The Most Dangerous Censorship(edwardsnowden.substack.com)
edwardsnowden.substack.com
The Most Dangerous Censorship
https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/on-censorship-pt-1
550 comments
Theocracy may be bad, but an aggressively religious society is worse.
Religious here means that certain things are articles of faith, and any attempt to discuss them in any way, let alone disagree with them, gets you marked as an enemy who needs to be driven away and stripped of any respect or role in society.
I won't even say it's the majority that's so aggressive. But the majority of people who are somehow active in the society and thus visible outside the circle of their family and coworkers, either actively or passively agree. Either they share the faith (many do), or they don't want trouble.
What good is the First Amendment if citizens themselves see free speech as a dangerous transgression?
Religious here means that certain things are articles of faith, and any attempt to discuss them in any way, let alone disagree with them, gets you marked as an enemy who needs to be driven away and stripped of any respect or role in society.
I won't even say it's the majority that's so aggressive. But the majority of people who are somehow active in the society and thus visible outside the circle of their family and coworkers, either actively or passively agree. Either they share the faith (many do), or they don't want trouble.
What good is the First Amendment if citizens themselves see free speech as a dangerous transgression?
The big difference is that religion usually believes in some kind of forgiveness and repentance. I can't say I see the same things in the current society.
Repentance — yes, galore, it's exactly the expexted action from the one accused of transsgression. Write a long blog post condemning the bitter mistake, step out from your post, if you have any.
But on the banner on this religion is not Love, but Justice. So, forgiveness is hard to obtain. It takes either converting into a zealot, or hiding in oblivion. "If God were to show justice instead of His endless grace, we would all end up in Hell", wrote one medieval theologician.
This whole thing is thoroughly medieval, if you look at it at a certain angle. While declaring that it stands for progress, it rejects the values of the Enlightenment much more deeply than many alt-right philosophers who flaunt this rejection.
If you ever wondered what highly westernized Iran might look like before the revolution, this may provide a glimpse. Feeling righteous and rejecting doubt is a powerful and addictive drug :(
But on the banner on this religion is not Love, but Justice. So, forgiveness is hard to obtain. It takes either converting into a zealot, or hiding in oblivion. "If God were to show justice instead of His endless grace, we would all end up in Hell", wrote one medieval theologician.
This whole thing is thoroughly medieval, if you look at it at a certain angle. While declaring that it stands for progress, it rejects the values of the Enlightenment much more deeply than many alt-right philosophers who flaunt this rejection.
If you ever wondered what highly westernized Iran might look like before the revolution, this may provide a glimpse. Feeling righteous and rejecting doubt is a powerful and addictive drug :(
Reminds me of criminal records. Time in jail is not the real punishment. You have not really paid your dues in this system. You can never be forgiven, you will pay for whatever crime your whole life without respite by being unhirable and all the other side effects. I forget which hn post made me think about this but it’s bugged me for years now
Do you have the source for the quote of the medieval theologian? It's very interesting.
Apparently it was Isaac of Niveneh, a Middle Eastern Christian theoligian from 7th century: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/st-isaac-the-syrian...
I think Christ himself pushes this view in a number of fables and sermons, right in the canonical gospels.
I think Christ himself pushes this view in a number of fables and sermons, right in the canonical gospels.
Thanks.
> But on the banner on this religion is not Love, but Justice. So, forgiveness is hard to obtain. It takes either converting into a zealot, or hiding in oblivion.
No, it takes saying some words and then going about your day.
> Feeling righteous and rejecting doubt is a powerful and addictive drug :(
Well that explains your post here! ;)
No, it takes saying some words and then going about your day.
> Feeling righteous and rejecting doubt is a powerful and addictive drug :(
Well that explains your post here! ;)
> This whole thing is thoroughly medieval
Actually, Medieval Scholastics had a vibrant discourse from a wide array of sources that would look practically libertarian by comparison to contemporary woke discourse. It sounded way more fun too.
Actually, Medieval Scholastics had a vibrant discourse from a wide array of sources that would look practically libertarian by comparison to contemporary woke discourse. It sounded way more fun too.
Scholasticists were careful though not to overstep the dogmata and say heresy. Discussing heresies was very much allowed, as long as they were considered heresies and thus wrong by definition.
Different churches at different times and places were more lenient or more strict, but always kept the One True Faith which could be discussed but not put to doubt. At least, this is how it looks to me after some superficial reading about the topic.
Different churches at different times and places were more lenient or more strict, but always kept the One True Faith which could be discussed but not put to doubt. At least, this is how it looks to me after some superficial reading about the topic.
The structure of a revolution-- it usually begins when the rabble acts up and no authority is willing or able to stop them. So, 1 out of 1,000 users seek quasi-religious vengeance on Twitter and the mechanisms that used to inform the other 999 don't work. The NYT picks up toxic views of the rabble and reports them as mainstream, which the rabble have converted to a weapon in itself.
Most revolutions I've read about, large and small consist of an authentic breakdown in or reorganization of, society. Here and now, seems like we're actually discussing an antifeature of manufactured social technologies combined with capture or weakening of traditional media.
Most revolutions I've read about, large and small consist of an authentic breakdown in or reorganization of, society. Here and now, seems like we're actually discussing an antifeature of manufactured social technologies combined with capture or weakening of traditional media.
I think you mischaracterize these people as "rabble". Many of the vocal "woke" figures are highly educated, highly intellectual, and well-off. Professors, top business officers, high-achieving scientists, writers, engineers.
They do it not because they are stupid, for they are not. They truly believe that what they do is right, that it's the shining path to the better future.
They do it not because they are stupid, for they are not. They truly believe that what they do is right, that it's the shining path to the better future.
> I think you mischaracterize these people as "rabble". Many of the vocal "woke" figures are highly educated, highly intellectual, and well-off. Professors, top business officers, high-achieving scientists, writers, engineers.
That is the actual structure of a revolution. Your parent comment is misguided; revolutions that aren't led by elites are rare and, when they occur, generally don't go anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt
That is the actual structure of a revolution. Your parent comment is misguided; revolutions that aren't led by elites are rare and, when they occur, generally don't go anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt
Yes, despite slavery being horrendous and very common there was basically 1 successful slave revolt in all recorded history Haiti. Gaspar Yagna's Rebellion was arguable as they hid and became independent. Spartacus grew to ~120,000 then failed, Zanj Rebellion came closer and still failed.
This is also why killing all the intellectuals after a successful revolution is so popular.
This is also why killing all the intellectuals after a successful revolution is so popular.
And most of the worlds biggest atrocities has also been done on "the shining path to the better future".
So have the world's biggest advances, from the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution, or the advent of liberal democracies in the past ~200 years.
This crowd seems to be pretty much against enlightenment values or science or democracy.
None of those things were really the result of some top down utopian master plan, though. The closest might be the enlightenment if you consider the rewards for book finding granted by wealthy benefactors, but it was fundamentally a backward looking "Revolution" that was based on worship of the ancients.
The "scientific revolution", is not really a well known or unambiguous label, the growth of science being a long term trend. And it's worth observing that a major part of the present day corruption of science with the replication crisis, the junk sociological sciences and so on, are the result of an explicit top down utopian plan by governments to make a better tomorrow by funding academics.
The "scientific revolution", is not really a well known or unambiguous label, the growth of science being a long term trend. And it's worth observing that a major part of the present day corruption of science with the replication crisis, the junk sociological sciences and so on, are the result of an explicit top down utopian plan by governments to make a better tomorrow by funding academics.
Exactly my reference :(
Some are removed from reality that it might seem like a good idea. I believe them not to be too well informed though and much support stems from the fact that these people don't know what is done under their banner. Bipartisanship in the US heavily influences this too.
Most intellectuals have identified the problem pretty quickly but they also stay mostly silent.
There are also those in high positions without the necessary facilities of course.
Most intellectuals have identified the problem pretty quickly but they also stay mostly silent.
There are also those in high positions without the necessary facilities of course.
Or perhaps, they do it because its the ideal weapon and means of control. We've seen that "sociopaths in management studies" bit. Wonder how it'd apply to wokism.
potatoineyes(2)
There is no difference. I've heard that Islam and Christianity, as religions, are good and forgiving. I've also witnessed the behavior of actual muslims and christians. I would not call these people good. I certainly wouldn't call them forgiving.
My feeling is that the poster is on the right track. Ideological groups, (not trying to pick on politics, but they are usually political ideologues), have become the new pseudo-religions. As people in the West have fallen away from church, we've witnessed the rise of ideologue communities on the right and left.
You can't argue with them. You can't question them. Some want to kill off half the people in the country. Others want draconian control over the other half.
And people are surprised that the only option available to a reasonable person is to opt-out?
If anything, I think people are being shortsighted in viewing the threat. For some people in the US, this ideology war is not only about a right to speech, it can come down to a right to live. Those people have to oppose the ideologues, or die.
I don't claim to know the solution, I do know that it's a tough, tough problem.
My feeling is that the poster is on the right track. Ideological groups, (not trying to pick on politics, but they are usually political ideologues), have become the new pseudo-religions. As people in the West have fallen away from church, we've witnessed the rise of ideologue communities on the right and left.
You can't argue with them. You can't question them. Some want to kill off half the people in the country. Others want draconian control over the other half.
And people are surprised that the only option available to a reasonable person is to opt-out?
If anything, I think people are being shortsighted in viewing the threat. For some people in the US, this ideology war is not only about a right to speech, it can come down to a right to live. Those people have to oppose the ideologues, or die.
I don't claim to know the solution, I do know that it's a tough, tough problem.
Just like with any belief system, there are many more moderates than zealots. The problem is, zealots help the leaders of those belief systems gain more power. Moderates, for the most part, just want things to keep working and not to feel the lash on their back. When the zealots can't let this happen and the powers that be lose control of the zealots, that's usually when revolution happens =(
I don't think they are capable of a revolution at this point. Their wrath can easily be redirected. You don't even have to put up a too convincing target, small overstepping of some arbitrary social rule is enough.
> I've heard that Islam and Christianity, as religions, are good and forgiving. I've also witnessed the behavior of actual muslims and christians. I would not call these people good.
Of course not; the movement isn't the ideology.
Whatever the ideology, the people in it will be flawed and fallible human beings.
Of course not; the movement isn't the ideology.
Whatever the ideology, the people in it will be flawed and fallible human beings.
Who is saying they want to kill half the population?!
thu2111 says "Who is saying they want to kill half the population?!"
He's speaking of mostly apparent desire, not what people have explicitly said (although it is sometimes explicitly said, too). On the surface it would seem to be political suicide to say one wanted, for example,
- all Trump supporters, or
- all woke activists, or
- all conspiracy theorists, or
- all Democrats, or
- all Republicans, or
- all blacks or all whites or all LGBTQ+ etc.
(pick a group)
to be dead. But there is plenty of such talk going around and it is not always cancelled or censored by FAANG and it is sometimes even encouraged. I believe that the OP's observation is correct about a significant part of the population.
Political affiliation and religious affiliation are both beliefs. Wars have been/are being fought over beliefs. There are plenty of quotes by various parties suggesting what should be done with unbelievers at all times through history.
At bottom, isn't everything we know really belief?
He's speaking of mostly apparent desire, not what people have explicitly said (although it is sometimes explicitly said, too). On the surface it would seem to be political suicide to say one wanted, for example,
- all Trump supporters, or
- all woke activists, or
- all conspiracy theorists, or
- all Democrats, or
- all Republicans, or
- all blacks or all whites or all LGBTQ+ etc.
(pick a group)
to be dead. But there is plenty of such talk going around and it is not always cancelled or censored by FAANG and it is sometimes even encouraged. I believe that the OP's observation is correct about a significant part of the population.
Political affiliation and religious affiliation are both beliefs. Wars have been/are being fought over beliefs. There are plenty of quotes by various parties suggesting what should be done with unbelievers at all times through history.
At bottom, isn't everything we know really belief?
Yes, if you opt out you are fucked in the long run. It's use force on others so that you can live in peace, join them because you believe, or join them and just lie. There is no moderate option in a globalised internetworked world.
There's also the possibility of the opt-out'ers just getting smart and offing the ideologues before the ideologues off them. Which, in my view, is the most reasonable course of action if too many of these nut jobs turn to violence.
One of the main difference between Wokism and Christianity, in my opinion, is that in Christianity there is forgiveness, whereas in Wokism you can be endlessly dragged overf the coals for something you said ages ago when you were a teenager: https://pontifex.substack.com/p/no-redemption-for-the-woke
Just because a concept of forgiveness exists doesn't mean that Christians actually do any of it and some folks simply will never, ever get such a thing: You are expected to start "acting right" before you can consider getting forgiveness. Some churches will banish you from their church if you do the wrong thing, all the while claiming that forgiveness exists.
So, you know, don't be gay or bisexual. Don't be trans. Don't, for any reason, have an abortion. Don't even use birth control. Don't have the audacity to explore other religions or be atheist. If you live in some parts of the world, this stuff might be codified into law. I'm not sure how jail time for abortions shows any sort of forgiveness.
Not exactly forgiveness, but if you happen to have the crime of being poor, you might have forced religion and forced work in a thrift store to earn your charity.
Forgiveness? Hardly.
So, you know, don't be gay or bisexual. Don't be trans. Don't, for any reason, have an abortion. Don't even use birth control. Don't have the audacity to explore other religions or be atheist. If you live in some parts of the world, this stuff might be codified into law. I'm not sure how jail time for abortions shows any sort of forgiveness.
Not exactly forgiveness, but if you happen to have the crime of being poor, you might have forced religion and forced work in a thrift store to earn your charity.
Forgiveness? Hardly.
And your basing all of this off of experience? Some churches banish you so then all do? Did you read revelations where some groups are not following the word? So you and God have the same complaint. Interesting huh?
Also Christians are not the ones forgiving. You’re asking for forgiveness from God himself. They’re not supposed to judge in the first place. It’s considered a sin. So all you’ve discovered here is literally written in the Bible as a negative.
Also Christians are not the ones forgiving. You’re asking for forgiveness from God himself. They’re not supposed to judge in the first place. It’s considered a sin. So all you’ve discovered here is literally written in the Bible as a negative.
Which side do you think has a larger base of support for the death penalty or for prison reform?
I think most people are beginning to hate woke culture. The pendulum is swinging.
I think you are probably right.
Maybe Wokism will mutate into something less virulent. Or maybe the opposition to it will become overwhelming and destroy it.
Maybe Wokism will mutate into something less virulent. Or maybe the opposition to it will become overwhelming and destroy it.
You seem to have missed the log in your own eye.
Another big difference is that, from what I understand, in Christianity everyone bears the original sin. In Wokism, only white males do.
You forgot one adjective.
Straight? I don't think it's as relevant as it was 5 years ago. Cis? That's one I would agree on. I think you could make a case that "trans is the new gay", at least in their place in society.
> The big difference is that religion usually believes in some kind of forgiveness and repentance
Usually? There's boatloads of sermons recorded out that that preach hate and fear. Very selective reasoning on both sides of this equation.
Usually? There's boatloads of sermons recorded out that that preach hate and fear. Very selective reasoning on both sides of this equation.
I don’t think the major organized religious institutions believe in anything but power and money.
What “Religion” believes in is very hard to define.
What “Religion” believes in is very hard to define.
Zababa says "religion usually believes in some kind of forgiveness and repentance. "
Yes, they will forgive you, allow you to repent for your "errors" and then they will burn you at the stake.
Religion is just another belief system.
Yes, they will forgive you, allow you to repent for your "errors" and then they will burn you at the stake.
Religion is just another belief system.
All belief systems are the same: communism, christianity, mohammedanism, buddhism, etc.
No organized belief system (includes any religion) is noteworthy for forgiveness and repentance. Such gems as the religious wars in Europe, CCP treatment of Uighurs today, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Genghis Khan, the current Middle East all showed little mercy for unbelievers.
They'll forgive you, maybe let you repent. But then they will kill you, your family, your friends and your business associates.
No organized belief system (includes any religion) is noteworthy for forgiveness and repentance. Such gems as the religious wars in Europe, CCP treatment of Uighurs today, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Genghis Khan, the current Middle East all showed little mercy for unbelievers.
They'll forgive you, maybe let you repent. But then they will kill you, your family, your friends and your business associates.
Gengis Khan, afaik, was not a religious fanatic, or even an ethnic supremacist. His army absorbed warriors from different places and of different religions. What he required was fealty, not faith. This is how he built a colossal empire, Earth's largest IIRC.
