Didnt Britain try to pass a law recently trying to curb it more. I'm worried that them and the rest of the EU (Especially what's going on in Poland & Hungary with supression laws tighting the noose)
It is important to define safe havens for countercultural ideas, morals, and lifestyles, because this is how societal innovation happens. It needs to extend beyond speech.
There is a big effort in the West to homogenize the world. Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad. Democracy is the best form of government. We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from.
But this is stagnating, and not everyone wants to live under the same set of global moral rules, especially since we seem to believe that morality is relative.
Freedom of speech is a big indicator of this. If people don't have freedom of speech, they likely are being restricted in other ways as well.
It is important to define safe havens for countercultural ideas, morals, and lifestyles, because this is how societal innovation happens. It needs to extend beyond speech.
There is a big effort in the West to homogenize the world. Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad. Democracy is the best form of government. We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from.
But this is stagnating, and not everyone wants to live under the same set of global moral rules, especially since we seem to believe that morality is relative.
Freedom of speech is a big indicator of this. If people don't have freedom of speech, they likely are being restricted in other ways as well.
Reminds me of what happens when a bunch of independent software dev teams at an organization suddenly are forced to assimilate under a monolithic "IT Governance" structure where they (and their constituent workers) are modeled as fungible agents that can be juggled from project to project on a management whim. Suddenly all projects are forced to use the same cookie-cutter tools and cargo cult methodologies regardless of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" factor. The MBAs lording over the whole thing enjoy their newfound power.
In real life, maybe a good analogue would be the existence of the 50 United (but independently-governed) States and the struggle against the tendrils of the federal government. Or a similar thing going on in the European Union. I don't politics much so maybe I'm way off.
Exactly. If you ever get the chance, have a long talk with a person from China. (outside of China) They don't completely have the same views as Americans. _Some_, don't exactly feel the same way about it as we do in the west. Or thing it's even necessary.
Not sure what the "outside of China" is supposed to mean, but you can't trust the opinions of somebody whose freedom of speech is restricted and that has been raised by state propaganda. Even if they are "outside", everybody has family left behind. If you really want to find out how being a Chinese feels like, you couldn't be very wrong to talk with people born in eastern Europe during communism. I'm one.
It didn't seem that way to me. If they've been living or traveling in the US for some time, they know talking to you freely won't get anyone in trouble.
> We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from.
The irony is that in America this is considered "liberal." It is not -- liberalism is the opposite of much of what it's come to mean in America.
When I was growing up in the US it was conservatives that were trying to control speech and expression. They wanted burning flags to be illegal. They wanted limits on "offensive" speech, including erotic imagery on tv and in art, violent music and video games. They wanted to control what ideas could be expressed in school.
Now it has flipped. The "you can't say that" banner has been taken over by the Left in the US. I don't know what we should call Democrats now, but they're not liberal. (Maybe Democratic Socialists is a more fitting term.)
It's like there are two principal eigenfrequencies competing for dominance and inducing high-energy instability. Would separating the components reduce the free energy of the system and allow a better equilibrium to occur?
You got it right as I see it, and I'm not even an American citizen. Thing is, separating the components is sounding like an external entity will have to do this. I don't see it happening; not by the citizens who decide to take a new direction en masse, and also not by govt oversight or so on. Was wondering if you had thoughts related to this which you can elaborate on. To me it feels like a stalemate: no real democracy, just status quo maintenance.
(Tangential: I'm really bummed out with how the Dutch govt has chosen to entirely ignore the outcome of the last Dutch referendum held on the 13th of April, 2016, which was about the EU's association treaty with Ukraine. Significantly voted against by citizens, Dutch govt and all other eu member states, all chose to entirely ignore the outcome - while to this day they choose words extremely careful to make it seem differently. Democracy, over here, has died to protect the status quo.)
>And my hypothesis, stated plainly, is that if you’re part of the Blue Tribe, then your outgroup isn’t al-Qaeda, or Muslims, or blacks, or gays, or transpeople, or Jews, or atheists – it’s the Red Tribe.
Both liberals and conservatives have deeply held beliefs that they do not want challenged. Eroticism is every bit as anathema to conservatism as anti-undocumented immigrant rhetoric is to liberals.
Pretty much everyone is in the "you can't say/do that" camp.
Yes, everyone has "deeply held beliefs that they do not want challenged". The difference is in how we treat people who do challenge or disagree with our beliefs AND which beliefs it's currently acceptable to challenge and which are not.
Imagine someone speaking out against a popular left-leaning causes like something that Obama would support. Now, imagine someone railing against a popular right-leaning cause, like something Ted Cruz would support. Do you think they'll get the same amount or type of counter-artuments, vitriol, or push-back?
Different ideas affect different people in different ways.
For example, not having affordable healthcare affects people directly and might very well be a death sentence to some.
Often, popular left-leaning causes are like that - causes where people are left vulnerable if they lose: Equal rights for LGBT people, gender, race, and immigration issues, etc.
So of course, people are going to react very strongly to someone who is against that, because they are deeply and directly impacted.
I suspect you support one side. And so naturally, you will argue in favor of the other side being "worse".
But the reality is... there are elements in both of these thought groups that are extremely dangerous. Try telling a group of liberals, well, pretty much anything contrary to currently accepted liberal orthodoxy... and you'll see liberal "tolerance" in all its glory. Maybe you could approach them and argue that, perhaps, the bankers and CEO's deserve the billions they take out of the economy as remuneration?
Or try telling a group of conservatives something contrary to conservative dogma... let me know how it goes. Maybe you could attempt to explain, in front of a rally of rabid conservatives, that maybe the BLM people have a point about the militarization of the nation's police departments? Or, if you're feeling REALLY brave, lay out for them why their extremely conservative area would be well served by an abortion clinic.
You want to see "push back", argue for anything that partisan dogma does not allow.
I don't remember any liberals gunning down little old ladies at bible studies for being black either. That doesn't make liberals any more "tolerant" of opposing views or different people than conservatives are. Just as your example doesn't make conservatives any more "tolerant" than liberals are.
The reality is...
there are elements in both camps that are REALLY dangerous if you're challenging their preconceptions.
The question that follows is very kindly intended. My only purpose is to get you to think a bit more deeply about what partisan thinking does to a person's ability to reason.
Have you ever considered that, perhaps, you don't see partisan thinking as having anything to do with the supremacist because you're invested in that school of thought? We tend to rationalize that which we are invested in... and I think you may be doing a little rationalizing.
Think of it this way... when a young man goes out and targets police officers to murder them, as Herschel Jones did in Ohio... is that an indictment of liberal rhetoric about police? Or is it a "...single guy off his nut...", nothing at all to do with anti-police rhetoric?
I don't know when you grew up but it certainly hasn't been the case for at least 30 years that conservatives had a monopoly on wanting to regulate media.
in the 80s the PMRC was headed by wives of some republican politicians but also by Tipper Gore - wife of Al Gore.
Throughout the 90s and up until 2011's Brown vs EMA there were several Democrats who either sponsored bills or called from them. Some of the one's I remember were California's Joe Baca (who was a Democrat but has since switched to Republican) and the now incarcerated Leland Yee, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (also now incarcerated...) and national politicians Joe Lieberman (whose witch hunt led to the creation of the ESRB) and Hillary Clinton.
I'm not aware of laws being passed--or any leftists pushing for them--that prevent you from saying anything.
I am aware of law being made around not refusing service to various groups of people when you open and operate a business, but hey, business is something we as a society regulate, and saying "you have to serve everyone" has been working pretty well for a long time already.
But please, if you know of any leftist actually trying to ban speech with laws--and not just make it unfashionable or socially unacceptable--then please let me know.
Saying "But it's not a law" is a weak argument. If someone is holding a gun to my head and threatening to shoot if I say X, telling me "But there's no law that says you can't say X, see, no censorship" isn't going to be very comforting and if I follow that advice, probably won't end too well for me.
Just because it's not the government pulling the trigger doesn't mean there's no gun.
I'm curious if you can point to leftists using weapons to threaten people.
Again, what I see from leftists is the desire to make a wide swath of speech (like casually sexist or racist stuff) unfashionable or unacceptable to use--and I see them using the only tool they have, which is their own speech. Not guns, not laws, but speech.
I never said or implied anyone was using weapons to threaten people. Maybe they are, I have no idea. But that's irrelevant as my point was that appealing to the lack of a law is a weak argument if your intent is to show a lack of censorship.
