6 ms·

So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it. >the situation in America where everyone is a fuckin

by vadfa 5y ago

So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it. >the situation in America where everyone is a fucking edgelord in their spare time So don't read them, as easy as that.

hnbad 5y ago
I'm just going to leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
gherkinnn 5y ago
> So don't read them, as easy as that. If only I knew the content of something before I read it. I would have to limit my internet use to Signal conversations with my dog to avoid most of tech’s poison machine.
- vadfa 5y ago
  That is a good idea, it is what I did. I don't visit any social networks, I don't read the news, and I stop talking to those who send me information that I'm not interested in.
  - soco 5y ago
    Yet here you are commenting along everybody else on HN. Unfortunately real world situations are not that black and white so they cannot be solved with such black and white solutions...
noduerme 5y ago
> So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it. I mean, it's not a better strategy and it's not right - what I'm trying to say is that impeding one person's speech leads to impeding another person's speech, and that's how you end up with totalitarianism, regardless of who's in control. The trouble is that whoever speaks loudest never respects the mechanism that allowed them to speak in the first place, or extends that right to anyone else. So as to what leads to a better outcome, I'd say the results aren't in yet.
rexreed 5y ago
> So don't read them, as easy as that. Hate speech and radicalizing speech isn't meant for those that aren't reading or listening to that speech, but rather to motivate those who do listen to act out the things that the speakers are saying. The speakers hide behind "I didn't do anything, I just said something" and count on those who take their words into their heart and convert them into action. This is the danger of hate speech. It's not enough for good people to just ignore. It requires more effort to prevent the talking from being doing. If the term "hate speech" doesn't sit well, I prefer to use the term "rhetorical violence". Basically, rhetorical violence is speech using the imagery and terminology of violence intended to inspire violent thoughts in others. The video posted below by another commenter shows how radicalizing speech is used to motivate others to commit acts that the speaker themselves would not commit or would claim not to support. In essence, the speakers are claiming the rights to rhetorical violence while being disconnected from actual violence that the speech might incite, inspire, or support.
- noduerme 5y ago
  Wanna say, vadfa's two answers: >We already have laws against violence. >So don't read them, as easy as that. are both "demand-side" solutions, which conservatives are well aware don't work when there's people dealing poison in the street. Still, rexreed, I'll always fight for free speech, even when the people exercising it are abhorrent. And even knowing they'll take advantage of that to the fullest effect they can. Because if we really restrict it, the worst possible people will take control of who gets to say what. And it won't be the people we'd like to be making that decision. Every encroachment on free speech is like feeding steroids to the nazis.
  - rexreed 5y ago
    Free speech and fighting rhetorical violence are not mutually exclusive. There are ways to reduce the visibility and spread of rhetorical violence without imposing on the rights of everyone to speak. Let's use another mental construct if this is helpful. Imagine at your place of work, one person every day comes into the office, points at you and says "I hate this guy. Someone should beat the crap out of them". This person then posts messages on the company chat about how much of a terrible person you are, spreading all sorts of half-lies and untruths. This person goes as far as to put a message on the bulletin board in the cafeteria saying that you are a rotten person and someone should slash your tires or make your life a living hell. One day you come to work. Your tires are slashed. Someone has trashed your desk. When you leave work at night someone assaults you, punches you and throws you on the ground. You can't see who it is. You can point your finger and say "this person has been verbally harassing me". Would it be right for the company to say "any speech is allowed, therefore, this person has the right to continue that speech. Any actions are the fault of the perpetrator and not the speaker." How long would you be willing to put up with that and defend that right even though it is causing you direct harm? There are indeed laws against violent and harassing speech, even though the words themselves aren't harm because of the direct harm that can be linked. I agree that the line between annoying and controversial speech and overtly violent speech is not well defined, but the lack of a well defined boundary does not mean that there is no boundary at all. Clearly some things are beyond the pale. Now the company can't tell the verbal harasser that they are not allowed to think or express their abhorrent views. That harasser, as abhorrent as their views are, are using protected free speech. But the company can tell the harasser they are not allowed to communicate those views on company grounds, in company chat rooms, in the company cafeteria, or in any capacity as a company employee. Basically, the company can impose limits on the spread of those views. And in the vast majority of cases, it's imposing limits on the spread of views that acts to dampen actual violence.