An empire has to be somehow tolerant towards differences between the many nations it consumes. The process of assimilation, even if forced, can and usually does take centuries.
Faith systems are not like that: they require an immediate conversion, and an immediate and willing following the norms.
An empire has to be somehow tolerant towards differences between the many nations it consumes. The process of assimilation, even if forced, can and usually does take centuries.
Faith systems are not like that: they require an immediate conversion, and an immediate and willing following the norms.
You're quibbling about minor details. Khan was head of a belief system: believe and help him and you might not die. He and his men wanted the tundra cleared of cities. He did it.
nine_k says>""An empire has to be somehow tolerant towards differences between the many nations it consumes. The process of assimilation, even if forced, can and usually does take centuries."<
Khan didn't assimilate, he destroyed. Only after his death and the end of his generation of warriors, was his former empire "assimilated" by groups lucky(?) enough to be alive.
The words "tolerant" and "assimilation" have no place when speaking of the advancement of Gengis Khan's armies out of Mongolia.
Just like "faith systems" today have no tolerance, accept no "repentance" and refuse "assimilation".
nine_k says>""An empire has to be somehow tolerant towards differences between the many nations it consumes. The process of assimilation, even if forced, can and usually does take centuries."<
Khan didn't assimilate, he destroyed. Only after his death and the end of his generation of warriors, was his former empire "assimilated" by groups lucky(?) enough to be alive.
The words "tolerant" and "assimilation" have no place when speaking of the advancement of Gengis Khan's armies out of Mongolia.
Just like "faith systems" today have no tolerance, accept no "repentance" and refuse "assimilation".
Well current society has chosen "struggle sessions". You get forgiveness if you voluntarily admit to some sin and only then if the sin is mild. If you're found out without coming forth with your sins first, you're excommunicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
Isn't that the same way religion works? Confession and atonement for minor transgressions, "legal" punishment otherwise?
You should generalize that to "aggressively ideological society".
It doesn't matter what the ideology is based upon. It's the aggression that matters.
And the "solipsism" too, I guess. If that term can be applied to societies. I mean, when the hivemind detaches from all evidence, insulated from reality, self-affirming, self-amplifying, purity-seeking. Modern social media is, of course, great for achieving that.
It doesn't matter what the ideology is based upon. It's the aggression that matters.
And the "solipsism" too, I guess. If that term can be applied to societies. I mean, when the hivemind detaches from all evidence, insulated from reality, self-affirming, self-amplifying, purity-seeking. Modern social media is, of course, great for achieving that.
[deleted]
Theocracy isn't religion at all. It's politics that assume a religious veneer, similar to how nationalism assumes a historical veneer. (And honestly... most 'aggressive' religions are really nothing BUT politics.)
The idea is that a theocracy forces religious norms on its subjects by the force of the state.
The contrast I'm making is that the state in the U.S. does not do that, but citizens themselves seem to act coercively and force the norms of their faith on anyone who voices any doubts loudly enough.
The contrast I'm making is that the state in the U.S. does not do that, but citizens themselves seem to act coercively and force the norms of their faith on anyone who voices any doubts loudly enough.
Totally agree. What's interesting is that "antiracism" (i.e. neoracism) has analogous tenets and catechisms of a secular religion. They even reinvented original sin.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-reli...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-reli...
[deleted]
> What good is the First Amendment if citizens themselves see free speech as a dangerous transgression?
Well, first and foremost, the First is about the government interfering with speech. I don't think that applies to what you're complaining about, which appears to be an increase of intolerance of intolerance.
And your usage of "religious" to those of that ilk is sloppy whataboutism. Religion is about believing is something that can't be proven, and countless atrocities have occurred in its name. Equating that to somebody who says "black lives matter" and believes that to be true is flat out dishonest.
Well, first and foremost, the First is about the government interfering with speech. I don't think that applies to what you're complaining about, which appears to be an increase of intolerance of intolerance.
And your usage of "religious" to those of that ilk is sloppy whataboutism. Religion is about believing is something that can't be proven, and countless atrocities have occurred in its name. Equating that to somebody who says "black lives matter" and believes that to be true is flat out dishonest.
Minor but important quibble; religion is about what cannot be disproven. It can potentially be proven (if we ever encounter an alien species that, for example, has a document fundamentally identical to the Qur'an, the weight of evidence would swing quite heavily, I think anyone would agree).
In that framework, the people comparing wokism to a religion might point out several unfalsifiable beliefs that it's adherents generally hold. For an example of a fairly common one, "[inequality] is the result of discrimination."
In that framework, the people comparing wokism to a religion might point out several unfalsifiable beliefs that it's adherents generally hold. For an example of a fairly common one, "[inequality] is the result of discrimination."
Minor quibble: religion is about social control, i.e., God says you can do this but not that.
I'm not trying to attack religion (happy to do that elsewhere), just trying to clarify the language being used. Specifically, this game of calling people who believe in a certain morality religious is dishonest. Just because I believe that all people should be treated equally regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc -- that doesn't make me religious. I hope at worst it makes me avoid being a "bad person".
I'm not trying to attack religion (happy to do that elsewhere), just trying to clarify the language being used. Specifically, this game of calling people who believe in a certain morality religious is dishonest. Just because I believe that all people should be treated equally regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc -- that doesn't make me religious. I hope at worst it makes me avoid being a "bad person".
> "[inequality] is the result of discrimination."
That's playing with words. If we can agree that discrimination exists then that clearly impacts "equality".
As to the nit about religion -- I was trying to be polite. Religion really exists because people were really ignorant in the beginning and wanted answers to the questions of life. Then it became a self-sustaining self-serving organization that exists because "god".
I'd posit that almost all religious people are of their faith because their parents were of that faith. Then it's turtles all the way up.
That's playing with words. If we can agree that discrimination exists then that clearly impacts "equality".
As to the nit about religion -- I was trying to be polite. Religion really exists because people were really ignorant in the beginning and wanted answers to the questions of life. Then it became a self-sustaining self-serving organization that exists because "god".
I'd posit that almost all religious people are of their faith because their parents were of that faith. Then it's turtles all the way up.
It's always the loudest few. I've read takes from conservatives in favor of BLM, racial justice, queer rights, etc from conservative principles. The "conservatives" who go feral over any queer representation in media or even discussing reparations probably don't represent the majority numerically, but the silence of the rest (probably out of fear) makes it hard to say they aren't, essentially, representatives.
I try to do right from my "side," but sometimes it's scary when popular checkmarked people on Twitter call for genocides of "red" states, where I happen to live, to thunderous applause.
I try to do right from my "side," but sometimes it's scary when popular checkmarked people on Twitter call for genocides of "red" states, where I happen to live, to thunderous applause.
I personally am entirely fine with queer people (some of my closest relatives and friends are queer), I think that racism is wrong due to many reasons, and certainly I'm totally fine with immigrants because this is how America came to be and later became great.
What I see as troubling is the "cancel culture", the force of the righteous mob. I believe that a society with more justice and grace than we have now can be built entirely without it, and that the intolerant fighters for inclusion and tolerance make the prospects of building such a society weaker.
You can't force people to be just, loving, and caring. You can force them feign that, but I suppose you very well understand how fraught such a society would be. There is a number of historical examples, all sad.
What I see as troubling is the "cancel culture", the force of the righteous mob. I believe that a society with more justice and grace than we have now can be built entirely without it, and that the intolerant fighters for inclusion and tolerance make the prospects of building such a society weaker.
You can't force people to be just, loving, and caring. You can force them feign that, but I suppose you very well understand how fraught such a society would be. There is a number of historical examples, all sad.
At the risk of self-promotion, I found some cause for empathy for the crusader types when writing about the subject:
"They’re mostly people whose elders, the people who might guide them to a fierce but strategic advocacy, were murdered by police or mob violence, thrown in prison for bullshit reasons, or allowed to die in a plague. If you can bring empathy for the guy who got fired from Google for circulating a paper that made his colleagues uncomfortable, you can bring it for people who are dealing with a strange world with no one to talk to who gets what they’re going through."
https://viewfinderfox.com/history-is-canceled/
This is the part where I'd anticipate a crusader type accusing me of infantalizing people if I were on Twitter. I don't think it's entirely people who have no guidance + people taking up their cause (often without asking), but I think it's a large part of it. Some of it, maybe most of it, is Well-Meaning Allies causing a lot of noise while not listening to the people they're trying to help. I had a cis woman on Twitter lecture me on nonbinary identity because she didn't realize I was describing my own experience. I think that type is what most people get annoyed at, and sometimes their anger/fear has splash damage on people who didn't ask for that help.
"They’re mostly people whose elders, the people who might guide them to a fierce but strategic advocacy, were murdered by police or mob violence, thrown in prison for bullshit reasons, or allowed to die in a plague. If you can bring empathy for the guy who got fired from Google for circulating a paper that made his colleagues uncomfortable, you can bring it for people who are dealing with a strange world with no one to talk to who gets what they’re going through."
https://viewfinderfox.com/history-is-canceled/
This is the part where I'd anticipate a crusader type accusing me of infantalizing people if I were on Twitter. I don't think it's entirely people who have no guidance + people taking up their cause (often without asking), but I think it's a large part of it. Some of it, maybe most of it, is Well-Meaning Allies causing a lot of noise while not listening to the people they're trying to help. I had a cis woman on Twitter lecture me on nonbinary identity because she didn't realize I was describing my own experience. I think that type is what most people get annoyed at, and sometimes their anger/fear has splash damage on people who didn't ask for that help.
Indeed. The fury of revenge is totally understandable, but also not very constructive; it did a lot of sad things throughout history.
The founders of great spiritual movements, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, all warned against revenge and called for forgiveness (even though Quran calls more to the due process and justice while gospels call to radical forgiveness). This is easy to understand rationally: a society with a lot of revenge keeps killing itself and keeps nurturing cruelty. Such societies tend to not survive for long.
I'm very sorry for all the Black, queer, Jewish, Arabian, East Asian, etc people who were victims of bitter oppression. I adore those of them who struggle for justice, cessation of oppression, peace, and reconciliation with the rest of the society. But I would not join those of them who strive for a war and a revenge.
Fighting against a powerful enemy, it's important to be watchful and not become the enemy's mirror image. I hope the people among them who possess more wisdom and compassion will eventually help most of them choose a better path.
The founders of great spiritual movements, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, all warned against revenge and called for forgiveness (even though Quran calls more to the due process and justice while gospels call to radical forgiveness). This is easy to understand rationally: a society with a lot of revenge keeps killing itself and keeps nurturing cruelty. Such societies tend to not survive for long.
I'm very sorry for all the Black, queer, Jewish, Arabian, East Asian, etc people who were victims of bitter oppression. I adore those of them who struggle for justice, cessation of oppression, peace, and reconciliation with the rest of the society. But I would not join those of them who strive for a war and a revenge.
Fighting against a powerful enemy, it's important to be watchful and not become the enemy's mirror image. I hope the people among them who possess more wisdom and compassion will eventually help most of them choose a better path.
Who do you think is fighting for war and revenge?
The OP is referring to issus which are faced by LGBTQI rights advocacy. Who do you think they're waging war on? How many people has radical gay rights murdered recently?
The OP is referring to issus which are faced by LGBTQI rights advocacy. Who do you think they're waging war on? How many people has radical gay rights murdered recently?
Fortunately, LGBTQ struggle is mostly avoids destruction and wounds from either side. Unfortunately, mass street protests very often do not. Even if every participant of such a protest had a very good reason to feel infuriated and destroyed stuff because of that, I say that it's not good for them, it's corrupting them. AFAIK Rosa Parks didn't break a single window.
The lure to use the fury of the crowd gathered for a just cause is always strong for their leaders. Holding this fury back and not allowing it to turn the gathering into a riot is always hard work for those leaders who strive for a non-agressive way to protest.
Same applies online.
The lure to use the fury of the crowd gathered for a just cause is always strong for their leaders. Holding this fury back and not allowing it to turn the gathering into a riot is always hard work for those leaders who strive for a non-agressive way to protest.
Same applies online.
Perhaps you can name some people who fell victim to "cancel culture" who weren't utterly despicable people. Cancel culture is an utterance that seems to lack a singular clear definition.
When someone tells others to vote with their wallets against something that is contrary to their own interests if a conservative is effected by people's free choice not to associate with him we are told its "cancel culture" likewise when someone hires someone nearly entirely for their image then no longer desires to be associated with their former hire's flagging popularity which is flagging precisely because of their own bad behavior.
When someone tells others to vote with their wallets against something that is contrary to their own interests if a conservative is effected by people's free choice not to associate with him we are told its "cancel culture" likewise when someone hires someone nearly entirely for their image then no longer desires to be associated with their former hire's flagging popularity which is flagging precisely because of their own bad behavior.
J.K. Rowling.
She seems to have survived the cancel mob, but not for lack of trying on their part.
You could imagine how someone with less clout than her wouldn't have fared as well.
She seems to have survived the cancel mob, but not for lack of trying on their part.
You could imagine how someone with less clout than her wouldn't have fared as well.
In a long winded fashion what she said could reasonably be interpreted as trans women aren't women. While she doesn't support discrimination against people on the basis of being trans she is promoting the same thought process that is pervasively used by individuals justifying discriminating against trans people.
Imagine if someone said its totally wrong to put Jewish people in camps, after all they deserve the same rights as you and I, but maybe they really did cause us to lose WWI...
There are people who really are just mistaken and then there are others who are weaponizing this strategy to minimize their obvious racism.
I think she is merely incorrect not malicious but the reaction is easy to understand and it absolutely has to do with the size of her megaphone not just what she said. Someone who wasn't the world famous author of Harry Potter just wouldn't have got the same reaction in the first place.
JK rowling has a billion dollars and a bright future despite the reaction to her views. Can you give me an example of some people who have actually and in fact been canceled?
Protecting billionaires from people saying mean things about them on twitter doesn't seem like a worthy cause.
Imagine if someone said its totally wrong to put Jewish people in camps, after all they deserve the same rights as you and I, but maybe they really did cause us to lose WWI...
There are people who really are just mistaken and then there are others who are weaponizing this strategy to minimize their obvious racism.
I think she is merely incorrect not malicious but the reaction is easy to understand and it absolutely has to do with the size of her megaphone not just what she said. Someone who wasn't the world famous author of Harry Potter just wouldn't have got the same reaction in the first place.
JK rowling has a billion dollars and a bright future despite the reaction to her views. Can you give me an example of some people who have actually and in fact been canceled?
Protecting billionaires from people saying mean things about them on twitter doesn't seem like a worthy cause.
"In a long winded fashion what she said could reasonably be interpreted as trans women aren't women."
Isn't that a fair question to be asking and within the realm of scientific plausibility?
The frenzied cancel mob attacking her on Twitter was frankly insane. The fact that you need to be a billionaire to survive that and speak (or earnestly question) the truth is not good.
This is not even close to all she said on the topic. I think the biggest issue is her She support of an unapologetic bigot Maya Forstater but that is neither the beginning nor the end of her commentary on the topic and she ended up with her foot firmly planted in her own mouth. She not trans activists is the cause of her own discontent.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/j-k-rowling-s-maya-for...
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/j-k-rowling-s-maya-for...
I skimmed the article. Is the issue that JK Rowling thinks the terms men and women should refer to sex and not gender? That seems to be the basis for her tweet in support of Maya. Isn't this a widely held view in the general population? I mean, she's neither right nor wrong. Man/woman can refer to either sex or gender depending on the context, and appreciating that is in line with reality.
I think JK Rowling's main point is that trans activists conflate sex and gender and this creates unfair outcomes in areas like sports, not to mention there's a deeply anti-science bent to it (for example denying that trans women have any biological advantages).
For being one of the few cultural mainstream voices speaking against those aspects in particular, despite the vitriol she receives, I think she's brave and I appreciate that.
I think JK Rowling's main point is that trans activists conflate sex and gender and this creates unfair outcomes in areas like sports, not to mention there's a deeply anti-science bent to it (for example denying that trans women have any biological advantages).
For being one of the few cultural mainstream voices speaking against those aspects in particular, despite the vitriol she receives, I think she's brave and I appreciate that.
Some people, not so much you, but people in general who are uncomfortable with the larger sexual identity issues prefer to focus on the woman's sport's angle because its comfortingly simple and avoids the things that make people uncomfortable.
Maya didn't have her contract renewed because she said things like the senior director of Credit Suisse was "a man who likes to express himself part of the week by wearing a dress"
Not for advocating for fairness in woman's sports.