I intentionally left my own views out of the last comment as I try to stay away from these kinds of discussions since they're rarely productive and my views are pretty all over the place and change frequently(other than free speech, it's pretty much the only thing I'm an absolutist on), but I've seen your last point stated more and more frequently lately and it rubs me the wrong way. One group is saying "You can't say X/you shouldn't be able to say X", while the other group is saying "Stop telling me what I can and can't say". The first group is trying to suppress opposing views directly, while the second is trying to suppress the attempted suppression of speech, not the opposing views themselves. They are not equivalent.
there is no censorship without government involvment - you are using the word incorrectly.
calling someone a racist for saying something isnt censoring them.
calling someone a bigot for their opinion isnt censoring them
if there is no official representative of the government deciding what is and is not acceptable, there is no censorship.
if you want to make an argument that tumblr users are immature and that using supression debate tactics is something you are uncomfortable with, then make that argument. you will likely find much greater support.
if you want to make an argument that censorship is happening, you need to provide evidence of a governmental authority classifying certain types of speech as unacceptable or illegal, since that is what the word you are using means.
here you have provided an argument that boils down to "well censorship should mean something different than what it means."
censor : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>
censor: to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.
No, government involvement is absolutely not necessary for censorship. If your argument is that you're comfortable with this type of censorship, make that argument, but don't try to redefine the English language to suit your narrative.
> calling someone a racist for saying something isnt censoring them.
> calling someone a bigot for their opinion isnt censoring them
On this we can agree, since that's kinda the point of free speech. The idea isn't to make being a racist or being a bigot acceptable. The idea is to allow people to express any opinion, thought, view they may have without fear of adverse retribution so views that are based on falsehoods or ignorance can be argued against in the open. If a racist knows they'll lose their livelihood for expressing racist views in public, they'll only express them to people who they know will agree with those views. So you end up with a bunch of racists strengthening and confirming each others racist opinions. You suppressed their speech, but in doing so strengthen their views. On the other hand, if the worst you get for expressing a racist view is being told "You idiot. No, that's not actually true, and here's why" you actually stand a chance of getting them, or someone else that may be listening to the conversation to reexamine those views.
You don't cover a festering wound and hope it goes away, you open it up and remove or treat the infection. Pretending it's not there because you don't like it won't fix a thing.
The whole concept behind freedom of speech is so shitty views can come out into the open and get rightly destroyed.
I disagree. People should be allowed to express any opinion, thought, or view they might have, yes, but it's not always the job of someone telling them they're wrong to tell them why they're wrong. The same way every smoker knows that smoking is bad for them, every American racist at this point knows their views are in opposition to the norm and that it is in fact their job to defend them.
Censorship needs a power structure to exist. A person choosing independently that they don't care for something isn't censorship, no matter how many people do it independently in a short period of time. What I find problematic is not "censorship," but close-minded attitudes where no matter what you're free to say others aren't listening. Them choosing not to listen is not the same as my restriction from presenting the idea, though.
I didn't mean to imply that any individual has an obligation to explain why they're wrong, (though I do feel that as a society overall we do) but that it at least gives a chance to explain to people why their views might not actually be based in reality instead of pushing people towards others that will just confirm their incorrect/ignorant/whatever views.
I agree that you need a power structure to censor, but power structures come in many shapes, and governments don't have a monopoly on them (as much as they'd surely like to). Even here on HN, there are a few big names that could probably ruin a person's career with a single tweet.
I don't take issue with people deciding they don't agree with or don't like something. To me the issue starts when it changes from "you're wrong and your views are despicable" to "you are wrong and your views are despicable so you shouldn't be allowed to express them".
>"Blue is clearly a superior color to green"
>"No, if you read up on it, you'll find that green is better because...."
Totally ok with that, no censorship.
>"Blue is clearly a superior color to green"
>"You're wrong and an idiot, I'm going to refrain from interacting with you in the future"
Still ok with that, no censorship, annoying without justification (and imo shitty to discount a person due to a single view, especially in unrelated topics, but that's just me) but that's about it.
>"Blue is clearly a superior color to green"
>"I'm going to tell your employer and as many people as I can that you're a hateful blueist and make sure you're fully ostracized from the Wavelength community."
Alternatively,
>"I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution."
This is what I'm not ok with. It goes from disagreeing to suppressing. You're no longer choosing what YOU don't want to listen to, but making that choice for everyone.
Edit: Also, knowing that your position goes against the norm isn't knowing that it's incorrect, nor does it necessarily mean that it is incorrect. Seventy years ago, having the view that people can get married regardless of skin color would be knowingly going against the norm, and 10 years ago it was the same regarding gender, yet I'm glad that people were able to express those views.
I think we've agreed to discuss this as such, but when we're saying "you" it's the figurative you and not you, Tiksi, I'm speaking of.
As a society, we absolutely have a need to educate. In individual instances, most of the time I find it's not worth doing more than pointedly saying, "RUDE," and walking away. (This is when presented with bigotries, not just any idea I disagree with. I'll listen to you be wrong about using emacs instead of vim all day, I won't listen to you be wrong about whether or not a class of people deserves to be treated equally, especially if membership to that class of people is involuntary.)
On HN, there are people who can have a negative effect on you or your career, and you should conduct yourself as such on here. It's a public, non-anonymous forum and should be treated as such. In addition, there's a difference between well-intentioned opinion that comes from an ignorant place and an ill-intentioned one. "Kill all bluists," is different than, "Bluists are more likely to commit violent crime."
I'm not saying the status quo is always right, nor am I trying to imply it, rather I'm stating that you should have defensible rationalizations for their opinions whether or not they fit the status quo, but if they differ you should be able to reason it. If you don't have a thought-out reason for your opinions and you still find them valid, there's no way for a conversation to actually occur.
As for "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution." You lost me, I don't exactly understand the point that you're making with that example, is there a more concrete example you can give?
right, no censorship. for there to be censorship, there has to be a censor. that has to be a governing authority with the capability to say X is not allowed.
Tumblr bloggers have no such authority, and cannot be censors, and therefore cannot censor speech.
also conveniently not included in your definitions of censor
>a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter
>b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
>2: one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
care to guess what an official is in this context?
Not so fast. Businesses come in all shapes and sizes. Lots of businesses consist of a single person or just a few people or all family members.
It isn't clear at all that the government should prevent an independent contractor from deciding who they want to work with.
Your comment, as written, is an example of a trivial dismissal of a legitimate concern regarding freedom of association and contract. There are indeed attempts to force small businesses to conform. This one: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... comes to mind.
I think it's clear; if you're running a business, you shouldn't be allowed to turn would-be customers away and say "it's because you're black" or whatever. That's not good for society, to permit that kind of casual discrimination. We've been down that road, and things weren't getting better until laws started being passed.
I mean, come on, if you're such an asshole that you really, really need to discriminate against people for whatever reason, then say "sorry, we're booked up". Otherwise, make the stupid cake, whether the couple is gay, or mixed-race, or whatever. And if you can't do that, don't start your own business.
"Sorry, no vacancy" was the standard line for hotels who didn't want to rent a room to blacks.
But I think there is some kind of persepective that has to be maintained. For something that isn't an essential public accomodation, let the money talk. If your baker won't bake you a cake, give your money to one who will.
I think there is room to tolerate different points of view on who a person should be forced to accept as a customer. If you run a web development business and were approached by a customer to build a (legal) porn site, but pornography is against your personal values, should you be obligated to accept the job, when there are countless other web developers who will gladly take the work? Or be forced to choose between earning a living at your craft vs. compromising your values?
>But I think there is some kind of persepective that has to be maintained
its amazing when people who completely lack the perspective of the civil rights era, claim that we all need a little more perspective.
>For something that isn't an essential public accomodation, let the money talk. If your baker won't bake you a cake, give your money to one who will.
right, i mean - if i owned a building i certainly wouldnt want black people using my water fountains. and hey whats the big deal? its not some essential public service they are being denied. theres water fountains and restaurants everywhere!
as long as gays have a separate but equal method of gaining access to cakes, whats the problem?
Yep, I put water fountains and restaurants in a public accomodation category. They are buildings and businesses explicitly serving the walk-in public.
An independent/small family bakery, or photographer, etc. who may not even have a retail storefront who won't service gay weddings, I would consider "not a real problem" because they really are only limiting their own business by operating that way.
>An independent/small family bakery, or photographer, etc. who may not even have a retail storefront who won't service gay weddings, I would consider "not a real problem"
So a "No gays allowed" sign on a walk-in retail storefront would be bad, but a "Gays need not call" ad in the yellow pages[1] would be "not a real problem"?
[1] Or however these non-storefront businesses connect with customers.