by vadfa 5y ago

hnbad 5y ago

I'm just going to leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g

gherkinnn 5y ago

> So don't read them, as easy as that. If only I knew the content of something before I read it. I would have to limit my internet use to Signal conversations with my dog to avoid most of tech’s poison machine.

vadfa 5y ago
That is a good idea, it is what I did. I don't visit any social networks, I don't read the news, and I stop talking to those who send me information that I'm not interested in.
- soco 5y ago
  Yet here you are commenting along everybody else on HN. Unfortunately real world situations are not that black and white so they cannot be solved with such black and white solutions...

noduerme 5y ago

> So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it. I mean, it's not a better strategy and it's not right - what I'm trying to say is that impeding one person's speech leads to impeding another person's speech, and that's how you end up with totalitarianism, regardless of who's in control. The trouble is that whoever speaks loudest never respects the mechanism that allowed them to speak in the first place, or extends that right to anyone else. So as to what leads to a better outcome, I'd say the results aren't in yet.

rexreed 5y ago

> So don't read them, as easy as that. Hate speech and radicalizing speech isn't meant for those that aren't reading or listening to that speech, but rather to motivate those who do listen to act out the things that the speakers are saying. The speakers hide behind "I didn't do anything, I just said something" and count on those who take their words into their heart and convert them into action. This is the danger of hate speech. It's not enough for good people to just ignore. It requires more effort to prevent the talking from being doing. If the term "hate speech" doesn't sit well, I prefer to use the term "rhetorical violence". Basically, rhetorical violence is speech using the imagery and terminology of violence intended to inspire violent thoughts in others. The video posted below by another commenter shows how radicalizing speech is used to motivate others to commit acts that the speaker themselves would not commit or would claim not to support. In essence, the speakers are claiming the rights to rhetorical violence while being disconnected from actual violence that the speech might incite, inspire, or support.

noduerme 5y ago
Wanna say, vadfa's two answers: >We already have laws against violence. >So don't read them, as easy as that. are both "demand-side" solutions, which conservatives are well aware don't work when there's people dealing poison in the street. Still, rexreed, I'll always fight for free speech, even when the people exercising it are abhorrent. And even knowing they'll take advantage of that to the fullest effect they can. Because if we really restrict it, the worst possible people will take control of who gets to say what. And it won't be the people we'd like to be making that decision. Every encroachment on free speech is like feeding steroids to the nazis.
- rexreed 5y ago
  Free speech and fighting rhetorical violence are not mutually exclusive. There are ways to reduce the visibility and spread of rhetorical violence without imposing on the rights of everyone to speak. Let's use another mental construct if this is helpful. Imagine at your place of work, one person every day comes into the office, points at you and says "I hate this guy. Someone should beat the crap out of them". This person then posts messages on the company chat about how much of a terrible person you are, spreading all sorts of half-lies and untruths. This person goes as far as to put a message on the bulletin board in the cafeteria saying that you are a rotten person and someone should slash your tires or make your life a living hell. One day you come to work. Your tires are slashed. Someone has trashed your desk. When you leave work at night someone assaults you, punches you and throws you on the ground. You can't see who it is. You can point your finger and say "this person has been verbally harassing me". Would it be right for the company to say "any speech is allowed, therefore, this person has the right to continue that speech. Any actions are the fault of the perpetrator and not the speaker." How long would you be willing to put up with that and defend that right even though it is causing you direct harm? There are indeed laws against violent and harassing speech, even though the words themselves aren't harm because of the direct harm that can be linked. I agree that the line between annoying and controversial speech and overtly violent speech is not well defined, but the lack of a well defined boundary does not mean that there is no boundary at all. Clearly some things are beyond the pale. Now the company can't tell the verbal harasser that they are not allowed to think or express their abhorrent views. That harasser, as abhorrent as their views are, are using protected free speech. But the company can tell the harasser they are not allowed to communicate those views on company grounds, in company chat rooms, in the company cafeteria, or in any capacity as a company employee. Basically, the company can impose limits on the spread of those views. And in the vast majority of cases, it's imposing limits on the spread of views that acts to dampen actual violence.