To be clear as far as athletics. Trans people make up 0.5% of the population. The female->male portion is most apt to experience on average a measurable disadvantage while the male->female portion if they start hormones when it is medically advisable to do so wont experience the same clear average advantage as a male athlete who simply declared himself a female one day and switched teams.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-women-retain-a...
From the British Journal of Sports Medicine
> “For the Olympic level, the elite level, I'd say probably two years is more realistic than one year,” said the study's lead author, Dr. Timothy Roberts, a pediatrician and the director of the adolescent medicine training program at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri. “At one year, the trans women on average still have an advantage over the cis women," he said, referring to cisgender, or nontransgender, women.
> For the first two years after starting hormones, the trans women in their review were able to do 10 percent more pushups and 6 percent more situps than their cisgender female counterparts. After two years, Roberts told NBC News, “they were fairly equivalent to the cisgender women.”
It's a tempest in a teapot. All things being equal you are likely to end up with a small percentage of woman's athletics being trans women and nothing else changes. This is especially true of school athletics which are after all supposed to be for the betterment of the student body as opposed to for objective success.
Maya didn't have her contract renewed because she said things like the senior director of Credit Suisse was "a man who likes to express himself part of the week by wearing a dress"
Not for advocating for fairness in woman's sports.
To be clear as far as athletics. Trans people make up 0.5% of the population. The female->male portion is most apt to experience on average a measurable disadvantage while the male->female portion if they start hormones when it is medically advisable to do so wont experience the same clear average advantage as a male athlete who simply declared himself a female one day and switched teams.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-women-retain-a...
From the British Journal of Sports Medicine
> “For the Olympic level, the elite level, I'd say probably two years is more realistic than one year,” said the study's lead author, Dr. Timothy Roberts, a pediatrician and the director of the adolescent medicine training program at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri. “At one year, the trans women on average still have an advantage over the cis women," he said, referring to cisgender, or nontransgender, women.
> For the first two years after starting hormones, the trans women in their review were able to do 10 percent more pushups and 6 percent more situps than their cisgender female counterparts. After two years, Roberts told NBC News, “they were fairly equivalent to the cisgender women.”
It's a tempest in a teapot. All things being equal you are likely to end up with a small percentage of woman's athletics being trans women and nothing else changes. This is especially true of school athletics which are after all supposed to be for the betterment of the student body as opposed to for objective success.
The science of women's sports performance is more complex than that. For a more complete explanation I recommend listening to this episode of The Real Science of Sport podcast.
https://play.acast.com/s/f3fb5c75-b943-4f5d-bd87-27c91611dd2...
https://play.acast.com/s/f3fb5c75-b943-4f5d-bd87-27c91611dd2...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Believing "trans women aren't women" isn't "despicable", it's what everyone believed only 50 years ago, and what most people alive still believe. It's not even despicable if they were a minority.
The only reason the phrase TWAW exists is as an ideological counter to "trans women are men". They're really not either one, and saying trans women are women, full stop, is just an indefensible position.
The only reason the phrase TWAW exists is as an ideological counter to "trans women are men". They're really not either one, and saying trans women are women, full stop, is just an indefensible position.
You got your example. Do you agree that she should get hate for proposing her position?
She deserved strong negative feedback on that issues. Given same she doubled down. If you believe trans rights are important then its perfectly logical for example to boycott her books/movies. Which is to say she deserved to be canceled. By which I mean people simply vote with their wallets not to give her any more money. This doesn't infringe on her rights to live her life as she chooses she will just have to do so with less of other people's money.
This is fundamentally a different question from should someone hate her or say hateful things to her. Anything that stirs up strong emotions and reaches millions will result in both reasonable dialogue and insane screeching. The people who reasonably disagree with her can't do anything about the nutjobs nor are they responsible for same.
This is fundamentally a different question from should someone hate her or say hateful things to her. Anything that stirs up strong emotions and reaches millions will result in both reasonable dialogue and insane screeching. The people who reasonably disagree with her can't do anything about the nutjobs nor are they responsible for same.
> Which is to say she deserved to be canceled
I disagree, because she doesn't want to strip anyone of any rights. I think people scolding others on these issues could seriously profit from a bit of headwind.
If you cannot be convinced to let people have their standpoints, I am for canceling you. Believe me, I would not enjoy it like you do.
I disagree, because she doesn't want to strip anyone of any rights. I think people scolding others on these issues could seriously profit from a bit of headwind.
If you cannot be convinced to let people have their standpoints, I am for canceling you. Believe me, I would not enjoy it like you do.
I'd be remiss if I didn't speak up against this sub-thread. I mostly lurk here...but as you can see from my short post history...there was a point in 2019 when I didn't understand what was so wrong -- and SO dehumanizing -- about JK Rowling's actions.
I now see them for the attacks that they are.
Unfortunately...it took overcoming my repression, a lot of soul searching, and a lot of educating myself about all manner of topics in orbit of trans people.
I'm proud to say I'm a trans woman. J.K. Rowling and her hate-mob would like to see a genocide of anyone like me.
If you're earnestly interested in learning more, here's a recent-and-relevant video essay on just that topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ2s_bjMpZY
PLEASE do not be another hate-mob to her, because after all, that's what we're all proclaiming our disgust with in this thread.
I truly wish everyone reading this could see it from my perspective...and I wouldn't wish --on anyone-- the suffering that entails.
Ignorance may well be bliss, but if things had stayed the same, I'd be hating who I turned into. ♥
Edit: Ooh, and for those earnestly edifying themselves, explore "Falsehoods about Gender 1 + 2", found here: https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood#human-identit... -- I think you'll find out the edge cases are far greater in scope than we (even yours truly, previously) presume.
I now see them for the attacks that they are.
Unfortunately...it took overcoming my repression, a lot of soul searching, and a lot of educating myself about all manner of topics in orbit of trans people.
I'm proud to say I'm a trans woman. J.K. Rowling and her hate-mob would like to see a genocide of anyone like me.
If you're earnestly interested in learning more, here's a recent-and-relevant video essay on just that topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ2s_bjMpZY
PLEASE do not be another hate-mob to her, because after all, that's what we're all proclaiming our disgust with in this thread.
I truly wish everyone reading this could see it from my perspective...and I wouldn't wish --on anyone-- the suffering that entails.
Ignorance may well be bliss, but if things had stayed the same, I'd be hating who I turned into. ♥
Edit: Ooh, and for those earnestly edifying themselves, explore "Falsehoods about Gender 1 + 2", found here: https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood#human-identit... -- I think you'll find out the edge cases are far greater in scope than we (even yours truly, previously) presume.
Her opposition to trans rights is enough to term her despicable, her blatant and repeated use of racial, ethnic, and cultural stereotypes in her body if work is also rather bad.
I want to explore a hypothetical to understand your perspective a bit better.
Let's say the only thing she said on the topic was that she thought trans women shouldn't be allowed in competitive women sports because they probably have a biological advantage over non-trans women, or at least that there's insufficient evidence that they do not.
Would this be enough to justify the label of "despicable" in your mind?
Let's say the only thing she said on the topic was that she thought trans women shouldn't be allowed in competitive women sports because they probably have a biological advantage over non-trans women, or at least that there's insufficient evidence that they do not.
Would this be enough to justify the label of "despicable" in your mind?
No, it's not. But that's a pretty ridiculous hypothetical, very few people who aren't actually transphobic care so much and spend so much time griping about such a miniscule issue.
You keep saying this but that isn't close to the only thing she said on the topic nor was it the genesis of any of the drama surrounding the issue. If you haven't read more on the issue it purely down to ignorance but if you have its not an honest portrayal of the issues.
No, in the first sentence I clearly stated that it was a hypothetical. I wanted to see if that particular subset of what she has said is enough to classify her as "despicable".
> Perhaps you can name some people who fell victim to "cancel culture" who weren't utterly despicable people.
Off the top of my head: Scott Aaronson, Scott Alexander, Richard Stallman, Eric S Raymond. I could list more if I could be bothered to research it.
Off the top of my head: Scott Aaronson, Scott Alexander, Richard Stallman, Eric S Raymond. I could list more if I could be bothered to research it.
Thank you those are some reasonable examples. So in your opinion how do we separate the notion of pulling down legitimate bad apple's and trying to punish thought crime.
Dixie Chicks
They wont call it cancel culture because they were "canceled" by conservatives. Although they experienced substantial fall out for not supporting the Iraq War a move that now looks prescient they ultimately recovered.
They did a world tour in 2016 that sold out stadiums then did the Country Music Awards. In 2019 they released a new album and reportedly sold 33 million albums.
They did a world tour in 2016 that sold out stadiums then did the Country Music Awards. In 2019 they released a new album and reportedly sold 33 million albums.
Also the idea that "cancel culture" is even a left-wing thing is laughable.
There is not a week that goes by that a conservative group of some stripe is not calling for the boycott of something or someone. There hasn't been a year that has gone by that this is not the case - anyone who grew up in the 90s would remember that this was generically video games in response to every social issue, then specific developers, before that it was comic books. For some reason in the 80s it was the imagined cabal's of Satan worshipers and the very real lives which were ruined by it in an actual way (they went to jail).
There is not a week that goes by that a conservative group of some stripe is not calling for the boycott of something or someone. There hasn't been a year that has gone by that this is not the case - anyone who grew up in the 90s would remember that this was generically video games in response to every social issue, then specific developers, before that it was comic books. For some reason in the 80s it was the imagined cabal's of Satan worshipers and the very real lives which were ruined by it in an actual way (they went to jail).
Historically that is undoubtedly correct. Doesn't mean you should repeat that mistake for your own party.
Anyone remember Milo Yiannapolous?
Milo in 2018
"I can't wait for vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight"
2 days later when 5 are killed at the Capitol Gazette
"jk"
Then there was the article he wrote ""Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy" where he argued that the pill made women fat crazy and promiscuous and then declared his birthday "World Patriarchy Day"
Then the time he said that being gay was "a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring pain and unhappiness." Just reroll as hetrosexual folks!
Then there was the time he said it was OK for sexually mature 13 year olds to have sex with adults then claimed being the victim of sexual abuse made him say it. He also said abuse victims were "whinging selfish brats" for "suddenly" remembering they were abused, and "suddenly" deciding it was a problem, 20 years after the abuse occurred.
How about the fact that he used his tenure at Breitbart to court white supremacists and promote their views.
He was canceled in fact by none other than Breitbart not for this of course but for the pedophile comments which was apparently a bridge too far.
Is this an example "cancel culture" gone too far?
"I can't wait for vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight"
2 days later when 5 are killed at the Capitol Gazette
"jk"
Then there was the article he wrote ""Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy" where he argued that the pill made women fat crazy and promiscuous and then declared his birthday "World Patriarchy Day"
Then the time he said that being gay was "a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring pain and unhappiness." Just reroll as hetrosexual folks!
Then there was the time he said it was OK for sexually mature 13 year olds to have sex with adults then claimed being the victim of sexual abuse made him say it. He also said abuse victims were "whinging selfish brats" for "suddenly" remembering they were abused, and "suddenly" deciding it was a problem, 20 years after the abuse occurred.
How about the fact that he used his tenure at Breitbart to court white supremacists and promote their views.
He was canceled in fact by none other than Breitbart not for this of course but for the pedophile comments which was apparently a bridge too far.
Is this an example "cancel culture" gone too far?
>where he argued that the pill made women fat crazy and promiscuous
I'm not aware of psychological side effects, but weight gain while taking the most common form of birth control pills is expected and normal. At least that's what the doctor told my wife and I.
Milo was basically a professional troll though. His banning was inevitable.
I'm not aware of psychological side effects, but weight gain while taking the most common form of birth control pills is expected and normal. At least that's what the doctor told my wife and I.
Milo was basically a professional troll though. His banning was inevitable.
He's not merely a professional troll he's a dishonest, hostile, malicious person who has made the world a worse place by being born into it.
No offense intended, but people like you fed the troll. He obviously didn't believe a damn thing he wrote. You made him everything he became. Also, I would argue that every single person born into this world has made it a worse place. Where man stands, he leaves damage.
Well, he obviously knew where to poke. I think his banning was an overreaction. People could have opted no to listen to him. But he knew what sentiment was moving people, therefore he had quite a following.
I was mostly just referencing him being famously cancelled by the right....
give up the "side" and the labels like "conservatives" and "red states". those are cognitive traps.
you'll never be able to reconcile all the beliefs of a "side" with your own, or another side with your "opponents", so are relegated to either paralysis by cognitive dissonance or selective rationality.
most people are generally decent and most people have some odd beliefs and proclivities. that's just life. it's not reducible to some "sides", much less two sides, no matter what the dominant mediopolitical narratives want you to believe.
two sides are chosen by tribal groups like political parties because it simplifies the quest for power. 2 is the lowest common denominator of power, and it's chosen exactly to simplify choices, and neatly bypass the inherent frictions of nuance and humanity. it's done for power, not to realistically represent the world or to cleanly align with your beliefs. instead, each side exerts pressure on you to conform to it (that is, coalescing its own power). in exchange, you get little random hits of dopamine, which is oddly as lopsided as it is surprisingly effective.
you'll never be able to reconcile all the beliefs of a "side" with your own, or another side with your "opponents", so are relegated to either paralysis by cognitive dissonance or selective rationality.
most people are generally decent and most people have some odd beliefs and proclivities. that's just life. it's not reducible to some "sides", much less two sides, no matter what the dominant mediopolitical narratives want you to believe.
two sides are chosen by tribal groups like political parties because it simplifies the quest for power. 2 is the lowest common denominator of power, and it's chosen exactly to simplify choices, and neatly bypass the inherent frictions of nuance and humanity. it's done for power, not to realistically represent the world or to cleanly align with your beliefs. instead, each side exerts pressure on you to conform to it (that is, coalescing its own power). in exchange, you get little random hits of dopamine, which is oddly as lopsided as it is surprisingly effective.
It's not the political parties. They're as much victims of this as the rest of us [0].
It's social media, optimising for "engagement". The most engaging content is not the normal, run-of-the-mill commentary from normal people with normal opinions. It's the far-out nut-job stuff that makes you mad. So that's what get prioritised in your feed.
I signed off of Twitter and was able to completely ignore it while being publicly abused on it. I've recently uninstalled Facebook and my rage at the culture wars has subsided noticeably. Now it's just Imgur and HN that spark this. I'm working on getting off here too (unsuccessfully).
The vast majority of people (I think, I have no proof) are not zealots for the cause (any cause). But the self-censorship effect of our society-wide Purity Spiral[1] means that we never hear from them. We hear the worst, most deranged, opinions out there first because human psychology isn't suited to this kind of situation.
I think the answer is to stop optimising for engagement, because we can't hack human psychology.
[0] I can't find it now, but there is a blog post out there explaining how politicians are getting hurt by the increasing extremism. The need to be more extreme than your rivals in your gerrymandered district where any sign of "weakness" or ambiguity can be taken advantage of on social media isn't good for politicians either.
[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Purity%20Spi...
It's social media, optimising for "engagement". The most engaging content is not the normal, run-of-the-mill commentary from normal people with normal opinions. It's the far-out nut-job stuff that makes you mad. So that's what get prioritised in your feed.
I signed off of Twitter and was able to completely ignore it while being publicly abused on it. I've recently uninstalled Facebook and my rage at the culture wars has subsided noticeably. Now it's just Imgur and HN that spark this. I'm working on getting off here too (unsuccessfully).
The vast majority of people (I think, I have no proof) are not zealots for the cause (any cause). But the self-censorship effect of our society-wide Purity Spiral[1] means that we never hear from them. We hear the worst, most deranged, opinions out there first because human psychology isn't suited to this kind of situation.
I think the answer is to stop optimising for engagement, because we can't hack human psychology.
[0] I can't find it now, but there is a blog post out there explaining how politicians are getting hurt by the increasing extremism. The need to be more extreme than your rivals in your gerrymandered district where any sign of "weakness" or ambiguity can be taken advantage of on social media isn't good for politicians either.
[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Purity%20Spi...
i’m sorry, no, political parties are not victims insofar as they were unaware of those dynamics. political parties aim to amass power and if that requires becoming more extreme, so be it, in the logic of the party in-group, no matter how they lament outwardly.
social media does distort towards the extremes but that’s marginal, only flattening the distribution of opinions, not fundamentally changing the distribution’s shape. the real problem is the mediopolitical machine amplifying certain of those opinions and ignoring others in service of its own pursuit of power.
social media does distort towards the extremes but that’s marginal, only flattening the distribution of opinions, not fundamentally changing the distribution’s shape. the real problem is the mediopolitical machine amplifying certain of those opinions and ignoring others in service of its own pursuit of power.
