech that leads to unemployment is not free" and such?
Ah no, I advocate the rights of any group of free people to speak - not for any group of free people to rule. Ten thousand of you can speak that you hate me. You have the right. But not one of you may lay a finger on a hair on my head. You do not have that right.
Read my post history. I am consistent on this matter.
* On the matter of W.H.Auden refusing to publish with a publisher who refused to publish Ezra Pound. Here I believed this was perfect reactions on every side. The publisher did not like Ezra Pound because Pound is a fascist sympathizer. Auden felt that this deplatforming and so told the publisher he would no longer be publishing with them. The publisher changed his mind because he wanted Auden to publish with him. All civil, all consistent with free association.
* The NYT insisted on publishing Scott Alexander's real name. He didn't like this and pulled Slate Star Codex. My reaction was that this is bad on the NYT's part and I would prefer not to subscribe to them. Not that they should be legally censured. Simply that we as free people should exercise this and free ourselves from them.
* When David Shor was fired from Civis, I thought that was a mistake. So 'cancel culture' ate itself there. But that's fine. I will simply choose not to associate myself with Civis.
9 replies →
This is a good example, and indeed a problem. I don't have a great plan to solve, except to use free speech to educate and convince people that this sequence of events is illogical and immoral. Combats these ideas with better ideas. Maybe what our schools read need are logic and ethics classes.
> Tell me which of these things you will proscribe and which of these things you will permit
It depends on definition of "permit".
From legal point of view, all of these things should be legal (except maybe A).
But some items from that list I consider immoral. Like gathering a mob to attack someone with the opposite point of view, is immoral.
By the way, there's a big difference between
> I don't like people whose name starts with R. They are disgusting and ugly
and
> I will vote for Trump.
Barely anyone in SV says they consider some group of people ugly. You have invented this unrealistic example.
And, I always will support those who are bullied regardless of their beliefs. Like when mob attacks a nazi, I'll try to protect that nazi. Of course when mob attacks radical lefts like antifa, my support goes to antifa.
Mob is always wrong regardless of its declared intentions.
I made up an example, and I requested that you make up examples that make the point clearer. If you feel that the example is unrealistic, you can simply provide another one.
In this case, if you have, in my example, Person A change his view to be "I will vote for Trump" and retain the rest mutatis mutandis then I'll gladly retain my view that I want all of that to be allowed.
In fact, I think we might be on precisely opposite sides in the fight for liberty if you want to stop people from having opinions just because they are not the only people to have that opinion. One person is free to state an opinion. Any n people are free to associate. Any n people are free to state the opinion together.
And you're going to have to clarify what a 'mob' is and what an 'attack' is. If five thousand people say "I won't buy this product unless you fire that guy", I think that's an okay 'mob' and an okay 'attack' because those five thousand people have the freedom to associate with each other and the freedom to choose not to associate with 'that guy'. It is morally wrong (repugnant, even) to force them to buy the product when they don't want to. If a single person hurts you for saying anything then that's a non-okay 'mob' and a non-okay 'attack'.
3 replies →