That's cool, but the world doesn't work by what you specifically call a public accommodation. There are dinner clubs with membership requirements (look here for a big hint as to how to continue refusing service to 'undesirables' legally), there are office parks with water fountains behind fences. The solution, if you don't want to do business with the public, is to not do business with the public. If you choose to be publically available, that's on you.
Note: if your services require licensure, then it's not your right to provide those services to begin with--it's a privilege you've been granted and that will come with extra legal stipulations by that very nature.
Sorry, but that battle was lost when we first came down from the trees. All situations where people live in society involve some amount of control over their behavior; that's more or less what society is, a set of things you must and mustn't do, because you're not the only person in the world.
It's fine to expect someone to abide by your rules in your town, but they also need the option to move somewhere else to abide by their own rules.
If you want to live in a world without discrimination (as I do!), that's your right and you can enforce that within your state or move to a state where it is enforced, but if there's another state that you don't live in, mind your own damn business and let them set whatever laws they want.
To get along with others you need to follow some sort of conduct, but reach each group should be free to set their own code.
There is a clear problem with that approach, which is that it fails to take into account the pressure that society can place on small businesses, especially in small to medium areas.
Given two cake makers in town, if one is happy to provide cakes to gays, and the other is not, in general the town will provide custom to the shop whose stance they agree with.
By passing a law that forces both shops to behave the same way, the opportunity for social pressure to be applied is reduced.
I see "free speech" with scare quotes around it from left leaning people fairly often. Much of the left is pretty happy with the idea of blacklisting and no platforming people now. (They weren't so happy about it in the McCarthy days.)
I think quite a lot of leftists/progressives would be happy to see hate speech laws passed in the U.S. They don't yell for those laws directly because they know they wouldn't get any traction (yet). Instead they chip away at the edges where they can get more support.
I've seen free speech leftists complain about the anti free speech left too. Support for free speech used to be almost the defining value of liberals/progressives. Not any more.
"When I was growing up in the US it was conservatives that were trying to control speech and expression...They wanted limits on "offensive" speech, including erotic imagery in art, violent music and video games."
True, as far as it goes. However, it wasn't just "conservatives" who wanted this. Extreme leftists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon were right there with them.
Statists gonna state. It doesn't really matter that much whether they call themselves "leftist" or "rightist". What really matters is whether, and how much, they want to control other people.
>> "Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad."
Just looking at those issues it seems like there is one pretty clear moral stance to cover them all - as long as what you do does not have negative externalities go ahead and do it. Homosexuality does not have any negative impact on other people. Neither does marijuana. Pedophilia does. As does most heroin use (not all but a significant amount will lead to crime, burdening the health system etc.). Apply the moral rule above and you should only get restrictions on things that are going to negatively effect society. The problem is when you start to apply your own morals to society (religious beliefs for example). Then you start restricting behaviours which have no actual impact on your life.
I'm worried you're missing the forest for the trees. As I see it, the over-arching point is not about individual issue, but the danger of debating them or, in some circles, daring to voice a dissenting opinion.
What if someone disagreed with you on one of the issues you bring up? I'd like to think that here, on HN, the two of you would have an interesting discussion and, at worst, part ways agreeing to disagree. In other parts of life or the internet that other person (or you) may not be so lucky.
> What if someone disagreed with you on one of the issues you bring up?
What if someone disagreed with the assertion that Jews or Black people should be societally accepted? Would you really just say "Kudos to you for daring to voice a dissenting opinion!" and relish the opportunity to have an "interesting discussion" about it?
Some opinions are just dumb and/or hateful and do not need to be politely debated online at every opportunity. It doesn't mean they should be censored, but it doesn't mean they should be treated with respect either.
I was in the middle of writing a similar comment to OP but I think his point was that on HN, even if someone has a reprehensible view, like those you've outlined, we will debate (or ignore), we may get angry, but we will not harass them or dox them or do anything stupid. We will not set a mob of Twitter followers on them. We will debate or ignore and move on. And I suppose it's good that someone with one of those views feels comfortable enough to voice it here as we are given the opportunity to change their mind through rational discussion. On Twitter they'll either be too scared to discuss it (no opportunity for us to change their opinion) or they'll bring it up, face the mob, and likely their belief will become hardened.
I think its even more important to treat them with respect. I understand how frustrating it can be and the urge to say "you idiot" but I find it counter productive. I think its best to let the light shine on that sort of ignorance, even if I am group "x". I want the contrast of cool calm and rational against the heated ignorance.
What if said person is a young person who had been raised to believe this? Not really his fault, right? And perhaps a civil discussion with others who disagree might lead him to a personal re-evaluation of his beliefs. A response of "you are dumb and hateful" is not likly to bring that about.
You're probably mistaking pedophilia with child molesters; the former is a sexual orientation, just like being a homosexual is - not something an individual can control; the latter is a crime, like rape.
I'm aware of the distinction, I was just using OP's terminology.I was talking about negative externalities to other people/society so hopefully it's clear what I meant. Thanks for the correction though.
I think the OP meant exactly what they said. It's en vogue to hate people suffering that particular mental disorder because we're worried they might hurt someone.
That's a great theory in principle, but your own comment reveals reality is more complicated. Pedophilia doesn't inherently hurt anyone by itself, and making it illegal doesn't make it go away.
And most people do believe that homosexuality causes a net harm to society (probably falsely, but still.) Or that marijuana is a net harm, etc.
And even if we establish what does and doesn't have externalities, the idea that they should be legal isn't universally agreed on, obviously. I mean heroin addiction causes a lot of harm and is probably a net negative utility to users. Even if it's voluntary, the world would probably be better off without it.
Heroin can be used responsibly. Marijuana can derail lives. Areas where child porn is legal tend to have reduced rates of child abuse.
The world is not black and white, and you may even find cases where legalized abuse and harm are beneficial to a society, or where it is discovered that something like responsible pedophilia could exist. We don't know, but if we ban everything we personally dislike or disagree with on a global scale, we never will find out.
>> "Heroin can be used responsibly. Marijuana can derail lives."
My view here would be both should be legal. Any of the negative effects to society of heroin use will already be covered under current law (theft for example). You can derail your own life if you want, as long as it doesn't effect society at large.
>> "Areas where child porn is legal tend to have reduced rates of child abuse."
You're forgetting that children were abused to create that content in the first place. And even if no more was ever created the physiological damage to the persons who know pictures of them are out there is undeniable.
>> "if we ban everything we personally dislike or disagree with on a global scale, we never will find out."
I think that was my point. We should not restrict things based on our personal morals. If it causes harm to society restrict it. If not, even if you disagree with it, allow it.
> You're forgetting that children were abused to create that content in the first place
Not necessarily. We could easily use technology to create virtual child porn, where older actors have their appearance digitally changed (like Avatar). Unfortunately, even that's illegal, for no good reason.
I don't consider representative democracy as democracy. In Switzerland people vote quite often (on the internet as well), that's much closer to democracy.
It is important to define safe havens for countercultural ideas, morals, and lifestyles, because this is how societal innovation happens. It needs to extend beyond speech.
There is a big effort in the West to homogenize the world. Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad. Democracy is the best form of government. We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from.
But this is stagnating, and not everyone wants to live under the same set of global moral rules, especially since we seem to believe that morality is relative.
Freedom of speech is a big indicator of this. If people don't have freedom of speech, they likely are being restricted in other ways as well.
Both are forms of censorship. If we were to encourage the groping of a woman, it could eventually lead to rape. One is much worse than the other, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye or not see their inherent connection. The same applies here.
If we allow our intellectual leaders to censor, what's to stop our political leaders to not follow suit?
It all depends on how big you think each problem is. I'm quite confident that the events we hear about on campuses are outliers that are presented as the norm, but that's not the perception of most commentators. On the other hand, it seems clear that there is brutal systemic repression in these other states.
It seems absurd to compare the repressive power of the Communist Party of China to a liberal student union.
> I'm quite confident that the events we hear about on campuses are outliers that are presented as the norm
Even if you wanted to brush off campuses censoring, you can just look at the upper echelon of the political spectrum and see it's already a problem. President Obama has jailed several journalists in his tenure, more than any other President in U.S. history. We mock Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others for doing the same. Campus censorship is a symptom of a much larger problem.
I read those two links, but, I don't seem to see where Obama jailed any journalists.
The stories there appear to be about government employees who gave out information they were not supposed to give out. As far as I can tell, and, please correct me if I'm missing the point, the journalists were not prosecuted in these cases.