[deleted]
michaelmrose(1)
I think religion is a poor analogy, because except in a few extreme cases like Iran, religion doesn't seek to create a totalitarian framework for every personal thought or action. And I don't view the Iranian revolution as much as a religious revival as a movement in the sense that a totalitarian movement must stay "in motion". The motion is the point. The revolution carries on, eating its own.
To me as a liberal it took a long time to realize that "wokism" has no fixed goal; it's more like a millenarian cult or a utopian movement that is willing to constantly redefine language in the service of forever one-upping its own followers. The winner is whoever can create the most visceral mob anger at last month's winner. It survives without an articulable final goal precisely because each iteration of the dogma pushes the last under a bus. Power comes from staying ahead of the permanent motion of the movement, an impossible task.
Similar phenomena can be observed in right wing movements, of course. But the far right is open about its hate, so anyone who demures can ultimately fall back on personal conscience. The far left uses love, not hate, as the grindstone for its acolytes. Thus any dissent leaves the dissenter questioning whether she was insufficiently loving. This kind of "love", detached from its real world object or any true objective, used as a measure of fealty, is one of the key hallmarks of totalitarianism, because it requires absolute obeisance in thought and action, while totally atomizing each member of the community into a fearful, self-censoring follower of whoever claims the mantle of radicalism and motion today.
To me as a liberal it took a long time to realize that "wokism" has no fixed goal; it's more like a millenarian cult or a utopian movement that is willing to constantly redefine language in the service of forever one-upping its own followers. The winner is whoever can create the most visceral mob anger at last month's winner. It survives without an articulable final goal precisely because each iteration of the dogma pushes the last under a bus. Power comes from staying ahead of the permanent motion of the movement, an impossible task.
Similar phenomena can be observed in right wing movements, of course. But the far right is open about its hate, so anyone who demures can ultimately fall back on personal conscience. The far left uses love, not hate, as the grindstone for its acolytes. Thus any dissent leaves the dissenter questioning whether she was insufficiently loving. This kind of "love", detached from its real world object or any true objective, used as a measure of fealty, is one of the key hallmarks of totalitarianism, because it requires absolute obeisance in thought and action, while totally atomizing each member of the community into a fearful, self-censoring follower of whoever claims the mantle of radicalism and motion today.
> I think religion is a poor analogy, because except in a few extreme cases like Iran, religion doesn't seek to create a totalitarian framework for every personal thought or action.
Sure, now tell that joke to Giordano Bruno.
The left and the right today share so many traits with how religions operate that it freaks me out.
Sure, now tell that joke to Giordano Bruno.
The left and the right today share so many traits with how religions operate that it freaks me out.
The point wasn't to excuse any facets of religion, simply to point out that there are stronger similarities in operational tactics to totalitarian movements than there are to garden-variety religious organizations, which in the modern age tend to calcify around dogma rather than act as engines of motion via constant revolutionary purges.
When I worked at a FAANG, anti-censorship and pro free speech was normative. What happened? Why have we let a small number of intolerant activists scare us into silence?
Read https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideol.... Then read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch... for what happened when a Google engineer wrote that.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Damore, he was engaged in free speech. What he said is supported by a significant body of research and researchers. (And opposed by others - as it often the case on controversial topics.)
And yet, he was fired and made an example of. Anyone who publicly says that he had a point got shot down both within companies like Google, and on various discussion forums like this one.
I don't know how or when we lost tolerance for free speech, both as an industry and as a society. But the Damore incident is when I realized that we have.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Damore, he was engaged in free speech. What he said is supported by a significant body of research and researchers. (And opposed by others - as it often the case on controversial topics.)
And yet, he was fired and made an example of. Anyone who publicly says that he had a point got shot down both within companies like Google, and on various discussion forums like this one.
I don't know how or when we lost tolerance for free speech, both as an industry and as a society. But the Damore incident is when I realized that we have.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all the people doing the canceling are right and all the people being canceled are wrong.
Cancel culture will make racism and sexism worse. Even the most well-intentioned will fail to learn when they are afraid of expressing the wrong answer.
Try to teach someone mathematics where every time they get the wrong answer, they get shocked. Not a good learning environment.
And that's exactly what we have now. Repeat a few buzzwords and you are safe. But when problems manifest in a new way, you won't be able to understand or correct them because you don't really understand.
Being wrong is part of the path to being right. If you are cancelled for being wrong, you'll never be right. You'll just have to be quiet.
Cancel culture will make racism and sexism worse. Even the most well-intentioned will fail to learn when they are afraid of expressing the wrong answer.
Try to teach someone mathematics where every time they get the wrong answer, they get shocked. Not a good learning environment.
And that's exactly what we have now. Repeat a few buzzwords and you are safe. But when problems manifest in a new way, you won't be able to understand or correct them because you don't really understand.
Being wrong is part of the path to being right. If you are cancelled for being wrong, you'll never be right. You'll just have to be quiet.
> Being wrong is part of the path to being right. If you are cancelled for being wrong, you'll never be right. You'll just have to be quiet.
Well put.
Well put.
That isn’t the big issue. The big issue is that people think/act like they are always right. That is a close minded attitude that doesn’t lead to learning.
Furthermore people are actually acting tribally. They cancel people on the other side for the same behavior that they are ignoring from people on their side.
Furthermore people are actually acting tribally. They cancel people on the other side for the same behavior that they are ignoring from people on their side.
Even more interesting exercise.
Let's assume - for the sake of the argument - scientists have managed to scientifically prove some unpopular theory. Pick your favorite one: working women do not benefit the society, some races are smarter on average than others or - god forbid - vaccines cause autism.
What's next? What are we going to do with these results?
P. S. And for those looking to reply "this cannot happen because it can never happen" - remember, this is just a mental exercise.
(EDIT)
> What are we going to do with these results?
Okay, now I know. We'll just downvote them.
Let's assume - for the sake of the argument - scientists have managed to scientifically prove some unpopular theory. Pick your favorite one: working women do not benefit the society, some races are smarter on average than others or - god forbid - vaccines cause autism.
What's next? What are we going to do with these results?
P. S. And for those looking to reply "this cannot happen because it can never happen" - remember, this is just a mental exercise.
(EDIT)
> What are we going to do with these results?
Okay, now I know. We'll just downvote them.
But we had just that... we had scientists and doctors telling us just last year (at the beginning of "the plague") that masks are useless for healthy people, and that they even present a higher risk to wearers, because they touch the mask and their face more.
And then, one random saturday (in my country atleast), masks became mandatory, along with gloves to enter the stores. Some media outlets have even removed the previous newsstories (not edit and say "whoops, now we know better", but remove completely), and everybody acts as if that didn't happen.
Same with trump + wuhan lab theory... at first it was a bannable offence on facebook to promote such idea... and now after trump, there are serious inquiries if that really happened, and we're allowed to discuss this again.
Basically, whoever is in charge (government, media platform, moderator,...) will moderate, censor and ban, until the preferable (for them) reality is set.
And then, one random saturday (in my country atleast), masks became mandatory, along with gloves to enter the stores. Some media outlets have even removed the previous newsstories (not edit and say "whoops, now we know better", but remove completely), and everybody acts as if that didn't happen.
Same with trump + wuhan lab theory... at first it was a bannable offence on facebook to promote such idea... and now after trump, there are serious inquiries if that really happened, and we're allowed to discuss this again.
Basically, whoever is in charge (government, media platform, moderator,...) will moderate, censor and ban, until the preferable (for them) reality is set.
Masks reduce the spread of respiratory diseases in hospitals. People have known this for more than a century. Many tests have confirmed it for many different diseases. Masks also work outside of hospitals. Sars-cov-2 spreads like other common respiratory diseases. Therefore, masks reduce the spread of sars-cov-2.
We see this in data. Washington [0], Vermont [1], and Maine [2] all got mask mandates last summer. These states have had half the number of cases [3] as other northern-US states which waited many more months before requiring their citizens to wear masks in public indoor spaces.
[0] https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-announces-stat...
[1] https://vtdigger.org/2020/07/24/scott-orders-mask-mandate/
[2] https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/health/coronavi...
[3] https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areasRegional=uswa&area...
We see this in data. Washington [0], Vermont [1], and Maine [2] all got mask mandates last summer. These states have had half the number of cases [3] as other northern-US states which waited many more months before requiring their citizens to wear masks in public indoor spaces.
[0] https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-announces-stat...
[1] https://vtdigger.org/2020/07/24/scott-orders-mask-mandate/
[2] https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/health/coronavi...
[3] https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areasRegional=uswa&area...
I'm not talking about what happened after.. I'm talking about WHO literally not recommending to wear masks unless you're sick or caring for someone sick.
Back then, people who were wearking masks were marked as "stupid conspiracy theorists" and fearmongerers. Then, suddenly the mask mandates came in, and people not wearing the masks were "stupid conspiracy theorists".
example still online: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-mas...
> "There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday.
Back then, people who were wearking masks were marked as "stupid conspiracy theorists" and fearmongerers. Then, suddenly the mask mandates came in, and people not wearing the masks were "stupid conspiracy theorists".
example still online: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-mas...
> "There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday.
> But we had just that... we had scientists and doctors telling us just last year (at the beginning of "the plague") that masks are useless for healthy people, and that they even present a higher risk to wearers, because they touch the mask and their face more.
> And then, one random saturday (in my country atleast), masks became mandatory, along with gloves to enter the stores. Some media outlets have even removed the previous newsstories (not edit and say "whoops, now we know better", but remove completely), and everybody acts as if that didn't happen.
sigh
There are nuances for that. First, there weren't enough masks and other PPE for medical personnel; second, there was already hoarding going on. Making masks mandatory at the beginning would have been disastrous and likely resulted in the deaths of many medical personnel, who were among the main limits of how many cases a country can take.
Then, you're missing a big difference between the initial "don't use masks" and later "everyone should mask up" guidances. The initial one was that you shouldn't wear a mask to protect yourself because untrained people were unlikely to wear them properly and would just touch themselves too much, thus wasting the precious resource. And of course, there was little certainty about how the virus spread and when ( do you spread it only when you have symptoms? do you spread it only if you have a positive test? )
The later one was due to knowing much better how the virus propagates, we can now conclude that wearing a mask stops people from spreading it, so everybody should wear a mask to stop community spread. There's a huge difference between wearing a mask to protect yourself from getting infected, and to stop unknowing sick people from spreading the virus via the main way it spreads. And of course, when that came about, there were just about enough masks in most countries to actually be able to do that.
Yes, it should have been handled better. Is it normal for such guidance to evolve considering the many known and unknown unknowns ? Absofuckinglutely. Would you have prefered for the guidance to stay the same for fear of looking stupid and wasting countless more lives?
> Same with trump + wuhan lab theory... at first it was a bannable offence on facebook to promote such idea... and now after trump, there are serious inquiries if that really happened, and we're allowed to discuss this again.
Again, nuance! What was bannable was claiming that China developed the virus on purpose. The lighter versions, like accidental lab leak, weren't banned ( that i recall; if you have a source stating otherwise i'd gladly retract that statement). In any case, any such discussion in the beginning seemed, to me at least, as deflections and excuses. We suck at handling a pandemic compared to just about anyone, but it's not our fault, China made this! What does it matter where the virus came from when people are dying left and right from it? Now that things are calmer, we can discuss and investigate.
There is still zero proof on the matter, and i doubt there ever will be ( as if the CCP would admit a lab leak in China caused a pandemic with such proportions and consequences).
sigh
There are nuances for that. First, there weren't enough masks and other PPE for medical personnel; second, there was already hoarding going on. Making masks mandatory at the beginning would have been disastrous and likely resulted in the deaths of many medical personnel, who were among the main limits of how many cases a country can take.
Then, you're missing a big difference between the initial "don't use masks" and later "everyone should mask up" guidances. The initial one was that you shouldn't wear a mask to protect yourself because untrained people were unlikely to wear them properly and would just touch themselves too much, thus wasting the precious resource. And of course, there was little certainty about how the virus spread and when ( do you spread it only when you have symptoms? do you spread it only if you have a positive test? )
The later one was due to knowing much better how the virus propagates, we can now conclude that wearing a mask stops people from spreading it, so everybody should wear a mask to stop community spread. There's a huge difference between wearing a mask to protect yourself from getting infected, and to stop unknowing sick people from spreading the virus via the main way it spreads. And of course, when that came about, there were just about enough masks in most countries to actually be able to do that.
Yes, it should have been handled better. Is it normal for such guidance to evolve considering the many known and unknown unknowns ? Absofuckinglutely. Would you have prefered for the guidance to stay the same for fear of looking stupid and wasting countless more lives?
> Same with trump + wuhan lab theory... at first it was a bannable offence on facebook to promote such idea... and now after trump, there are serious inquiries if that really happened, and we're allowed to discuss this again.
Again, nuance! What was bannable was claiming that China developed the virus on purpose. The lighter versions, like accidental lab leak, weren't banned ( that i recall; if you have a source stating otherwise i'd gladly retract that statement). In any case, any such discussion in the beginning seemed, to me at least, as deflections and excuses. We suck at handling a pandemic compared to just about anyone, but it's not our fault, China made this! What does it matter where the virus came from when people are dying left and right from it? Now that things are calmer, we can discuss and investigate.
There is still zero proof on the matter, and i doubt there ever will be ( as if the CCP would admit a lab leak in China caused a pandemic with such proportions and consequences).
> Wuhan Institute of Virology has collaborated with the Galveston National Laboratory in the United States, the Centre International de Recherche en Infectiologie in France, and the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada.
> In 2015, an international team including two scientists from the institute published successful research on a hybrid virus, combining a bat coronavirus with a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and mimic human disease. The hybrid virus was able to infect human cells.
I want to believe they had a good excuse for doing so.
I want to believe they created rigorous safety protocols that reduce the risks as much as possible.
Then they chose to do it in the most populous city in Central China (population 11 million) which is so stupid I doubt they had a good enough reason and certainly didn't bother with safety all that much.
After such stupidity one doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
[0] - List of laboratory biosecurity incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...
> In 2015, an international team including two scientists from the institute published successful research on a hybrid virus, combining a bat coronavirus with a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and mimic human disease. The hybrid virus was able to infect human cells.
I want to believe they had a good excuse for doing so.
I want to believe they created rigorous safety protocols that reduce the risks as much as possible.
Then they chose to do it in the most populous city in Central China (population 11 million) which is so stupid I doubt they had a good enough reason and certainly didn't bother with safety all that much.
After such stupidity one doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
[0] - List of laboratory biosecurity incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...
No, they literally said there is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-mas...
Yes, there was a shortage, but "no evidence ... any potential benefit" means something different.
About facebook:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-...
> Facebook is keen to ensure that a change in one rule doesn’t lead to a free-for-all for Covid misinformation. On the same day that it lifted the ban on lab-leak theories, it tightened up restrictions on users who “repeatedly share misinformation on Facebook”.
Guardian says it they also banned the "lab-leak" theories... (not to mention the second part of the quote).
Those are just two examples. Vaccine passports were also a "conspiracy theory". AstraZeneca was also marked as "perfectly safe" (and not "probably safe"), until they started ditching it everywhere.
And I'm not complaining about science changing after more data is revealed/processed (that is a normal part of science), I'm complaining about people getting banned one day for saying something, and then that something being accepted as reality the next day, and companies like facebook removing the bannable offence and saying "we will ban more people" in the same sentance.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-mas...
Yes, there was a shortage, but "no evidence ... any potential benefit" means something different.
About facebook:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-...
> Facebook is keen to ensure that a change in one rule doesn’t lead to a free-for-all for Covid misinformation. On the same day that it lifted the ban on lab-leak theories, it tightened up restrictions on users who “repeatedly share misinformation on Facebook”.
Guardian says it they also banned the "lab-leak" theories... (not to mention the second part of the quote).
Those are just two examples. Vaccine passports were also a "conspiracy theory". AstraZeneca was also marked as "perfectly safe" (and not "probably safe"), until they started ditching it everywhere.
And I'm not complaining about science changing after more data is revealed/processed (that is a normal part of science), I'm complaining about people getting banned one day for saying something, and then that something being accepted as reality the next day, and companies like facebook removing the bannable offence and saying "we will ban more people" in the same sentance.
Some media outlets have even removed the [erroneous] previous newsstories (not edit and say "whoops, now we know better", but remove completely), and everybody acts as if that didn't happen.
Well, yes. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Well, yes. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
By your tone alone and the wording, I feel like downvoting you too, despite probably agreeing to your main point.
That means, I agree we live in a time, that is pretending to be based on science - but the debates are way more about how all the people feel about certain things and words and happily ignore or fight against all the facts, if they don't fit.
That means, I agree we live in a time, that is pretending to be based on science - but the debates are way more about how all the people feel about certain things and words and happily ignore or fight against all the facts, if they don't fit.
Those are impossible because such questions can't be scientifically asked in the first place.
Like, what does "benefit society" even mean? By what parameter? You can definitely make a scientific conclusion of the order of "religious conservatives really hate it when women work", but... duh? I can agree with that and not care one bit.
Second one, impossible because there's no such thing as race scientifically, in the sense the common person uses that word. You could make such a conclusion about groups with particular genetics, but you can't tell those by eyesight.
Like, what does "benefit society" even mean? By what parameter? You can definitely make a scientific conclusion of the order of "religious conservatives really hate it when women work", but... duh? I can agree with that and not care one bit.
Second one, impossible because there's no such thing as race scientifically, in the sense the common person uses that word. You could make such a conclusion about groups with particular genetics, but you can't tell those by eyesight.
> Like, what does "benefit society" even mean?
Oh, this one is easy.
Imagine we managed to create a good enough model of the society. Kinda similar to what engineers use to design bridges or combustion chambers.
Then we create a target function - minimize the number people below poverty level, minimize the weighted number of crimes, maximize productive life longevity - and so on. All good things.
We run it and the model tells us: (1) mandate every woman have three kids by age of thirty (2) promote currently elected president to the king and make it a lifetime hereditary post and (3) make sure everyone goes to the church every Sunday (4) sell Alaska to China.
We shrug, check things here and there - and no, there's no mistake, the solution is stable and whatever we thought were unresolvable problems of monarchy actually do have simple solutions which noone thought about before.
So, what's next?
Oh, this one is easy.
Imagine we managed to create a good enough model of the society. Kinda similar to what engineers use to design bridges or combustion chambers.
Then we create a target function - minimize the number people below poverty level, minimize the weighted number of crimes, maximize productive life longevity - and so on. All good things.
We run it and the model tells us: (1) mandate every woman have three kids by age of thirty (2) promote currently elected president to the king and make it a lifetime hereditary post and (3) make sure everyone goes to the church every Sunday (4) sell Alaska to China.
We shrug, check things here and there - and no, there's no mistake, the solution is stable and whatever we thought were unresolvable problems of monarchy actually do have simple solutions which noone thought about before.
So, what's next?
Impossible, we'll never agree on the target function.
Eg, "minimize people below poverty level" -- this isn't universally wanted. Some people believe in fact that it's fundamentally impossible and that if anybody is brought up, that can only happen by bringing somebody down, and at best this is achievable by averaging everything to mediocrity, and they hate the idea of that.
Eg, "minimize people below poverty level" -- this isn't universally wanted. Some people believe in fact that it's fundamentally impossible and that if anybody is brought up, that can only happen by bringing somebody down, and at best this is achievable by averaging everything to mediocrity, and they hate the idea of that.
Well, at the very minimum the target function can be something like "make sure everyone is not worse than right now and as many people as possible are better".
For the definition of "better off", see [1]
[EDIT]
Here's another option. Imagine, people come to you and say: hey, dale_glass, you're smart we trust you. Please pick the target function. You can put there whatever you want with whatever weight you want.
The caveat: you will have to unconditionally accept the outcome. You cannot keep tweaking and rerunning until the result matches your ideas of perfect society.
Your move?
[1] https://worldhappiness.report
For the definition of "better off", see [1]
[EDIT]
Here's another option. Imagine, people come to you and say: hey, dale_glass, you're smart we trust you. Please pick the target function. You can put there whatever you want with whatever weight you want.
The caveat: you will have to unconditionally accept the outcome. You cannot keep tweaking and rerunning until the result matches your ideas of perfect society.
Your move?
[1] https://worldhappiness.report
> Well, at the very minimum the target function can be something like "make sure everyone is not worse than right now and as many people as possible are better".
Not everyone wants that either. Some enjoy having inferiors.
> Here's another option. Imagine, people come to you and say: hey, dale_glass, you're smart we trust you. Please pick the target function. You can put there whatever you want with whatever weight you want.
What does that have to do with science or what we were talking about? That's extremely subjective.
Not everyone wants that either. Some enjoy having inferiors.
> Here's another option. Imagine, people come to you and say: hey, dale_glass, you're smart we trust you. Please pick the target function. You can put there whatever you want with whatever weight you want.
What does that have to do with science or what we were talking about? That's extremely subjective.
I think you have picked particularly bad examples for this. Both the model and the target function have real, practical considerations that make them probably impossible. If, however, you did make such a model and such a function then the running that model in every possible configuration space would be a problem of such massive scale that you couldn't ever hope to find the best configuration.
I think if you have some sort of point you are trying to make, you should confine yourself to something more practical and easier to have a definite answer. If you so I think you will find that, eventually, the invalidated belief will be dropped except by a small minority and the consensus will shift to encompass that viewpoint.
I think if you have some sort of point you are trying to make, you should confine yourself to something more practical and easier to have a definite answer. If you so I think you will find that, eventually, the invalidated belief will be dropped except by a small minority and the consensus will shift to encompass that viewpoint.
Your scenario requires a lot of people to give up their personal freedoms and happiness for the good of whichever individuals' lives would be improved by their sacrifice. Let's add in that all men not married by the age of 21 should be castrated. It's for the good of society right?
What's the point of this? If/when those things would hypothetically be found, we'd have to come to terms with it. However, we found that (1) reproductive freedom (2) constitutionalism and democracy (3) religious freedom, are all conducive to a better society. It's impossible we'll ever find otherwise.
That's completely missing the point. The point is, do you accept that unpleasant Truth, do you reject it, or do you weigh whatever other values you have against that truth and ignore it.
That's what that question is.
That's what that question is.
You can't make that question in the general sense and draw useful conclusions.
Eg, it's an "unpleasant Truth" that you're at a risk of dying in a car accident. But yeah, we just decide it's worth going out anyway, and ignore it.
But that isn't applicable to a similar "unpleasant Truth" that welding on a gas tank could get you killed. The task is different, the risks are different, the tradeoffs are different, the ways to compensate for danger are different.
All such things are very contextual. Trying to divine some sort of general rule or philosophy doesn't really work.
Eg, it's an "unpleasant Truth" that you're at a risk of dying in a car accident. But yeah, we just decide it's worth going out anyway, and ignore it.
But that isn't applicable to a similar "unpleasant Truth" that welding on a gas tank could get you killed. The task is different, the risks are different, the tradeoffs are different, the ways to compensate for danger are different.
All such things are very contextual. Trying to divine some sort of general rule or philosophy doesn't really work.
Honestly, both of these, the car accident and the gas tank are being treated exactly the same here. You've looked at the given "truth", evaluated it, and then come to a decision on whether it's worth it or not. It's explicitly making that decision and that trade off.
what andrepd said felt far more like a handwave
>However, we found that (1) reproductive freedom (2) constitutionalism and democracy (3) religious freedom, are all conducive to a better society. It's impossible we'll ever find otherwise.
It's a denial of a hypothetical, which is not engaging with the core point, but instead attacking the analogy instead. It's a standard (and often unintentional) logical fallacy.
This is my interpretation of the conversation. Please avoid approaching this from the "perfect hypotheticals" perspective, their perfection is besides the point.
A: We have a perfect target metric, and we've found that C, which we philosophically like, performs far worse than B, which we find abhorrent
B: There's no perfect metric, and if there were, we've already found C is better, and there's no way how C could be worse.
It's deliberately avoiding the point.
To break it down even further:
>However, we found that (1) reproductive freedom (2) constitutionalism and democracy (3) religious freedom, are all conducive to a better society.
we've already found C is better
>It's impossible we'll ever find otherwise.
there's no way how C could be worse.
what andrepd said felt far more like a handwave
>However, we found that (1) reproductive freedom (2) constitutionalism and democracy (3) religious freedom, are all conducive to a better society. It's impossible we'll ever find otherwise.
It's a denial of a hypothetical, which is not engaging with the core point, but instead attacking the analogy instead. It's a standard (and often unintentional) logical fallacy.
This is my interpretation of the conversation. Please avoid approaching this from the "perfect hypotheticals" perspective, their perfection is besides the point.
A: We have a perfect target metric, and we've found that C, which we philosophically like, performs far worse than B, which we find abhorrent
B: There's no perfect metric, and if there were, we've already found C is better, and there's no way how C could be worse.
It's deliberately avoiding the point.
To break it down even further:
>However, we found that (1) reproductive freedom (2) constitutionalism and democracy (3) religious freedom, are all conducive to a better society.
we've already found C is better
>It's impossible we'll ever find otherwise.
there's no way how C could be worse.
No. Because your result won't simply be the truth. Especially if it unpleasant. Why would it be if it is optimal.
Optimal for pension system is to kill your grandpa. Do you accept that? I hope not.
Optimal for pension system is to kill your grandpa. Do you accept that? I hope not.
If you didn't want downvotes you could have left out the particulars especially untimely is the inclusion of vaccines cause autism. The whole debacle was fueled originally by a lying sack of garbage who was drummed out of the medical profession for faking his results and just took off from there.
Well, I mean, he makes it clear enough that those are just examples for the sake of argument. I found the examples useful to understand the scenario he was proposing.
[deleted]
> Try to teach someone mathematics where every time they get the wrong answer, they get shocked. Not a good learning environment.
The problem with the analogy is that the underlying assumption is that the people learning math want to know the truth and are acting in good faith even when they get the wrong answer.
On the other hand, there are people, powerful people, who push ideas that don't care about the truth. Here is a specific example. As the Republican nominee in 2016, Donald Trump tweeted that 81% of white murder victims were killed by black people. This is *wildly* wrong. When he was corrected, he didn't send out a correction, he didn't even remove the old tweet. The point is he was sending a message to his target audience that made them feel a certain way, and that was his goal ... not communicating the truth.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/nov/23/donald-tru...
The problem with the analogy is that the underlying assumption is that the people learning math want to know the truth and are acting in good faith even when they get the wrong answer.
On the other hand, there are people, powerful people, who push ideas that don't care about the truth. Here is a specific example. As the Republican nominee in 2016, Donald Trump tweeted that 81% of white murder victims were killed by black people. This is *wildly* wrong. When he was corrected, he didn't send out a correction, he didn't even remove the old tweet. The point is he was sending a message to his target audience that made them feel a certain way, and that was his goal ... not communicating the truth.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/nov/23/donald-tru...
Politicians who are crafting policy are certainly a different category.
Many well-intentioned people do get stuff wrong when it comes to racism or sexism. It's a complex topic with shifting definitions and evolving standards.
100 years ago, academia was at the forefront of racism due to some flawed philosophies and bad science. Should we really expect the average layperson to be ahead of those scholars just because some time has passed and they hear "racism is bad" a thousand times? No. The education needs to happen, and being wrong is a starting place.
There's also been a general failure by academia to explain modern racial concepts. Many people don't understand why it's OK to discriminate against asians in college admissions, for instance.
Many well-intentioned people do get stuff wrong when it comes to racism or sexism. It's a complex topic with shifting definitions and evolving standards.
100 years ago, academia was at the forefront of racism due to some flawed philosophies and bad science. Should we really expect the average layperson to be ahead of those scholars just because some time has passed and they hear "racism is bad" a thousand times? No. The education needs to happen, and being wrong is a starting place.
There's also been a general failure by academia to explain modern racial concepts. Many people don't understand why it's OK to discriminate against asians in college admissions, for instance.
> Many people don't understand why it's OK to discriminate against asians in college admissions, for instance.
I don't understand that either.
I don't understand that either.
It requires you to go with a very different axiom of equity over equality, basically. Asians do well at exams for some reason, therefore to ensure that there is an equitable distribution, we then sacrifice the level playing ground of equality in favour of the outcome driven goal of equity.
And then one day, for no reason at all, we end up living in Harrison Bergeron-like dystopia.
Wouldn't equity require not descriminating against Asians?
No.
Equality focuses on normalizing the distribution of resources, while equity distributes resources to normalize the outcome.
Equality, given a group of people, would aim to put them on a level playing ground by allocating the same level of resources to each. Equity however, would allocate resources to try and achieve similar outcomes across the people. People performing worse would thus get more resources in equity, but would receive the same amount.
The two are thus mutually incompatible. To a certain extent, some games can be played with the definition, such as what to include under the "level playing field". An example here would be the inclusion of natural talent and propensity for work that is generally considered innate. Should this be
Equality focuses on normalizing the distribution of resources, while equity distributes resources to normalize the outcome.
Equality, given a group of people, would aim to put them on a level playing ground by allocating the same level of resources to each. Equity however, would allocate resources to try and achieve similar outcomes across the people. People performing worse would thus get more resources in equity, but would receive the same amount.
The two are thus mutually incompatible. To a certain extent, some games can be played with the definition, such as what to include under the "level playing field". An example here would be the inclusion of natural talent and propensity for work that is generally considered innate. Should this be
> The two are thus mutually incompatible.
I disagree, there can be conflicts between the two goals when resources are limited, but I think systems can be defined that support both.
College admissions is a strange place to promote the idea of equity since it is a fundementally inequitable process that is designed to find people with advantages and give them bigger advantages.
By introducing race based discrimination into college admissions you are reducing equality in a way that that doesn't create a more equitable situation. Anti-asian racism will handicap these students in other parts of their professional life so using the argument of "promoting equity" to discriminate against them in college admissions as well seems purely pernicious.
If you truely want to improve college equity, you need to first make changes to what is required for success at college and then adjust the admissions process to find candidates that can succeed.
I disagree, there can be conflicts between the two goals when resources are limited, but I think systems can be defined that support both.
College admissions is a strange place to promote the idea of equity since it is a fundementally inequitable process that is designed to find people with advantages and give them bigger advantages.
By introducing race based discrimination into college admissions you are reducing equality in a way that that doesn't create a more equitable situation. Anti-asian racism will handicap these students in other parts of their professional life so using the argument of "promoting equity" to discriminate against them in college admissions as well seems purely pernicious.
If you truely want to improve college equity, you need to first make changes to what is required for success at college and then adjust the admissions process to find candidates that can succeed.
Sorry for the slow reply:
> Many well-intentioned people do get stuff wrong when it comes to racism or sexism. It's a complex topic with shifting definitions and evolving standards.
In my specific example, there was nothing well-intentioned our complex about it. He was off by a factor of more than 5x. When his error was pointed out, and it is something trivially confirmed, he didn't fix it.
> Many well-intentioned people do get stuff wrong when it comes to racism or sexism. It's a complex topic with shifting definitions and evolving standards.
In my specific example, there was nothing well-intentioned our complex about it. He was off by a factor of more than 5x. When his error was pointed out, and it is something trivially confirmed, he didn't fix it.
Yes.
The scariest thing about Trump is not that he lied like crazy. It is that he really had an audience, and that audience is reasonably close to half the country. If you're a progressive, it is worth spending some time thinking about how to reach out to and get support from that half of the country. Because attempting to govern without them is a guaranteed disaster.
The scariest thing about Trump is not that he lied like crazy. It is that he really had an audience, and that audience is reasonably close to half the country. If you're a progressive, it is worth spending some time thinking about how to reach out to and get support from that half of the country. Because attempting to govern without them is a guaranteed disaster.
That ship has sailed. The progressives have been playing the strategy 'if we just follow the rules of the game, eventually they will play along'. But the populists completely threw out the rulebook a number of years ago, they no longer want to play the same game. And now there is a new breed of younger progressives coming into power who recognize that and also want to throw out the rulebook. Interesting times coming.
Yes, and if you read https://www.amazon.com/How-Democracies-Die-Steven-Levitsky/d... you'll realize that once democratic norms have broken down on both sides of the aisle, the next thing that happens is the replacement of democracy by a totalitarian state.
>Cancel culture will make racism and sexism worse.
I completely agree with that.
Just to keep an eye on matters, and you never know how you need to set up your life going forward, lately I've made an attempt to eavesdrop on snatches of private conversations.