Student protests are absolutely not censorship. They're a "more speech" answer to statements that the protesters find offensive. If you disagree, fine, but trying to shut up protesters because you think their actions amount to censorship is utterly hypocritical.
No one is trying to shut down people who are speaking out that something offends them; people are speaking out against those claiming offense because those people want to change the rules to where they are the only ones who can speak out.
That's the inherent irony, which is actually the opposite case of what you are saying. People are offended and are using their free speech in an attempt to end free speech. Those opposing are arguing back (like you're supposed to), not advocating for censorship. Totally different approaches.
"when progressive thinkers agree that offensive words should be censored, it helps authoritarian regimes to justify their own much harsher restrictions and intolerant religious groups their violence"
A Poli Sci professor once told our class that the First Amendment is effective because it allows wrong/hateful/contemptible ideas to have a free airing.
The rest of us can really take a look at such ideas and the people voicing them and see just how bad they are. Once we see them, we'll reject them.
OTOH, if government or other actors suppress such speech, fewer people get a chance to see it, evaluate and reject it.
Of course, that whole theory presupposes that the vast majority of people in society will evaluate such speech well. It places a lot of trust in the people and in the conversation and in the process.
The first admendment also stops people pushing wrong/hateful/contemptible ideas from using the 'martyr' defence to get people on their side. By allowing them, you avoid the situation where people promoting said views say 'see, they must have some level of truth otherwise the government wouldn't be trying to censor me'.
Stops people with these types of views being seen as the underdog that's being oppressed for going against authority.
Step on a college campus in the US. There is no free speech. No intellectual diversity at all. Everyone just shuts up since no one dare steps out of line.
However, as others have mentioned, there is a huge risk gradient to overcome for students wishing to drop out to stand behind their principles. They need to be somewhat reassured that they are not gambling their careers away.
One way that those out in the workforce could help would be to make a hefty and very public effort to hire as many of these dropout students as possible, credentials be damned. That's how it used to work back in the day anyway, why can't it be done again? With all of the excipient courses that one is forced to take that have little or nothing to do with one's profession, they won't be missing out on much.
My campus leans a bit right compared to the usual, and I'm actually glad for that. We haven't lost intellectual diversity and free speech is alive and well. Haven't seen anyone in favor of censorship, but if there was they'd be laughed right out of the room.
Not all colleges/universities have gone bad, and that's a good thing, because intellectual discourse is supposed to be the point of university, not (just) vocational training.
That's because it's not called "censorship" any more. Instead, people will label a person whose speech they dislike as a racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, anti-semite, misogynist, etc. Sure, people with such views exist and we should debate how we, as a society, want to respond to such views.
What is the problem is the unwritten expectation that, once identified as such by almost anyone, you are excluded, attacked, and told to "shut up". For a regular person it's often enough to be labeled in this way once for their social or work prospects to either be ruined or hurt. Worse, the label will still stick, even if later this person is exonerated.
What are you arguing for? Censoring the declaration of someone as a *-phobe? Censoring the criticism of people who say certain things? Censoring the cries of "shut up" leveled at them?
That is a strawman and you know it. He is not saying that people need to stop labeling others as *phobe. He is merely saying the consequences shouldn't be life ruining.
The parent poster was explicitly drawing an equivalence between censorship in some unspecified traditional sense and widely communicated judgements and denouncements by a group.
It came out as more flippant than I intended, but I'm being quite serious, and my real question is genuine: what can be done--other than suppressing communication about the judgement--to render the consequences other than life ruining?
>My campus leans a bit right compared to the usual, and I'm actually glad for that. We haven't lost intellectual diversity and free speech is alive and well. Haven't seen anyone in favor of censorship, but if there was they'd be laughed right out of the room.
absolutely. unless you're obviously wasting time, in philosophy, literature, the arts, every one in the room has been trained to listen, digest, and issue reasonable critical commentary. thats all these people do.
yes, in university there are children who are so appalled at the injustice of the world that they react .. as children
but you can't dismiss the academy for their actions
Can you be specific about which campus you're talking about? In the past 3 years, I've been to many SUNY schools (notably SUNY New Paltz, my alma mater and a historically politically active school), UConn, UMD, and many other campuses and my sense is that free speech and student power is strong right now.
Universities in much of the western world have generally been towards the social left (by most definitions of that term) for a very long time. The thing is, in the past, their surrounding societies were largely to the social right - it's only now that societies are catching up that suddenly, universities are "anti free speech". Fact of the matter is that there was never much room for rightist discourse in the first place. Nothing's changed, except that people now see the same stuff as being part of the norm instead of fighting against the norm.
Maybe my experience is unique but I am a college professor and several of my friends from grad school are at a universities across the USA and none of us has seen any of this "safe space" or "trigger warning" stuff that people love to talk about online (and neither I nor any of my friends are in STEM fields).
Considering that just the other day leftists (idk if I'm allowed to use that word on here, hi dang) were just attacking and beating Trump supporters in the streets after one of his rallies, this is an apt analogy.
I can't possibly be the only person reading this who finds it laughable to compare people being killed for their speech to people not being allowed to speak on college campuses.
Agreed with the article. I'm especially worried about the third vector of attack on speech that they describe: individuals censoring other individuals in the name of "not being offended". This is a big issue, so I just wanted to share a few observations that worry me. Neither is brand new, I'm sure, however I believe they are worth talking about.
One thing I noticed a few years ago is that if a person has any level of social media presence and they're either outspoken or unlucky then they risk an internet mob being turned against them. Sometimes this "only" results in harassment and death threats. Other times this has real-world consequences such as for Gregory Elliott[1]. We've had mobs attacking individuals since forever, but the internet makes it much easier and almost consequence free to dog-pile the "offending" view and shut the person down, or even hurt their livelihood. Ex: it's much easier to send a threatening DM or doxx a person than to go outside and protest. The lesson here is: either keep quiet, don't have a social media presence, or firewall your more outspoken social activity from your "real self".
The other case I noticed is the radicalization of thought in the "you're either with us or against us" approach. Instead of explaining their position or answering a person's online question (even by dismissively linking them to Wiki or LMGTFY), people choose to attack them as a path of least resistance. As anecdotal evidence, I've seen people belittled and harassed on facebook, reddit and twitter for asking any of the following:
* Why should we legalize Marijuana?
* Why is BLM important?
* Why should I care about ${cause}?
Some folks try to answer and educate, but they're far in the minority from my casual observation. Overall, I'm concerned that as the amount of distractions in our lives increases our capacity for opposing views or meaningful conversations decreases because there's simply way more for us to do that is more fun or important to us.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott : There are many more examples of this. I'll avoid posting them because nothing in life is clear cut and I want to avoid derailing my point.
> As anecdotal evidence, I've seen people belittled and harassed on facebook, reddit and twitter for asking any of the following: * Why should we legalize Marijuana? * Why is BLM important? * Why should I care about ${cause}?
People suddenly realize that they can't explain their reasoning, they get embarrassed/frustrated, and to save face they start playing dirty. This happens with software design decisions too!
I certainly have begun to censor myself on social media. There's a number of topics I simply won't touch on the off-chance I trigger a livelihood-destroying internet rage mob.
The conspiracy theorist in me suspects some level of govt involvement in these SJW hit squads. They have much to recommend them to a totalitarian administration trying to work around the constraints imposed by, say, a "bill of rights". You can neutralize and/or make examples of people who commit acts of wrongthink without being seen getting your hands dirty.
When I was growing up, we were told that the Internet is not a toy. You were not supposed to engage in tomfoolery, and you were not supposed to use your real name.
At some point (cough Facebook, Google) that changed.
Social media is not a toy. Google is not a toy. In a way we are lucky to have been spared the worst possible scenario in which these technologies and all their data on us is turned against us, but it could happen at any second.
People need better education about this. This is something that everyone should learn in school.
> if a person has any level of social media presence and they're either outspoken or unlucky then they risk an internet mob being turned against them.
One of the most important properties of the internet is that the internet is media access. The concept of "fame" used to be something you bought into. Now, fame happens to you. You may be writing for the group of peers that you informally "hang out" with, but they can spontaneously transform into "an audience" that has (sometimes inconsistent) expectations.
We're used top fame being something you can walk away from. If you bought into it, you can always go back to your "normal life". The rockstar can give up the record deals and do something else with their life. The problem with the new situation is that their "normal life" is the source of fame. To walk away from fame now requires people to walk away from their normal life.