I'm blown away by how radicalized people are becoming, and not in a way that progressives would like. Formerly, these people were essentially indifferent. Now, not so much.
I completely agree with that.
Just to keep an eye on matters, and you never know how you need to set up your life going forward, lately I've made an attempt to eavesdrop on snatches of private conversations.
I'm blown away by how radicalized people are becoming, and not in a way that progressives would like. Formerly, these people were essentially indifferent. Now, not so much.
> Being wrong is part of the path to being right
Only if one is willing to acknowledge being wrong. I'm not seeing that here.
Only if one is willing to acknowledge being wrong. I'm not seeing that here.
Well, even for absolute uncontroversial truths - such is how to take a derivative of the function - it may take years to explain what, why and how.
But for way more complicated social issues people are supposed to turn their opinion around on the spot after a couple of comments.
But for way more complicated social issues people are supposed to turn their opinion around on the spot after a couple of comments.
And your point? Just let people dribble out their mistakes without correction?
My point is: keep trying. Love thy enemy.
Imagine your mom is racist. Will you go to each and every house on her street telling everyone not to talk to this racist bitch who is not willing to admit she's wrong? Or you will spend time after time after time leaving no avenue unexplored trying to see what is she coming from and why is she wrong?
Imagine your mom is racist. Will you go to each and every house on her street telling everyone not to talk to this racist bitch who is not willing to admit she's wrong? Or you will spend time after time after time leaving no avenue unexplored trying to see what is she coming from and why is she wrong?
False dichotomy. Option 3: she's a horrible person and will never change, so remove her from your life. Pity, isn't it?
It's not a bad idea to give it a try but it's important to recognize a lost cause when that is the case.
It's not a bad idea to give it a try but it's important to recognize a lost cause when that is the case.
Horrible people do exist.
But but no means they constitute half of the country.
But but no means they constitute half of the country.
At least a solid third and then some.
Yet you can't truly know if something is a lost cause until you try everything.
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There'll be sun!
Just thinkin' about
Tomorrow
Clears away the cobwebs
And the sorrow
'Til there's none!
When I'm stuck a day
That's gray
And lonely
I just stick out my chin
And grin
And say
Oh
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So you gotta hang on
'Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow!
Tomorrow!
I love ya
Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
Away!
The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So you gotta hang on
'Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow!
Tomorrow!
I love ya
Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
Away!
Tomorrow!
Tomorrow!
I love ya
Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
Away!
People are expected to learn not to be racists and sexists growing up. Those who don't learn then are rarely reformable but at least they can learn to be silent.
Daryl Davis has been successful in teaching adult KKK members to stop being racists.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
>I don't know how or when we lost tolerance for free speech, both as an industry and as a society. But the Damore incident is when I realized that we have.
The tech industry was just an exception for a decade or so because it was fairly non-corporate. Go to any conservative law firm or traditional management and try to start a fiery political debate, and see how that goes. There was never any lively democratic discourse or tolerance in any corporate environment, or any other private environment for that matter, ask any gay person that's older than 25 and doesn't live in a liberal state. George Carlin made a career of saying 'shit' on television, that's how free-wheeling discourse was.
Also as a sidenote on that Damore debacle, he got canned because of his presentation. You can cite 100 studies, when you start to argue that women drop out of high stress jobs because they're neurotic you might as well commit seppuku. He should have passed that manifesto by someone who isn't on the spectrum because anyone could have seen that trainwreck coming a mile away.
The tech industry was just an exception for a decade or so because it was fairly non-corporate. Go to any conservative law firm or traditional management and try to start a fiery political debate, and see how that goes. There was never any lively democratic discourse or tolerance in any corporate environment, or any other private environment for that matter, ask any gay person that's older than 25 and doesn't live in a liberal state. George Carlin made a career of saying 'shit' on television, that's how free-wheeling discourse was.
Also as a sidenote on that Damore debacle, he got canned because of his presentation. You can cite 100 studies, when you start to argue that women drop out of high stress jobs because they're neurotic you might as well commit seppuku. He should have passed that manifesto by someone who isn't on the spectrum because anyone could have seen that trainwreck coming a mile away.
I know several people on the autism spectrum. They say Damore was an asshole. It frustrates them so many neurotypical people casually equate those things.
May be he's an asshole. Isn't it what tolerance is about?
Having nothing against gays is not tolerance. This way people are also tolerant to microwaves, ceiling fans and aluminum foil: they have nothing agains all these things.
Tolerance is hating gays passionately, but still tolerating them and serving them in your store. Thinking that women should not be in the workspace, but still treating them equally and professionally.
That's what true tolerance is.
Having nothing against gays is not tolerance. This way people are also tolerant to microwaves, ceiling fans and aluminum foil: they have nothing agains all these things.
Tolerance is hating gays passionately, but still tolerating them and serving them in your store. Thinking that women should not be in the workspace, but still treating them equally and professionally.
That's what true tolerance is.
Hating someone and treating them "equally and professionally" is indeed the epitome of tolerance. However, I think your examples do a good job of illustrating the limitations of tolerance, perhaps inadvertently.
First, a world where most store owners hate me but serve me and most of my coworkers think I shouldn't be there but keep quiet about it is, bluntly speaking, a shitty world. Obviously, that world is better than one where people are outspoken about their bigotry, but I would strongly prefer a world of widespread acceptance.
Practically speaking, someone who "hates gays passionately" or thinks that "women should not be in the workspace" will probably treat their gay customers or female colleagues worse, even if they are trying to be tolerant.
Finally, I'd like to emphasize that these situations aren't academic to me. I'm fortunate in that I don't regularly experience homophobia in stores or misogyny at work but they're a real risk I face.
First, a world where most store owners hate me but serve me and most of my coworkers think I shouldn't be there but keep quiet about it is, bluntly speaking, a shitty world. Obviously, that world is better than one where people are outspoken about their bigotry, but I would strongly prefer a world of widespread acceptance.
Practically speaking, someone who "hates gays passionately" or thinks that "women should not be in the workspace" will probably treat their gay customers or female colleagues worse, even if they are trying to be tolerant.
Finally, I'd like to emphasize that these situations aren't academic to me. I'm fortunate in that I don't regularly experience homophobia in stores or misogyny at work but they're a real risk I face.
"Tolerance is hating gays passionately, but still tolerating them and serving them in your store. Thinking that women should not be in the workspace, but still treating them equally and professionally."
I have never seen that work. The hate usually manifest in various hidden and subtle actions. Intrigues. Plots. Leaving everyone involved with a bitter feeling and pure drama after a while.
If I am hated, I prefer open hate. Then I know where I am and can just go to a place I am truly welcome.
True tolerance in my book, is actually tolerating and accepting that life and humans are very diverse. Live and let live. And I can tolerate a lot of things I don't like for myself, as long as it is no direct harm to me.
I have never seen that work. The hate usually manifest in various hidden and subtle actions. Intrigues. Plots. Leaving everyone involved with a bitter feeling and pure drama after a while.
If I am hated, I prefer open hate. Then I know where I am and can just go to a place I am truly welcome.
True tolerance in my book, is actually tolerating and accepting that life and humans are very diverse. Live and let live. And I can tolerate a lot of things I don't like for myself, as long as it is no direct harm to me.
I know people with every combination of on/off the autism spectrum, who like/dislike Damore. Given that, anecdotes from any particular perspective aren't very telling.
It isn't about liking or disliking Damore. It's about respecting the social intelligence of other people on the autism spectrum.
kragen(2)
I know several too. They say he was fired by assholes. Trust me, I'm my own source on the Internets.
He got canned because his work place was not-inclusive to people on the spectrum despite of the big G claiming otherwise.
> You can cite 100 studies, when you start to argue that women drop out of high stress jobs because they're neurotic you might as well commit seppuku.
I mean, you could characterize this as a problematic presentation, but I'm not sure I'd say presentation is the problem with that sort of statement.
I mean, you could characterize this as a problematic presentation, but I'm not sure I'd say presentation is the problem with that sort of statement.
The authors underlying point is that factoring in traits of the population — as described statistically and not anecdotally - is the way to make social structures more inclusive.
For example, let’s say that statistically it was discovered to be that more women prioritize work-life balance over all else. Let’s also assume that you want women to feel included in that little “meritocracy” you created. Is it more or less inclusive that your corporate strategy for promoting favored women who sacrificed their work life balance by working on weekend?
Show me what is wrong with this line of thinking.
For example, let’s say that statistically it was discovered to be that more women prioritize work-life balance over all else. Let’s also assume that you want women to feel included in that little “meritocracy” you created. Is it more or less inclusive that your corporate strategy for promoting favored women who sacrificed their work life balance by working on weekend?
Show me what is wrong with this line of thinking.
For people like Damore, the hardest part of being on the spectrum is encountering non-autistic people.
What I love about our society in general and this website specifically is that it always gives people benefits of doubt.
You have 150kg lady buying a box of soda? Well, she's probably just have some health condition... and soda is for her to share with all friends.
You see a 35-year old healthy guy who was never employed jumping the turnstile? Well, he's surely going to his first job interview.
You have a Google employee who made a statement that can be controversial? Oh, shi...
You have 150kg lady buying a box of soda? Well, she's probably just have some health condition... and soda is for her to share with all friends.
You see a 35-year old healthy guy who was never employed jumping the turnstile? Well, he's surely going to his first job interview.
You have a Google employee who made a statement that can be controversial? Oh, shi...
[deleted]
The irony of the response to that memo, and to cancel culture more widely, is that reasonable people who read it and don't agree with everything it says, but at least agree that some of it is worthy of discussion, are more likely to be radicalized than side with the cancelers. The diversity and inclusion mob is tolerant of diversity only when it satisfies their narrow definition of what that is.
I don't understand why Damore is the hill people are always trying to die on. He didn't publish that in the marketplace of ideas. He sent it to his coworkers, using company resources, on company time. Your workplace has never been a free speech bastion.
Any person may or may not like that but it's been true forever so I'm not sure how it indicates that free speech is now in some sort of novel danger.
Any person may or may not like that but it's been true forever so I'm not sure how it indicates that free speech is now in some sort of novel danger.
Have you read the Damore memo? It is fundamentally about how Google should increase diversity, given the data showing that most women are choosing to not go into engineering-like fields, rather than being forced out of them.
It's a corporate policy proposal, and it was posted to a private internal board of people interested in how to shape Google corporate policy to increase diversity. Sort of a workgroup. In a sane world, that's exactly the sort of workplace discussion one would want.
It's a corporate policy proposal, and it was posted to a private internal board of people interested in how to shape Google corporate policy to increase diversity. Sort of a workgroup. In a sane world, that's exactly the sort of workplace discussion one would want.
> It is fundamentally about how Google should increase diversity
Well, it was fundamentally about how Google should stop all efforts to recruit or promote women or non-white men, because Damore believed those efforts were "discrimination" against himself.
Well, it was fundamentally about how Google should stop all efforts to recruit or promote women or non-white men, because Damore believed those efforts were "discrimination" against himself.
Come on now.
Huh? My description is completely accurate. I feel like a lot of people didn't actually read Damore's document, or perhaps read it and were shouting "YES! YES!" so loudly as they read about Google's supposed left-wing bias that they can't actually perceive the words written.
Damore says straight up and in so many words that Google should end all of its "diversity" hiring initiatives because he believes they're discriminatory against himself, this is just not an arguable issue.
Damore says straight up and in so many words that Google should end all of its "diversity" hiring initiatives because he believes they're discriminatory against himself, this is just not an arguable issue.
I can see how you could get that Google should end "diversity" hiring initiatives as one of the core messages, but not "all" of them, and "he believes they're discriminatory against himself" is quite uncharitable. Having reread it just now after five years, the theme seems to be that he wants to find the intersection of Google being a good workplace for women and Google being successful as a company.
From the memo:
> Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
> Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:...
He goes on to list interventions like more pair programming, changing performance evaluations to encourage collaboration over competition, allowing more part-time work, and reducing the stress of the job.
He says Google needs to reduce hiring initiatives which are not backed by evidence, and which are themselves likely illegally discriminatory, like hiring quotas (likely illegal) and implicit bias training (debunked).
From the memo:
> Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
> Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:...
He goes on to list interventions like more pair programming, changing performance evaluations to encourage collaboration over competition, allowing more part-time work, and reducing the stress of the job.
He says Google needs to reduce hiring initiatives which are not backed by evidence, and which are themselves likely illegally discriminatory, like hiring quotas (likely illegal) and implicit bias training (debunked).
It's because he published a memo pertinent to a hot topic at the company and rather than engage him on the merits of his ideas leadership decided to fire him. Is it unsettling that the employees at a company with a global monopoly on information retrieval seem to not tolerate dissent within their ranks?
It was very much within the scope of his job duties. Many of his colleagues were encouraged and rewarded for making presentations on the same topic using company resources on company time (with the opposite conclusions).
The idea that you can investigate something and present your good faith effort at the truth, with evidence, and be fired for that, is pretty scary. Like imagine several of your colleagues do comparisons of PostgreSQL and MongoDB on your internal blog, showing some benchmark results; you think that's not the whole picture and do your own comparison showing some other benchmarks. And then you get fired, not because your benchmarks were less rigorous or your writeup was poor, but because they don't like your answers. That's not an environment that's going to lead to good technology choices and an effective company.
The idea that you can investigate something and present your good faith effort at the truth, with evidence, and be fired for that, is pretty scary. Like imagine several of your colleagues do comparisons of PostgreSQL and MongoDB on your internal blog, showing some benchmark results; you think that's not the whole picture and do your own comparison showing some other benchmarks. And then you get fired, not because your benchmarks were less rigorous or your writeup was poor, but because they don't like your answers. That's not an environment that's going to lead to good technology choices and an effective company.
> He didn't publish that in the marketplace of ideas.
If a forum isn't a "market place of ideas" than it's not a forum.
> He sent it to his coworkers, using company resources, on company time.
All of which were not reasons he got fired. And Google actually encourages its employees to do such things, by the way.
And those are all things we have done and is considered normal in most sane workplace. We all posted something not work related to your coworkers on internal forums, including politics.
> Your workplace has never been a free speech bastion.
Which was never the argument in the first place. Nobody is arguing that Google violated the 1st amendment by firing him. But let's not pretend that Google's size doesn't make it a major non-elected influence on our society. We have seen the consequences of that when it came to potential Covid-19 treatments and its origins. The "it's a private company", which hypocritically used by self-described socialists but I digress, doesn't negate the consequences of their actions or their responsibilities.
> Any person may or may not like that but it's been true forever
That's just an appeal to tradition fallacy.
> I'm not sure how it indicates that free speech is now in some sort of novel danger.
I'm the owner of a big corporations and me and my buddies form the largest group of employers in the country, I don't like your stance on free speech and who you support politically. Yeah but!? No, I'm a private company.
If a forum isn't a "market place of ideas" than it's not a forum.
> He sent it to his coworkers, using company resources, on company time.
All of which were not reasons he got fired. And Google actually encourages its employees to do such things, by the way.
And those are all things we have done and is considered normal in most sane workplace. We all posted something not work related to your coworkers on internal forums, including politics.
> Your workplace has never been a free speech bastion.
Which was never the argument in the first place. Nobody is arguing that Google violated the 1st amendment by firing him. But let's not pretend that Google's size doesn't make it a major non-elected influence on our society. We have seen the consequences of that when it came to potential Covid-19 treatments and its origins. The "it's a private company", which hypocritically used by self-described socialists but I digress, doesn't negate the consequences of their actions or their responsibilities.
> Any person may or may not like that but it's been true forever
That's just an appeal to tradition fallacy.
> I'm not sure how it indicates that free speech is now in some sort of novel danger.
I'm the owner of a big corporations and me and my buddies form the largest group of employers in the country, I don't like your stance on free speech and who you support politically. Yeah but!? No, I'm a private company.
Damore said that men are better engineers than women. That is false. It is also incompatible with an organization that tries to be diverse and inclusive. That's the main reason he was fired.
Getting fired for insulting your co-workers is not censorship.
In society today, we have a "paradox of tolerance". If we tolerate everything, then we tolerate people being intolerant, and many people in our society will suffer. So we must be intolerant of intolerance. This is the only way to build a society of equality and justice.
Getting fired for insulting your co-workers is not censorship.
In society today, we have a "paradox of tolerance". If we tolerate everything, then we tolerate people being intolerant, and many people in our society will suffer. So we must be intolerant of intolerance. This is the only way to build a society of equality and justice.
Damore said that men are better engineers than women. That is false.
Please go to https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideol... and come back quoting his exact words on that topic. We'll wait.
Oh, right. You can't. Because he never said that, nor did he say anything that amounted to that. When it comes to false claims, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and all that.
Please go to https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideol... and come back quoting his exact words on that topic. We'll wait.
Oh, right. You can't. Because he never said that, nor did he say anything that amounted to that. When it comes to false claims, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and all that.
Ironically, the paradox of tolerance is often used to justify attacking almost any opposing view, as almost any view can be framed as some form of intolerance.
I believe the paradox of tolerance as a useful idea is empty and bunk
I believe the paradox of tolerance as a useful idea is empty and bunk
I don't think this is anything new for society. Companies have always fired people for going against the company too much or in the wrong way.
Obligatory https://xkcd.com/1357/
We haven't lost our tolerance for free speech, we've lost our tolerance for listening to people who claim society has to listen to their bullshit because of the first amendment rather than because they present a compelling argument in a positive way.
We haven't lost our tolerance for free speech, we've lost our tolerance for listening to people who claim society has to listen to their bullshit because of the first amendment rather than because they present a compelling argument in a positive way.
It's not obligatory, it's awful, it destroys discourse and people should stop posting it.
The only people bringing up the free speech argument are the people defending Google, not the other way around.
Open discourse can exist as a value too. And Google, one of the most influential entity in the US and the world, has decided that it's not something that should be promoted. Just as LeBron James has the right to defend the genocidal regime of China. But let's not fool ourselves about who's on the right side of history.
Open discourse can exist as a value too. And Google, one of the most influential entity in the US and the world, has decided that it's not something that should be promoted. Just as LeBron James has the right to defend the genocidal regime of China. But let's not fool ourselves about who's on the right side of history.
> The only people bringing up the free speech argument are the people defending Google, not the other way around.
Quoting the OP, "Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Damore, he was engaged in free speech." This sounds like it refutes your statement, no?
Having worked there when this happened, the discourse definitely felt like, "Google is stifling the free speech of one of their employees" vs "Google has the right to fire employees for any reason."
> Open discourse can exist as a value too
It does (are we not engaging in it right now?).
There were (and I assume still are) plenty of random internal mailing lists where those types of discussions happened. I mostly stayed away from them because my goal at Google was to build cool products, not waste my day on internal mailing lists; I prefer to go to HN to do that.
> Just as LeBron James has the right to defend the genocidal regime of China.
I guess the NBA and China is the Godwin's law equivalent for free speech. He has the legal right to say what he wants, he doesn't have the right to have what he says have zero consequences (which is what the comic says).
You argue that he doesn't have a choice, but he does: he can speak his mind and potentially lose access to his largest market; he's just unwilling to do that because he deems the economic ramifications are too large. You always have a choice, most just choose to not make the hard one.
Quoting the OP, "Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Damore, he was engaged in free speech." This sounds like it refutes your statement, no?
Having worked there when this happened, the discourse definitely felt like, "Google is stifling the free speech of one of their employees" vs "Google has the right to fire employees for any reason."
> Open discourse can exist as a value too
It does (are we not engaging in it right now?).
There were (and I assume still are) plenty of random internal mailing lists where those types of discussions happened. I mostly stayed away from them because my goal at Google was to build cool products, not waste my day on internal mailing lists; I prefer to go to HN to do that.
> Just as LeBron James has the right to defend the genocidal regime of China.
I guess the NBA and China is the Godwin's law equivalent for free speech. He has the legal right to say what he wants, he doesn't have the right to have what he says have zero consequences (which is what the comic says).
You argue that he doesn't have a choice, but he does: he can speak his mind and potentially lose access to his largest market; he's just unwilling to do that because he deems the economic ramifications are too large. You always have a choice, most just choose to not make the hard one.
> Quoting the OP, "Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Damore, he was engaged in free speech." This sounds like it refutes your statement, no?
> Having worked there when this happened, the discourse definitely felt like, "Google is stifling the free speech of one of their employees" vs "Google has the right to fire employees for any reason."
Free speech as in the 1st amendment, sorry I wasn't clear enough. Yes Google "has the right to fire people as they like", but it's not free speech as a value, which can and will cause problems down the line on a societal level. Would it be all right for FAANG to fire all Republicans? All pro-unions people?
> I mostly stayed away from them because my goal at Google was to build cool products, not waste my day on internal mailing lists; I prefer to go to HN to do that.
Good for you, but his post was was about Google's internal policies and work, which is work related.
> You argue that he doesn't have a choice, but he does: he can speak his mind and potentially lose access to his largest market; he's just unwilling to do that because he deems the economic ramifications are too large. You always have a choice, most just choose to not make the hard one.
I don't get why you insist on showing a total lack of social conscience like a crony corporate lawyer who likes to brag about how he shipped well paying jobs overseas. Yes it is legal right now, it doesn't mean it's right thing to do.
I guess when they will use your data for salary and hiring purposes against you then you will change your tune. P.S.: do not talk about unions ;)
> Having worked there when this happened, the discourse definitely felt like, "Google is stifling the free speech of one of their employees" vs "Google has the right to fire employees for any reason."
Free speech as in the 1st amendment, sorry I wasn't clear enough. Yes Google "has the right to fire people as they like", but it's not free speech as a value, which can and will cause problems down the line on a societal level. Would it be all right for FAANG to fire all Republicans? All pro-unions people?
> I mostly stayed away from them because my goal at Google was to build cool products, not waste my day on internal mailing lists; I prefer to go to HN to do that.
Good for you, but his post was was about Google's internal policies and work, which is work related.
> You argue that he doesn't have a choice, but he does: he can speak his mind and potentially lose access to his largest market; he's just unwilling to do that because he deems the economic ramifications are too large. You always have a choice, most just choose to not make the hard one.
I don't get why you insist on showing a total lack of social conscience like a crony corporate lawyer who likes to brag about how he shipped well paying jobs overseas. Yes it is legal right now, it doesn't mean it's right thing to do.
I guess when they will use your data for salary and hiring purposes against you then you will change your tune. P.S.: do not talk about unions ;)
[deleted]
>I don't know how or when we lost tolerance for free speech
I think you're confusing lost tolerance for free speech with 'raising the value of the speech of traditionally marginalized groups.'
A man at Atari in 1976 who argues women are worse engineers than men mostly broadcasts to an audience of empowered men and disempowered women. So his 'free speech' is respected while those women's is not.
A man at Google in 2018 who argues the same thing has to deal with the consequences of women's speech, but to him, that feels like a chilling of his free speech.
I'm fine that we are in scenario 2, having listened to a lot of other ill-informed white men give heir 'opinion' on things for no true reason.
I think you're confusing lost tolerance for free speech with 'raising the value of the speech of traditionally marginalized groups.'
A man at Atari in 1976 who argues women are worse engineers than men mostly broadcasts to an audience of empowered men and disempowered women. So his 'free speech' is respected while those women's is not.
A man at Google in 2018 who argues the same thing has to deal with the consequences of women's speech, but to him, that feels like a chilling of his free speech.
I'm fine that we are in scenario 2, having listened to a lot of other ill-informed white men give heir 'opinion' on things for no true reason.
Honest question. Have you ever actually read the memo?
If you have, please tell me what passage makes you think that it says that women are worse engineers than men. Because as far as I can tell, there are none.
The topic at hand is controversial enough WITHOUT making up stuff about what was said.
If you have, please tell me what passage makes you think that it says that women are worse engineers than men. Because as far as I can tell, there are none.
The topic at hand is controversial enough WITHOUT making up stuff about what was said.
Honest question, have you?
>humans are generally biased towards protecting females.
>These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics
>This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.
>Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
I think the disconnect here is that the author is couching his claims with strawmen 'women prefer' and links to small-n surveys that you find sufficient (but most do not). Maybe if we refactored some of what he said, it would make sense:
> people who excel at math are generally biased toward being short and unfriendly.
>These two differences in part explain why STEM students relatively prefer working long-hours and avoiding meaningful human connection. More liberal arts students may like socializing because it requires EQ and even within startups, comparatively more PMs and SDRs have significant others.
>This leads to engineers generally having a harder time receiving criticism, asking for help, staying out of others business, and collaborating.
>Engineers on average look for peer praise while SDRs have a higher drive for wealth accumulation.
>humans are generally biased towards protecting females.
>These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics
>This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.
>Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
I think the disconnect here is that the author is couching his claims with strawmen 'women prefer' and links to small-n surveys that you find sufficient (but most do not). Maybe if we refactored some of what he said, it would make sense:
> people who excel at math are generally biased toward being short and unfriendly.
>These two differences in part explain why STEM students relatively prefer working long-hours and avoiding meaningful human connection. More liberal arts students may like socializing because it requires EQ and even within startups, comparatively more PMs and SDRs have significant others.
>This leads to engineers generally having a harder time receiving criticism, asking for help, staying out of others business, and collaborating.
>Engineers on average look for peer praise while SDRs have a higher drive for wealth accumulation.
Nothing you've quoted says that the author thinks women make worse engineers, only that people are different. If you think it says something else, you should search within to find out where you generated that meaning.
You think saying that women have a harder time speaking up and leading has nothing to do with engineering?
Where exactly have you worked as an engineer where leadership didn't matter and people weren't encouraged to speak up?
EDIT: To be clear about the point here, none of these claims are sourced! He's just insulting women in 'kind-sounding' language! I think women are very unprotected in modern society! I think women LOVE systemization! The insult is the unsourced claim!
Where exactly have you worked as an engineer where leadership didn't matter and people weren't encouraged to speak up?
EDIT: To be clear about the point here, none of these claims are sourced! He's just insulting women in 'kind-sounding' language! I think women are very unprotected in modern society! I think women LOVE systemization! The insult is the unsourced claim!
LOL, disempowered women in 1976. The real student revolts took place in 1968-1970 and produced hippies, free love, another instance of feminism (second wave I believe).
It was probably a better time for being a woman in CS than now, with disingenuous bros paying lip service to SJW causes in order to keep their > 250,000 salaries while not having a clue.
It was probably a better time for being a woman in CS than now, with disingenuous bros paying lip service to SJW causes in order to keep their > 250,000 salaries while not having a clue.
I am not going to post the picture of the Atari 'meeting in a hot tub,' but you can Google if you want.
Thanks for the snapshot of your thinking though, helpful context for the post.
Thanks for the snapshot of your thinking though, helpful context for the post.
College's changed; It used to be free speech focused with debates and exposure to a wide set of ideas being seen as critical to a well rounded education. Now you can't even get vaguely controversial speakers on campus.
Tech workers tend to be younger so the more recent changes to the political views of colleges effect them first.
Hell famous comedians won't even preform at college campuses anymore: https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/jerry-seinfeld-reve...
Tech workers tend to be younger so the more recent changes to the political views of colleges effect them first.
Hell famous comedians won't even preform at college campuses anymore: https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/jerry-seinfeld-reve...
Are people on college campuses generally clamoring to see a standup routine from Jerry Seinfeld? As the article points out, he's 66 years old and his humor is self-described as "observational". Maybe today's college students just don't connect to the observations of someone two generations older than them?
It's one thing to not enjoy his humor, it's another to make it such that nobody can enjoy it.
But why perform for an audience full of people who won't enjoy it? In my experience, performances hosted at colleges overwhelmingly attract audiences of students. It's nobody's fault that his humor doesn't land with that audience, but it is his fault that he's blaming the students for it.
...I laughed.
Billionaire Jerry Seinfeld can't seem to relate to the kids these days, blames the kids.
Billionaire Jerry Seinfeld can't seem to relate to the kids these days, blames the kids.
A couple points...
College campuses are where you are supposed to be confronted with challenging ideas and different perspectives. That's one of their great gifts. But even mainstream Jerry Seinfeld, who created one of the most popular sitcoms of all time and doesn't even swear, is now considered too controversial?
It's not just him. Dave Chappelle and many other comedians have been saying the same thing about college audiences.
College campuses are where you are supposed to be confronted with challenging ideas and different perspectives. That's one of their great gifts. But even mainstream Jerry Seinfeld, who created one of the most popular sitcoms of all time and doesn't even swear, is now considered too controversial?
It's not just him. Dave Chappelle and many other comedians have been saying the same thing about college audiences.
Consider that maybe people agree that being confronted with challenging ideas and perspectives is valuable but they don't find the same value in Jerry Seinfeld's comedy as they do in, say, a lecture by someone with radical beliefs.
You living in the wrong decade still.
Jerry Seinfeld was relevant in the 90s, and Chappelle in the 2000s.
Jerry keeps dating 18 year old girls, and Chappelle can't seem to restrain himself from shitting on trans folks.
Sorry, these heroes suck.
Jerry Seinfeld was relevant in the 90s, and Chappelle in the 2000s.
Jerry keeps dating 18 year old girls, and Chappelle can't seem to restrain himself from shitting on trans folks.
Sorry, these heroes suck.
People are going to love Jerry forever because of the sitcom. His standup isn't a big hit with the kids these days but everyone still knows the sitcom.
Chappelle is one of the biggest comics alive. The people who are bothered by trans jokes are a small, humorless minority.
Chappelle is one of the biggest comics alive. The people who are bothered by trans jokes are a small, humorless minority.
The problem with trans jokes is there's basically only one of them that most comedians tell. It's just degrees of incredulity about the variety of things that people identify as.
Patton Oswalt's version got chuckles out of me though. His take was basically "I'm on your side, I'm just old and don't know what you're talking about", which is at least poking fun at the incredulity, rather than the variety.
Patton Oswalt's version got chuckles out of me though. His take was basically "I'm on your side, I'm just old and don't know what you're talking about", which is at least poking fun at the incredulity, rather than the variety.
Had to google it, but he delivered.
Seinfeld currently has 2 routines, one is for the normie/mainstream crowd which is what you expect from his TV show. The other is his totally uncensored and cutting edge written material he only performs for younger audiences or in other words 'people not expecting TV Seinfeld' and it definitely would be blacklisted on any campus.
> it definitely would be blacklisted on any campus.
They don't blacklist anything on college campuses anymore. They naughtylist it, disallowlist it, or ungoodlist it... presumably so anyone descended from regicides won't be triggered by Charles II of England's words appearing out of context.
They don't blacklist anything on college campuses anymore. They naughtylist it, disallowlist it, or ungoodlist it... presumably so anyone descended from regicides won't be triggered by Charles II of England's words appearing out of context.
That's actually hilarious and I would love to see it.
I have a good sense of humor. Making fun of a group that is persecuted is not funny to me because I don't find anything amusing about taunting the disenfranchised.
So tell me so good trans jokes and change my mind, eh?
So tell me so good trans jokes and change my mind, eh?
I mean, I just googled "trans jokes" and the first hit was "18 trans jokes by actual trans people" that weren't funny. I was hoping for some raunchy limericks or something. Instead I got pages of results just saying how so-and-so shouldn't make trans jokes.
Having that powerful of a chokehold on media and search results is the opposite of "persecuted" and "disenfranchised". On the contrary, that's a terrifying amount of political clout and power to steer discourse.
Having that powerful of a chokehold on media and search results is the opposite of "persecuted" and "disenfranchised". On the contrary, that's a terrifying amount of political clout and power to steer discourse.
> I was hoping for some raunchy limericks or something.
Yay because being trans is all about being raunchy hey ho!
OK, here's my own joke. I'm trans and this is a trans joke taken from, like, life, dude.
There's this guy sitting with four ladies and another guy and he starts saying how he knows a tranny when he sees one.
"I mean, they all have like, what, size-7 feet? I mean come on, it's so obvious!"
"I got size 7 feet" says one of the ladies.
The guy blinks once, then goes on:
"And their hands! Have you seen their hands? They're like two times the size of my hands!"
The second lady holds up her hands. "My hands are bigger than your hands".
The guy pauses for a mere second and goes on.
"But the dead give-away is their voices. They have loud, booming, bass voices..."
"I can sing in the entire baritone vocal range" says the third lady.
The guy stops, clears his throat, looks around, then leans in conspiratorially.
"You know what's the real way to tell a trannie apart? They can explain the offside rule in soccer".
"That's easy" says the fourth lady. "A player is in an offside position if any of their body parts, except the hands and arms, are in the opponents' half of the pitch, and closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent".
The guy is now sweeating bricks. He turns to look at each of them carefully.
"OK" he says. "Was even a single one of you born female"?