I don't know what the solution is - perhaps some new sort of 'etiquette' is needed - but a very good analysis of the problem is the video essay "This Is Phil Fish"[1]. May HN readers will recognize that name as the author of "Fez", but as the essay mentions at the beginning, "This is about everybody in the world who isn't Phil Fish". I encourage everyone to watch [1], so we at lest have a clear understanding of the problem.
At least there are still a couple of people speaking out on this and showing opposition against these attacks on free speech, that gives a little hope, although just a little.
Seems to have missed the fourth way free speech is being curtailed: By 'free speech advocates' who respond with harassment and threats to anyone who has the temerity to suggest their views are bad.
And it always is missed. Because that's what you're _really_ not allowed to point out. Or that all these articles are written by white men of relative wealth, etc.
If it wasn't relevant then they wouldn't all be white men. That's sort of the point, because you don't often see people of color defending the rights of white people to call them slurs.
When looked at over a timespan of centuries and across a wide variety of cultures, most of society's morals seem rather arbitrary to me. Many westerners fail to consider exactly how much culture and environment influence the "morality du jour". We (as voters) act as though we want moral absolutism, but we can't even consistently decide what is or isn't moral over a few decades. And while most people feel as though we keep moving toward "better" morals, I'm not so sure; I imagine this kind of sentiment has always been present.
Until everyone in the world agrees on one brand of morality, we must preserve the ability to discuss and debate it. No group can place themselves into the "we're clearly right" box, because historically, that hasn't turned out well, despite the best of intentions. Losing friends over a difference of political opinion is less of a concern than ending up in a society that got morality "wrong" because of an anomalous groupthink feedback loop.
> We (as voters) act as though we want moral absolutism, but we can't even consistently decide what is or isn't moral over a few decades.
Maybe this is debatable or plain wrong, but, to me, it looks like traditional sources of ethical/moral authority (mostly religious) in America have lost most of their power, their influence, their credibility.
But, as you say, we still want a powerful moral authority or ethical guidance system. And it appears that we have increasingly turned to the US Supreme Court for answers and validation.
Unless it disagrees with us, in which case we write about how corrupt and stupid it is.
Someone arguing that men shouldn't talk about feminism or whites talk about slavery is also protected speech. If lots of people shout about that really loudly and make you feel bad about your own views, that isn't the result of censorship, that's the result of free speech.
If the government actually bans men from talking about feminism, that would be censorship.
Until they cross the line of advocating for laws banning males from speaking about feminism, they are fundamentally not advocating censorship.
An individual yelling at you to shut up because they think you are an idiot is not censoring you. They're exercising their own right to free speech. You have the freedom to react however you want in response to them -- yell louder yourself if you want to.
Yelling at them that they're censoring you, however, is factually incorrect.
And if you equate their actions to censorship and the assassination of journalists, then be prepared to have other people point out that you don't know what you're talking about.
And feel free to downvote me as much as you like...
So the thing is - I'm uncomfortable with that definition, because it glosses over the issue that seems to be happening. Modern censorship isn't just legal - it's cultural. There seems to be this idea that the correct response to something you find offensive is to shout at the person you disagree with, attacking their character or dismissing their views because of who they are. That doesn't sit well with me, because it creates what is essentially censorship - instead of views being aired and rejected (which is fine), the person espousing them is attacked personally, and publicly. It creates a climate of fear, to the extent that speech is suppressed, and I've definitely seen it first hand.
Okay, but what exactly is the problem here, in practice? That the market of ideas is less free because it's no longer clogged with racist and otherwise offensive ones? Because I see that as a good thing, and while I sympathize with your advocacy of freedom of speech, the situation is a bit more complex than this. White supremacy is simply not something you can have an intellectual disagreement about, just like holocaust denial. It's just not as valid. And unfortunately this is not expressed in the marketplace of ideas, because we're supposed to treat every idea as equally valid even if there is immense factual evidence against it.
Take climate change for example: that it exists is not a subject of debate. It does, and we've caused it. There is absolute scientific consensus on this fact, just as there is on the equality of people.
Are we still supposed to argue with people who ignore objective truths as if we're just having a simple disagreement?
I appreciate what you're saying, but I think there's a word of difference between saying "I disagree with you and will not provide a platform for your views" and "I disagree with you, and will personally attack you and ensure that you are not able to speak about your views."
It's not that discourse is worse because offensive ideas are unacceptable – I'm sincerely glad that homophobia, racism and other ideas like that are considered improper. But I do worry that the nuance is drowned out by the prevalence of personal attacks, such that it becomes difficult to have any constructive discussion. Terms like 'racist' or 'homophobe' become thought-ending clichés, and the core of that problem is that it's really difficult to settle on a universal definition of what those things are.
Yeah, and I for one think that most of what happens on college campuses is the former ("I disagree with you and will not provide a platform for your views").
The university/college campus thing is interesting, because it's kind of like a state in microcosm. It feels to me that one of the goals of an academic institution is allowing the free exchange of ideas; it's fine to not invite speakers, but maybe it becomes a problem when the institution itself (or student government) intervenes to disallow students from hosting them. The difference I suppose between "I don't want to hear your views" and "I don't want to allow your views to be heard."
I'm probably worrying about nothing and it's not that big a deal in practice. It still makes me uneasy that the concept of banning speech is so readily accepted by so many people, when I'm convinced that the best way to tackle extreme or prejudiced views is to allow them to be openly aired, and openly challenged so they can be exposed as wrong.
Something topical on this very subject: the deputy editor of Vox’s first person section, Emmett Rensin, has been suspended by Vox after a series of tweets in which Rensin urged people to riot if Donald Trump comes to their town.
Emmett hasn't been censored (his original tweets remain), but his tweets have clearly had consequences
Self-censorship is the greatest danger. The internet tends to make our statements permanent (or capable of a permanence we cannot control). Most intelligent people will not want to spend the remainder of their lives defending and explaining something they said which they may or may not believe in any longer or which is taken out of context or which may later become actually dangerous to their livelihood, their family and so on.
Even for people that are relatively non-conformist this places a much higher burden on controversial speech. In other words it costs more to say something controversial. Therefore, less people say it. Therefore the pool of people capable of hearing it and repeating it shrinks.
The internet I think, therefore, does by its nature (at present) ensure greater homogeneity of thought, despite the fact that it has vastly increased the overall space and speed of discourse.
I don't see any obvious solution, except more individuals accepting the burden of saying things they know will cause them difficulty. At the same time those individuals must also lend an ear to the ideas they least like to hear.
Which, let's face it, sounds like a dreary pain in the ass.
Btw, this post seems to getting punished by the HN algorithm. 163 points in 2 hours and it's already dropping out of front page. I feel like I should speak out about this.
I think there is a forth enemy, at least in Europe. Pro-refugee politicians receive daily death threats and a German politician has actually been stabbed over her views on immigration.
I think it goes even further than politicians though. I only have my personal experiences, but to me it seems like regular European liberals have started self-censoring and to keep some opinions behind closed doors. I've always been fairly vocal about my opinions online, and about two years ago I wrote an innocent but critical comment on the rising nationalism in Europe which ended up in a non-liberal news paper. This resulted in Death threats and an order of Pizzas to my home.
Pizzas are nice, but it's also a strong message if you want to tell someone you know where they live. The newspaper was kind enough to remove any references to me, but I've certainly been sure to value anonymity in the political realm since.
I was interested to find out why Condaleeza Rice's Free Speech was being restricted. Apparently the students didn't want to be associated with someone they consider an unconvicted war criminal:
Which is a stance you can agree or disagree with, but seems irrelevant to whether they would be offended by what she said, or whether they needed further exposure to her ideas, and so including it in this article seems a bit of a stretch.
edited to add:
Thinking on this further it undermines the whole thesis, which appears to be "students shouldn't try to censor, as it gives aid to authoritarian regimes who want to censor".
Yet the example they give is students protesting a powerful, high-level member of government for involvement in what they believe to be illegal activities that resulted in millions of deaths. So surely by attacking that, they give aid to authoritarian regimes by their own argument?
159 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 233 ms ] threadThere is a big effort in the West to homogenize the world. Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad. Democracy is the best form of government. We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from.
But this is stagnating, and not everyone wants to live under the same set of global moral rules, especially since we seem to believe that morality is relative.
Freedom of speech is a big indicator of this. If people don't have freedom of speech, they likely are being restricted in other ways as well.
There is a big effort in the West to homogenize the world. Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad. Democracy is the best form of government. We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from.
But this is stagnating, and not everyone wants to live under the same set of global moral rules, especially since we seem to believe that morality is relative.
Freedom of speech is a big indicator of this. If people don't have freedom of speech, they likely are being restricted in other ways as well.
In real life, maybe a good analogue would be the existence of the 50 United (but independently-governed) States and the struggle against the tendrils of the federal government. Or a similar thing going on in the European Union. I don't politics much so maybe I'm way off.
This definition applies to everybody, moreso those who don't realise it applies to them
The irony is that in America this is considered "liberal." It is not -- liberalism is the opposite of much of what it's come to mean in America.
When I was growing up in the US it was conservatives that were trying to control speech and expression. They wanted burning flags to be illegal. They wanted limits on "offensive" speech, including erotic imagery on tv and in art, violent music and video games. They wanted to control what ideas could be expressed in school.
Now it has flipped. The "you can't say that" banner has been taken over by the Left in the US. I don't know what we should call Democrats now, but they're not liberal. (Maybe Democratic Socialists is a more fitting term.)
(Tangential: I'm really bummed out with how the Dutch govt has chosen to entirely ignore the outcome of the last Dutch referendum held on the 13th of April, 2016, which was about the EU's association treaty with Ukraine. Significantly voted against by citizens, Dutch govt and all other eu member states, all chose to entirely ignore the outcome - while to this day they choose words extremely careful to make it seem differently. Democracy, over here, has died to protect the status quo.)
>And my hypothesis, stated plainly, is that if you’re part of the Blue Tribe, then your outgroup isn’t al-Qaeda, or Muslims, or blacks, or gays, or transpeople, or Jews, or atheists – it’s the Red Tribe.
Both liberals and conservatives have deeply held beliefs that they do not want challenged. Eroticism is every bit as anathema to conservatism as anti-undocumented immigrant rhetoric is to liberals.
Pretty much everyone is in the "you can't say/do that" camp.
Imagine someone speaking out against a popular left-leaning causes like something that Obama would support. Now, imagine someone railing against a popular right-leaning cause, like something Ted Cruz would support. Do you think they'll get the same amount or type of counter-artuments, vitriol, or push-back?
For example, not having affordable healthcare affects people directly and might very well be a death sentence to some.
Often, popular left-leaning causes are like that - causes where people are left vulnerable if they lose: Equal rights for LGBT people, gender, race, and immigration issues, etc.
So of course, people are going to react very strongly to someone who is against that, because they are deeply and directly impacted.
But the reality is... there are elements in both of these thought groups that are extremely dangerous. Try telling a group of liberals, well, pretty much anything contrary to currently accepted liberal orthodoxy... and you'll see liberal "tolerance" in all its glory. Maybe you could approach them and argue that, perhaps, the bankers and CEO's deserve the billions they take out of the economy as remuneration?
Or try telling a group of conservatives something contrary to conservative dogma... let me know how it goes. Maybe you could attempt to explain, in front of a rally of rabid conservatives, that maybe the BLM people have a point about the militarization of the nation's police departments? Or, if you're feeling REALLY brave, lay out for them why their extremely conservative area would be well served by an abortion clinic.
You want to see "push back", argue for anything that partisan dogma does not allow.
I don't remember any liberals gunning down little old ladies at bible studies for being black either. That doesn't make liberals any more "tolerant" of opposing views or different people than conservatives are. Just as your example doesn't make conservatives any more "tolerant" than liberals are.
The reality is...
there are elements in both camps that are REALLY dangerous if you're challenging their preconceptions.
Have you ever considered that, perhaps, you don't see partisan thinking as having anything to do with the supremacist because you're invested in that school of thought? We tend to rationalize that which we are invested in... and I think you may be doing a little rationalizing.
Think of it this way... when a young man goes out and targets police officers to murder them, as Herschel Jones did in Ohio... is that an indictment of liberal rhetoric about police? Or is it a "...single guy off his nut...", nothing at all to do with anti-police rhetoric?
i think the notion of partisan offense and defense is quite well served
I am aware of law being made around not refusing service to various groups of people when you open and operate a business, but hey, business is something we as a society regulate, and saying "you have to serve everyone" has been working pretty well for a long time already.
But please, if you know of any leftist actually trying to ban speech with laws--and not just make it unfashionable or socially unacceptable--then please let me know.
Just because it's not the government pulling the trigger doesn't mean there's no gun.
Again, what I see from leftists is the desire to make a wide swath of speech (like casually sexist or racist stuff) unfashionable or unacceptable to use--and I see them using the only tool they have, which is their own speech. Not guns, not laws, but speech.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-ren...
Or maybe:
http://archive.is/HpiQb
Both refer to removed posts, but one has someone encouraging riots if a Trump rally comes to town, and one wants violent left wing extremism.
I intentionally left my own views out of the last comment as I try to stay away from these kinds of discussions since they're rarely productive and my views are pretty all over the place and change frequently(other than free speech, it's pretty much the only thing I'm an absolutist on), but I've seen your last point stated more and more frequently lately and it rubs me the wrong way. One group is saying "You can't say X/you shouldn't be able to say X", while the other group is saying "Stop telling me what I can and can't say". The first group is trying to suppress opposing views directly, while the second is trying to suppress the attempted suppression of speech, not the opposing views themselves. They are not equivalent.
calling someone a racist for saying something isnt censoring them.
calling someone a bigot for their opinion isnt censoring them
if there is no official representative of the government deciding what is and is not acceptable, there is no censorship.
if you want to make an argument that tumblr users are immature and that using supression debate tactics is something you are uncomfortable with, then make that argument. you will likely find much greater support.
if you want to make an argument that censorship is happening, you need to provide evidence of a governmental authority classifying certain types of speech as unacceptable or illegal, since that is what the word you are using means.
here you have provided an argument that boils down to "well censorship should mean something different than what it means."
censor: to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
censor verb [T] us /ˈsen·sər/ › to remove parts of something, such as a book, movie, or letter, that you do not want someone to see or hear:
She opposes efforts to censor the Internet.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/censor
No, government involvement is absolutely not necessary for censorship. If your argument is that you're comfortable with this type of censorship, make that argument, but don't try to redefine the English language to suit your narrative.
> calling someone a racist for saying something isnt censoring them.
> calling someone a bigot for their opinion isnt censoring them
On this we can agree, since that's kinda the point of free speech. The idea isn't to make being a racist or being a bigot acceptable. The idea is to allow people to express any opinion, thought, view they may have without fear of adverse retribution so views that are based on falsehoods or ignorance can be argued against in the open. If a racist knows they'll lose their livelihood for expressing racist views in public, they'll only express them to people who they know will agree with those views. So you end up with a bunch of racists strengthening and confirming each others racist opinions. You suppressed their speech, but in doing so strengthen their views. On the other hand, if the worst you get for expressing a racist view is being told "You idiot. No, that's not actually true, and here's why" you actually stand a chance of getting them, or someone else that may be listening to the conversation to reexamine those views.
You don't cover a festering wound and hope it goes away, you open it up and remove or treat the infection. Pretending it's not there because you don't like it won't fix a thing.
The whole concept behind freedom of speech is so shitty views can come out into the open and get rightly destroyed.
Censorship needs a power structure to exist. A person choosing independently that they don't care for something isn't censorship, no matter how many people do it independently in a short period of time. What I find problematic is not "censorship," but close-minded attitudes where no matter what you're free to say others aren't listening. Them choosing not to listen is not the same as my restriction from presenting the idea, though.
I agree that you need a power structure to censor, but power structures come in many shapes, and governments don't have a monopoly on them (as much as they'd surely like to). Even here on HN, there are a few big names that could probably ruin a person's career with a single tweet.
I don't take issue with people deciding they don't agree with or don't like something. To me the issue starts when it changes from "you're wrong and your views are despicable" to "you are wrong and your views are despicable so you shouldn't be allowed to express them".
>"Blue is clearly a superior color to green"
>"No, if you read up on it, you'll find that green is better because...."
Totally ok with that, no censorship.
>"Blue is clearly a superior color to green"
>"You're wrong and an idiot, I'm going to refrain from interacting with you in the future"
Still ok with that, no censorship, annoying without justification (and imo shitty to discount a person due to a single view, especially in unrelated topics, but that's just me) but that's about it.
>"Blue is clearly a superior color to green"
>"I'm going to tell your employer and as many people as I can that you're a hateful blueist and make sure you're fully ostracized from the Wavelength community."
Alternatively,
>"I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution."
This is what I'm not ok with. It goes from disagreeing to suppressing. You're no longer choosing what YOU don't want to listen to, but making that choice for everyone.
Edit: Also, knowing that your position goes against the norm isn't knowing that it's incorrect, nor does it necessarily mean that it is incorrect. Seventy years ago, having the view that people can get married regardless of skin color would be knowingly going against the norm, and 10 years ago it was the same regarding gender, yet I'm glad that people were able to express those views.
As a society, we absolutely have a need to educate. In individual instances, most of the time I find it's not worth doing more than pointedly saying, "RUDE," and walking away. (This is when presented with bigotries, not just any idea I disagree with. I'll listen to you be wrong about using emacs instead of vim all day, I won't listen to you be wrong about whether or not a class of people deserves to be treated equally, especially if membership to that class of people is involuntary.)
On HN, there are people who can have a negative effect on you or your career, and you should conduct yourself as such on here. It's a public, non-anonymous forum and should be treated as such. In addition, there's a difference between well-intentioned opinion that comes from an ignorant place and an ill-intentioned one. "Kill all bluists," is different than, "Bluists are more likely to commit violent crime."
I'm not saying the status quo is always right, nor am I trying to imply it, rather I'm stating that you should have defensible rationalizations for their opinions whether or not they fit the status quo, but if they differ you should be able to reason it. If you don't have a thought-out reason for your opinions and you still find them valid, there's no way for a conversation to actually occur.
As for "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution." You lost me, I don't exactly understand the point that you're making with that example, is there a more concrete example you can give?
right, no censorship. for there to be censorship, there has to be a censor. that has to be a governing authority with the capability to say X is not allowed. Tumblr bloggers have no such authority, and cannot be censors, and therefore cannot censor speech.
also conveniently not included in your definitions of censor
>a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter
>b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
>2: one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
care to guess what an official is in this context?
It isn't clear at all that the government should prevent an independent contractor from deciding who they want to work with.
Your comment, as written, is an example of a trivial dismissal of a legitimate concern regarding freedom of association and contract. There are indeed attempts to force small businesses to conform. This one: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... comes to mind.
I mean, come on, if you're such an asshole that you really, really need to discriminate against people for whatever reason, then say "sorry, we're booked up". Otherwise, make the stupid cake, whether the couple is gay, or mixed-race, or whatever. And if you can't do that, don't start your own business.
But I think there is some kind of persepective that has to be maintained. For something that isn't an essential public accomodation, let the money talk. If your baker won't bake you a cake, give your money to one who will.
I think there is room to tolerate different points of view on who a person should be forced to accept as a customer. If you run a web development business and were approached by a customer to build a (legal) porn site, but pornography is against your personal values, should you be obligated to accept the job, when there are countless other web developers who will gladly take the work? Or be forced to choose between earning a living at your craft vs. compromising your values?
its amazing when people who completely lack the perspective of the civil rights era, claim that we all need a little more perspective.
>For something that isn't an essential public accomodation, let the money talk. If your baker won't bake you a cake, give your money to one who will.
right, i mean - if i owned a building i certainly wouldnt want black people using my water fountains. and hey whats the big deal? its not some essential public service they are being denied. theres water fountains and restaurants everywhere!
as long as gays have a separate but equal method of gaining access to cakes, whats the problem?
An independent/small family bakery, or photographer, etc. who may not even have a retail storefront who won't service gay weddings, I would consider "not a real problem" because they really are only limiting their own business by operating that way.
So a "No gays allowed" sign on a walk-in retail storefront would be bad, but a "Gays need not call" ad in the yellow pages[1] would be "not a real problem"?
[1] Or however these non-storefront businesses connect with customers.
If you want to live in a world without discrimination (as I do!), that's your right and you can enforce that within your state or move to a state where it is enforced, but if there's another state that you don't live in, mind your own damn business and let them set whatever laws they want.
To get along with others you need to follow some sort of conduct, but reach each group should be free to set their own code.
Given two cake makers in town, if one is happy to provide cakes to gays, and the other is not, in general the town will provide custom to the shop whose stance they agree with.
By passing a law that forces both shops to behave the same way, the opportunity for social pressure to be applied is reduced.
I think quite a lot of leftists/progressives would be happy to see hate speech laws passed in the U.S. They don't yell for those laws directly because they know they wouldn't get any traction (yet). Instead they chip away at the edges where they can get more support.
I've seen free speech leftists complain about the anti free speech left too. Support for free speech used to be almost the defining value of liberals/progressives. Not any more.
True, as far as it goes. However, it wasn't just "conservatives" who wanted this. Extreme leftists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon were right there with them.
Statists gonna state. It doesn't really matter that much whether they call themselves "leftist" or "rightist". What really matters is whether, and how much, they want to control other people.
Just looking at those issues it seems like there is one pretty clear moral stance to cover them all - as long as what you do does not have negative externalities go ahead and do it. Homosexuality does not have any negative impact on other people. Neither does marijuana. Pedophilia does. As does most heroin use (not all but a significant amount will lead to crime, burdening the health system etc.). Apply the moral rule above and you should only get restrictions on things that are going to negatively effect society. The problem is when you start to apply your own morals to society (religious beliefs for example). Then you start restricting behaviours which have no actual impact on your life.
What if someone disagreed with you on one of the issues you bring up? I'd like to think that here, on HN, the two of you would have an interesting discussion and, at worst, part ways agreeing to disagree. In other parts of life or the internet that other person (or you) may not be so lucky.
What if someone disagreed with the assertion that Jews or Black people should be societally accepted? Would you really just say "Kudos to you for daring to voice a dissenting opinion!" and relish the opportunity to have an "interesting discussion" about it?
Some opinions are just dumb and/or hateful and do not need to be politely debated online at every opportunity. It doesn't mean they should be censored, but it doesn't mean they should be treated with respect either.
And most people do believe that homosexuality causes a net harm to society (probably falsely, but still.) Or that marijuana is a net harm, etc.
And even if we establish what does and doesn't have externalities, the idea that they should be legal isn't universally agreed on, obviously. I mean heroin addiction causes a lot of harm and is probably a net negative utility to users. Even if it's voluntary, the world would probably be better off without it.
The world is not black and white, and you may even find cases where legalized abuse and harm are beneficial to a society, or where it is discovered that something like responsible pedophilia could exist. We don't know, but if we ban everything we personally dislike or disagree with on a global scale, we never will find out.
My view here would be both should be legal. Any of the negative effects to society of heroin use will already be covered under current law (theft for example). You can derail your own life if you want, as long as it doesn't effect society at large.
>> "Areas where child porn is legal tend to have reduced rates of child abuse."
You're forgetting that children were abused to create that content in the first place. And even if no more was ever created the physiological damage to the persons who know pictures of them are out there is undeniable.
>> "if we ban everything we personally dislike or disagree with on a global scale, we never will find out."
I think that was my point. We should not restrict things based on our personal morals. If it causes harm to society restrict it. If not, even if you disagree with it, allow it.
Not necessarily. We could easily use technology to create virtual child porn, where older actors have their appearance digitally changed (like Avatar). Unfortunately, even that's illegal, for no good reason.
If you don't agree with all of this, you are literally Hitler.
There is a big effort in the West to homogenize the world. Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad. Democracy is the best form of government. We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from.
But this is stagnating, and not everyone wants to live under the same set of global moral rules, especially since we seem to believe that morality is relative.
Freedom of speech is a big indicator of this. If people don't have freedom of speech, they likely are being restricted in other ways as well.
If we allow our intellectual leaders to censor, what's to stop our political leaders to not follow suit?
It seems absurd to compare the repressive power of the Communist Party of China to a liberal student union.
Even if you wanted to brush off campuses censoring, you can just look at the upper echelon of the political spectrum and see it's already a problem. President Obama has jailed several journalists in his tenure, more than any other President in U.S. history. We mock Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others for doing the same. Campus censorship is a symptom of a much larger problem.
Wait. What?
Which journalists has Obama jailed?
How many journalists did other presidents jail?
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/...
The high profile cases were James Risen & James Rosen.
I read those two links, but, I don't seem to see where Obama jailed any journalists.
The stories there appear to be about government employees who gave out information they were not supposed to give out. As far as I can tell, and, please correct me if I'm missing the point, the journalists were not prosecuted in these cases.
Do I have that wrong? What am I missing here?
Again, thank you for the reply.
That's the inherent irony, which is actually the opposite case of what you are saying. People are offended and are using their free speech in an attempt to end free speech. Those opposing are arguing back (like you're supposed to), not advocating for censorship. Totally different approaches.
The rest of us can really take a look at such ideas and the people voicing them and see just how bad they are. Once we see them, we'll reject them.
OTOH, if government or other actors suppress such speech, fewer people get a chance to see it, evaluate and reject it.
Of course, that whole theory presupposes that the vast majority of people in society will evaluate such speech well. It places a lot of trust in the people and in the conversation and in the process.
Stops people with these types of views being seen as the underdog that's being oppressed for going against authority.
However, as others have mentioned, there is a huge risk gradient to overcome for students wishing to drop out to stand behind their principles. They need to be somewhat reassured that they are not gambling their careers away.
One way that those out in the workforce could help would be to make a hefty and very public effort to hire as many of these dropout students as possible, credentials be damned. That's how it used to work back in the day anyway, why can't it be done again? With all of the excipient courses that one is forced to take that have little or nothing to do with one's profession, they won't be missing out on much.
Not all colleges/universities have gone bad, and that's a good thing, because intellectual discourse is supposed to be the point of university, not (just) vocational training.
That's because it's not called "censorship" any more. Instead, people will label a person whose speech they dislike as a racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, anti-semite, misogynist, etc. Sure, people with such views exist and we should debate how we, as a society, want to respond to such views.
What is the problem is the unwritten expectation that, once identified as such by almost anyone, you are excluded, attacked, and told to "shut up". For a regular person it's often enough to be labeled in this way once for their social or work prospects to either be ruined or hurt. Worse, the label will still stick, even if later this person is exonerated.
It came out as more flippant than I intended, but I'm being quite serious, and my real question is genuine: what can be done--other than suppressing communication about the judgement--to render the consequences other than life ruining?
Which university is this, if I may ask?
yes, in university there are children who are so appalled at the injustice of the world that they react .. as children
but you can't dismiss the academy for their actions
http://www.dailywire.com/news/4727/belligerent-mob-assembles...
Which campus are you talking about?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/ohio-sta...
assassination is one approach, but there are others
We live in a country where the third form is the only one we experience.
One thing I noticed a few years ago is that if a person has any level of social media presence and they're either outspoken or unlucky then they risk an internet mob being turned against them. Sometimes this "only" results in harassment and death threats. Other times this has real-world consequences such as for Gregory Elliott[1]. We've had mobs attacking individuals since forever, but the internet makes it much easier and almost consequence free to dog-pile the "offending" view and shut the person down, or even hurt their livelihood. Ex: it's much easier to send a threatening DM or doxx a person than to go outside and protest. The lesson here is: either keep quiet, don't have a social media presence, or firewall your more outspoken social activity from your "real self".
The other case I noticed is the radicalization of thought in the "you're either with us or against us" approach. Instead of explaining their position or answering a person's online question (even by dismissively linking them to Wiki or LMGTFY), people choose to attack them as a path of least resistance. As anecdotal evidence, I've seen people belittled and harassed on facebook, reddit and twitter for asking any of the following:
* Why should we legalize Marijuana?
* Why is BLM important?
* Why should I care about ${cause}?
Some folks try to answer and educate, but they're far in the minority from my casual observation. Overall, I'm concerned that as the amount of distractions in our lives increases our capacity for opposing views or meaningful conversations decreases because there's simply way more for us to do that is more fun or important to us.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott : There are many more examples of this. I'll avoid posting them because nothing in life is clear cut and I want to avoid derailing my point.
People suddenly realize that they can't explain their reasoning, they get embarrassed/frustrated, and to save face they start playing dirty. This happens with software design decisions too!
The conspiracy theorist in me suspects some level of govt involvement in these SJW hit squads. They have much to recommend them to a totalitarian administration trying to work around the constraints imposed by, say, a "bill of rights". You can neutralize and/or make examples of people who commit acts of wrongthink without being seen getting your hands dirty.
At some point (cough Facebook, Google) that changed.
Social media is not a toy. Google is not a toy. In a way we are lucky to have been spared the worst possible scenario in which these technologies and all their data on us is turned against us, but it could happen at any second.
People need better education about this. This is something that everyone should learn in school.
One of the most important properties of the internet is that the internet is media access. The concept of "fame" used to be something you bought into. Now, fame happens to you. You may be writing for the group of peers that you informally "hang out" with, but they can spontaneously transform into "an audience" that has (sometimes inconsistent) expectations.
We're used top fame being something you can walk away from. If you bought into it, you can always go back to your "normal life". The rockstar can give up the record deals and do something else with their life. The problem with the new situation is that their "normal life" is the source of fame. To walk away from fame now requires people to walk away from their normal life.
I don't know what the solution is - perhaps some new sort of 'etiquette' is needed - but a very good analysis of the problem is the video essay "This Is Phil Fish"[1]. May HN readers will recognize that name as the author of "Fez", but as the essay mentions at the beginning, "This is about everybody in the world who isn't Phil Fish". I encourage everyone to watch [1], so we at lest have a clear understanding of the problem.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW-owa2w
Until everyone in the world agrees on one brand of morality, we must preserve the ability to discuss and debate it. No group can place themselves into the "we're clearly right" box, because historically, that hasn't turned out well, despite the best of intentions. Losing friends over a difference of political opinion is less of a concern than ending up in a society that got morality "wrong" because of an anomalous groupthink feedback loop.
Maybe this is debatable or plain wrong, but, to me, it looks like traditional sources of ethical/moral authority (mostly religious) in America have lost most of their power, their influence, their credibility.
But, as you say, we still want a powerful moral authority or ethical guidance system. And it appears that we have increasingly turned to the US Supreme Court for answers and validation.
Unless it disagrees with us, in which case we write about how corrupt and stupid it is.
If the government actually bans men from talking about feminism, that would be censorship.
An individual yelling at you to shut up because they think you are an idiot is not censoring you. They're exercising their own right to free speech. You have the freedom to react however you want in response to them -- yell louder yourself if you want to.
Yelling at them that they're censoring you, however, is factually incorrect.
And if you equate their actions to censorship and the assassination of journalists, then be prepared to have other people point out that you don't know what you're talking about.
And feel free to downvote me as much as you like...
Take climate change for example: that it exists is not a subject of debate. It does, and we've caused it. There is absolute scientific consensus on this fact, just as there is on the equality of people.
Are we still supposed to argue with people who ignore objective truths as if we're just having a simple disagreement?
It's not that discourse is worse because offensive ideas are unacceptable – I'm sincerely glad that homophobia, racism and other ideas like that are considered improper. But I do worry that the nuance is drowned out by the prevalence of personal attacks, such that it becomes difficult to have any constructive discussion. Terms like 'racist' or 'homophobe' become thought-ending clichés, and the core of that problem is that it's really difficult to settle on a universal definition of what those things are.
I'm probably worrying about nothing and it's not that big a deal in practice. It still makes me uneasy that the concept of banning speech is so readily accepted by so many people, when I'm convinced that the best way to tackle extreme or prejudiced views is to allow them to be openly aired, and openly challenged so they can be exposed as wrong.
Emmett hasn't been censored (his original tweets remain), but his tweets have clearly had consequences
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-ren...
Even for people that are relatively non-conformist this places a much higher burden on controversial speech. In other words it costs more to say something controversial. Therefore, less people say it. Therefore the pool of people capable of hearing it and repeating it shrinks.
The internet I think, therefore, does by its nature (at present) ensure greater homogeneity of thought, despite the fact that it has vastly increased the overall space and speed of discourse.
I don't see any obvious solution, except more individuals accepting the burden of saying things they know will cause them difficulty. At the same time those individuals must also lend an ear to the ideas they least like to hear.
Which, let's face it, sounds like a dreary pain in the ass.
I think it goes even further than politicians though. I only have my personal experiences, but to me it seems like regular European liberals have started self-censoring and to keep some opinions behind closed doors. I've always been fairly vocal about my opinions online, and about two years ago I wrote an innocent but critical comment on the rising nationalism in Europe which ended up in a non-liberal news paper. This resulted in Death threats and an order of Pizzas to my home.
Pizzas are nice, but it's also a strong message if you want to tell someone you know where they live. The newspaper was kind enough to remove any references to me, but I've certainly been sure to value anonymity in the political realm since.
http://m.startribune.com/don-t-give-condoleezza-rice-a-platf...
Which is a stance you can agree or disagree with, but seems irrelevant to whether they would be offended by what she said, or whether they needed further exposure to her ideas, and so including it in this article seems a bit of a stretch.
edited to add:
Thinking on this further it undermines the whole thesis, which appears to be "students shouldn't try to censor, as it gives aid to authoritarian regimes who want to censor".
Yet the example they give is students protesting a powerful, high-level member of government for involvement in what they believe to be illegal activities that resulted in millions of deaths. So surely by attacking that, they give aid to authoritarian regimes by their own argument?