"Sure" says the other guy. "I was".
Badum-tish.
Yay because being trans is all about being raunchy hey ho!
OK, here's my own joke. I'm trans and this is a trans joke taken from, like, life, dude.
There's this guy sitting with four ladies and another guy and he starts saying how he knows a tranny when he sees one.
"I mean, they all have like, what, size-7 feet? I mean come on, it's so obvious!"
"I got size 7 feet" says one of the ladies.
The guy blinks once, then goes on:
"And their hands! Have you seen their hands? They're like two times the size of my hands!"
The second lady holds up her hands. "My hands are bigger than your hands".
The guy pauses for a mere second and goes on.
"But the dead give-away is their voices. They have loud, booming, bass voices..."
"I can sing in the entire baritone vocal range" says the third lady.
The guy stops, clears his throat, looks around, then leans in conspiratorially.
"You know what's the real way to tell a trannie apart? They can explain the offside rule in soccer".
"That's easy" says the fourth lady. "A player is in an offside position if any of their body parts, except the hands and arms, are in the opponents' half of the pitch, and closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent".
The guy is now sweeating bricks. He turns to look at each of them carefully.
"OK" he says. "Was even a single one of you born female"?
"Sure" says the other guy. "I was".
Badum-tish.
> Yay because being trans is all about being raunchy hey ho
To be fair, while that is a common attitude toward trans identity, it’s also a common attitude toward humor (that is, lots of people equate good jokes with raunchy ones.) It’s hard to tell which consideration is in play.
> "That's easy" says the fourth lady. "A player is in an offside position if any of their body parts, except the hands and arms, are in the opponents' half of the pitch, and closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent".
<ex-ref> But that is just explaining offside position, which is only part of the offside rule. </ex-ref>
To be fair, while that is a common attitude toward trans identity, it’s also a common attitude toward humor (that is, lots of people equate good jokes with raunchy ones.) It’s hard to tell which consideration is in play.
> "That's easy" says the fourth lady. "A player is in an offside position if any of their body parts, except the hands and arms, are in the opponents' half of the pitch, and closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent".
<ex-ref> But that is just explaining offside position, which is only part of the offside rule. </ex-ref>
That's better than what Chappelle's was reported be.
The presentation is solid, but I trip over the fact that all the ladies are trans and they validate the dude's assertions.
The presentation is solid, but I trip over the fact that all the ladies are trans and they validate the dude's assertions.
> On the contrary, that's a terrifying amount of political clout and power to steer discourse.
This one reminds me of the old joke about Jews controlling the media. One jewish man asks another why he's reading all those tabloids that are full of antisemitic lies. The othere one replies that no matter how bad things are in real life, the newspapers always make him feel great because according to them the Jews control the banks, the media, the world governments and everything else.
I'm full of jokes today.
This one reminds me of the old joke about Jews controlling the media. One jewish man asks another why he's reading all those tabloids that are full of antisemitic lies. The othere one replies that no matter how bad things are in real life, the newspapers always make him feel great because according to them the Jews control the banks, the media, the world governments and everything else.
I'm full of jokes today.
Look, I'm willing to judge a joke on its on merits but there's some territory that's trickier than others: when the subject is a member of the underclass.
Trans people are literally being legislated today and actively demonized by the right. Do you remember the trans bathroom laws that were all the rage? Do you remember all the attacks by trans people that precipitated them? No, because it's manufactured fear.
You finding pages of individuals speaking out against that and that's terrifying? More manufactured fear.
As to the subject I replied to, Chappelle's jokes, it's addressed here: https://www.indiewire.com/2018/01/dave-chappelle-transgender...
Hooo haw, laugh riot over being tricked to have sex with a tranny! And that Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, that really grosses me out!? Hee hee hee.
Sorry, but that shit's puerile at best.
Trans people are literally being legislated today and actively demonized by the right. Do you remember the trans bathroom laws that were all the rage? Do you remember all the attacks by trans people that precipitated them? No, because it's manufactured fear.
You finding pages of individuals speaking out against that and that's terrifying? More manufactured fear.
As to the subject I replied to, Chappelle's jokes, it's addressed here: https://www.indiewire.com/2018/01/dave-chappelle-transgender...
Hooo haw, laugh riot over being tricked to have sex with a tranny! And that Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, that really grosses me out!? Hee hee hee.
Sorry, but that shit's puerile at best.
I'm not sure what iteration of Chappelle's jokes they are addressing in the indiewire piece, but here's what I could find, and it seems very different in tone https://youtu.be/r_EXb8_8xlM
First joke aside (which I'd guess is older material than the rest) if you stick with him and don't cherrypick quotes, it's almost entirely self-deprecating. Even in the Caitlyn Jenner joke, the punchline rests on him acknowledging his own failure to resist his impulses. Don't forget the layer where he is acting out the role of a horrible, insensitive person throughout this so the audience can laugh at his oversimplification and ignorance. That's a big part of comedy and it does not translate over to quotations in prose.
Hopefully I didn't kill the frog, but he's absolutely not punching down from what I could find.
First joke aside (which I'd guess is older material than the rest) if you stick with him and don't cherrypick quotes, it's almost entirely self-deprecating. Even in the Caitlyn Jenner joke, the punchline rests on him acknowledging his own failure to resist his impulses. Don't forget the layer where he is acting out the role of a horrible, insensitive person throughout this so the audience can laugh at his oversimplification and ignorance. That's a big part of comedy and it does not translate over to quotations in prose.
Hopefully I didn't kill the frog, but he's absolutely not punching down from what I could find.
Another gem.
What would make those 18 jokes funnier? If they were more degrading?
EDIT: Just to be clear, are you implying active censorship of search results at Google? Or do you just not understand Pagerank?
What would make those 18 jokes funnier? If they were more degrading?
EDIT: Just to be clear, are you implying active censorship of search results at Google? Or do you just not understand Pagerank?
[deleted]
> I have a good sense of humor. Making fun of a group that is persecuted is not funny to me because I don't find anything amusing about taunting the disenfranchised.
If your humor is subservient to your social/political beliefs, you don't have a sense of humor.
If your humor is subservient to your social/political beliefs, you don't have a sense of humor.
[deleted]
> If your humor is subservient to your social/political beliefs, you don't have a sense of humor.
Nopes, it's not. I'm just more evolved than you.
Nopes, it's not. I'm just more evolved than you.
Just a minute there. Putting aside the other comments that pointed out that you're probably making this up... are you saying 18 year old women shouldn't feel empowered to date whoever they damn well please? Who are you to decide an adult woman's rights over her own body? That's creepy fascist territory.
Did you read the comment? He didn't say any such thing! He said the man in the situation is not to be adored.
Maybe you should look into yourself and question what caused you to interpret it that way.
Maybe you should look into yourself and question what caused you to interpret it that way.
> Jerry keeps dating 18 year old girls
AFAIK, he is only know to have done that once (and they first met and went out, though Seinfeld said later that they weren't “dating” yet, when she was 17, not 18.)
AFAIK, he is only know to have done that once (and they first met and went out, though Seinfeld said later that they weren't “dating” yet, when she was 17, not 18.)
Plus this was in 1993. So "keep" is inaccurate here, unless this person has additional data to provide.
All the trans people I know actually like his jokes, it seems that you are living in a wrong decade that doesn't exist.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The kids blame the teachers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YWuD9RwJD4
The problem is in the education system, I don't think denying it helps anyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YWuD9RwJD4
The problem is in the education system, I don't think denying it helps anyone.
Large corporations are very pro censorship and anti free speech these days. Amazon bans books even though it’s the worlds biggest bookstore. AWS, Apple and Google all ban businesses, apps and content that they don’t like through selective enforcement of TOU. Netflix and Prime Video refuse to carry certain content.
Inside these companies, a few loud voices control the Overton window, and management kowtows to them either enthusiastically (many of them agree) or at least resignedly (easier than taking the bull by the horns and potentially alienating large swathes of employees or customers.
The reason that radical ideas with marginal support have this level of impact is the total recalcitrance and volume of the proponents. I don’t need to reason with you; i just need to shout you down and label you a moral pariah (“racist”, “white supremacist”, “climate denier”, etc). Natural self-censorship will cause almost everyone to shut up so I don’t unleash on them too.
Inside these companies, a few loud voices control the Overton window, and management kowtows to them either enthusiastically (many of them agree) or at least resignedly (easier than taking the bull by the horns and potentially alienating large swathes of employees or customers.
The reason that radical ideas with marginal support have this level of impact is the total recalcitrance and volume of the proponents. I don’t need to reason with you; i just need to shout you down and label you a moral pariah (“racist”, “white supremacist”, “climate denier”, etc). Natural self-censorship will cause almost everyone to shut up so I don’t unleash on them too.
Part of it is being scared. But in the world of 24/7 surveillance I think it's more that anything you say can haunt you for the rest of your life. It's not OK to make mistakes or slip up because it's captured and stored forever. People aren't allowed to debate, learn, and change.
Anecdotally, most of my interactions with friends has moved offline. I wonder whether that's a broader trend, and whether it will be sustainable?
Like, in the same way I learned not to post personal stuff on Livejournal (then MySpace and Facebook), will we just... log off half the time, and treat the rest as a resume? Or will we hole up in private discords/IRC/Matrix/etc groups?
(* and for anyone wondering, we're all fairly left-leaning, pro-social-justice people. we're not hiding from Cancel Culture, we just feel more free in smaller groups.)
Like, in the same way I learned not to post personal stuff on Livejournal (then MySpace and Facebook), will we just... log off half the time, and treat the rest as a resume? Or will we hole up in private discords/IRC/Matrix/etc groups?
(* and for anyone wondering, we're all fairly left-leaning, pro-social-justice people. we're not hiding from Cancel Culture, we just feel more free in smaller groups.)
Is it really offline when one device could be listening to the entire thing?
Basically, yeah. There's no expectation of permanence like there is with social media. Recording/transcribing and publishing would be a gross violation of trust.
Someone could point a directional microphone at you in the park, too, but one doesn't typically worry about that.
Someone could point a directional microphone at you in the park, too, but one doesn't typically worry about that.
Them pointing a microphone at you in a park takes planning, effort, work, and people, which is why it doesn't happen often.
When you've volunteered to carry and point the microphone yourself it's a totally different ball game.
When you've volunteered to carry and point the microphone yourself it's a totally different ball game.
> What happened?
HR happened. At first HR is viewed as an afterthought and it doubles as an easy way to get women in your tech company.
But after some growth they usually get their hands on the power of hiring and firing people. It's just downhill from there.
HR happened. At first HR is viewed as an afterthought and it doubles as an easy way to get women in your tech company.
But after some growth they usually get their hands on the power of hiring and firing people. It's just downhill from there.
HR? Or PR?
It's easy to allow and promote freedom of expressing thoughts, any thoughts, even controversial thoughts, if you're an underdog in an underdog industry, whose existence and success depends on being free to think up and try weird things. FAANG of today is not that.
FAANG is a bunch of good ol' megacorps now[0]. They're very sensitive about their stock price, about their relationships with investors, customer base. These things are strongly and negatively affected by media controversies, so corps obviously want to minimize such stories. This is how you get a trigger-happy HR: they become the internal enforcement arm of company's ongoing PR efforts.
I haven't seen a company that's actually ruled by their HR department. All I've seen is HR protecting their company - and the way this protection looks depends on the company's position and culture. They will absolutely fight for freedom of expression for as long as the company itself needs it to survive and grow.
--
[0] - I think it's important to repeat because people old enough to remember how they started, who were adjacent to hacker culture back then, sometimes cling to that image of a bunch of geeks trying to make something about the world better. I know I do, I have to keep reminding myself that Big Tech is just a collection of run-of-the-mill multinationals. They may happen to employ a lot of software developers, some (few) of which work on cutting-edge problems, but they're just corporations, like all other corporations, like all the corporations the hacker culture of yore used to mock.
It's easy to allow and promote freedom of expressing thoughts, any thoughts, even controversial thoughts, if you're an underdog in an underdog industry, whose existence and success depends on being free to think up and try weird things. FAANG of today is not that.
FAANG is a bunch of good ol' megacorps now[0]. They're very sensitive about their stock price, about their relationships with investors, customer base. These things are strongly and negatively affected by media controversies, so corps obviously want to minimize such stories. This is how you get a trigger-happy HR: they become the internal enforcement arm of company's ongoing PR efforts.
I haven't seen a company that's actually ruled by their HR department. All I've seen is HR protecting their company - and the way this protection looks depends on the company's position and culture. They will absolutely fight for freedom of expression for as long as the company itself needs it to survive and grow.
--
[0] - I think it's important to repeat because people old enough to remember how they started, who were adjacent to hacker culture back then, sometimes cling to that image of a bunch of geeks trying to make something about the world better. I know I do, I have to keep reminding myself that Big Tech is just a collection of run-of-the-mill multinationals. They may happen to employ a lot of software developers, some (few) of which work on cutting-edge problems, but they're just corporations, like all other corporations, like all the corporations the hacker culture of yore used to mock.
They went mainstream. As soon as your trying to sell kids TV (on Netflix, YouTube, Apple/Amazon TV etc) suddenly your have to be 110% boring and vanilla. No more space for constructive disagreement or controversial content. Just colourful shapes and a laugh track please.
I left Google in 2015, and I started to notice the flip from liberalism to illiberalism around 2012-2013. I still remember how weird it was the first time I heard someone on Memegen say that due process (ie, trying to understand whether a complaint occurred) was a legal constraint that Google didn't need to adhere to when adjudicating intra-employee complaints (eg harassing comments).
IMO it's pretty straightforward, in Google's case at least. They scaled wildly in terms of headcount (I think they have a bit under 10x the headcount they had when I joined), right when competition for the best tech employees exploded. They obviously had to lower their bar[1] significantly to keep growing, and they ended up scooping up masses of coastal urban[2] midwits, precisely the population that was most susceptible to and hit hardest by the religious awakening that occurred in the early 2010s. A bit more speculatively, there's some evidence that higher cognitive ability is correlated with support for free speech[3] and other tenets of liberalism, so any company going from a highly-selected-for-intelligence employee base to a dumber one has a built-in backlash against liberalism/pluralism/open-mindedness/etc.
[1] I'm not suggesting that a binary switch was flipped, and that I personally made it in right before they started dumbing down their hiring. I wouldn't be surprised if the bar was higher a few years before I joined, and I can't say whether I would've met that bar. It's an iterative process that sped up over time and the company started to suffer the cumulative effect in the quality of their employee body.
[2] This isn't implying that being coastal and urban makes you stupid. I myself am very much coastal and urban and have been my entire life. These are just the areas that were hit hardest by these ideologies, and "midwits" (to borrow a term from Taleb) are fertile ground for new mass movements.
[3] https://www.psypost.org/2020/05/higher-levels-of-cognitive-a...
IMO it's pretty straightforward, in Google's case at least. They scaled wildly in terms of headcount (I think they have a bit under 10x the headcount they had when I joined), right when competition for the best tech employees exploded. They obviously had to lower their bar[1] significantly to keep growing, and they ended up scooping up masses of coastal urban[2] midwits, precisely the population that was most susceptible to and hit hardest by the religious awakening that occurred in the early 2010s. A bit more speculatively, there's some evidence that higher cognitive ability is correlated with support for free speech[3] and other tenets of liberalism, so any company going from a highly-selected-for-intelligence employee base to a dumber one has a built-in backlash against liberalism/pluralism/open-mindedness/etc.
[1] I'm not suggesting that a binary switch was flipped, and that I personally made it in right before they started dumbing down their hiring. I wouldn't be surprised if the bar was higher a few years before I joined, and I can't say whether I would've met that bar. It's an iterative process that sped up over time and the company started to suffer the cumulative effect in the quality of their employee body.
[2] This isn't implying that being coastal and urban makes you stupid. I myself am very much coastal and urban and have been my entire life. These are just the areas that were hit hardest by these ideologies, and "midwits" (to borrow a term from Taleb) are fertile ground for new mass movements.
[3] https://www.psypost.org/2020/05/higher-levels-of-cognitive-a...
> A bit more speculatively, there's some evidence that higher cognitive ability is correlated with support for free speech[3] and other tenets of liberalism, so any company going from a highly-selected-for-intelligence employee base to a dumber one has a built-in backlash against liberalism/pluralism/open-mindedness/etc.
I wonder if their focus on mind-numbing algo questions in interviews also contributed to this? Somebody willing to spend months grinding Hackerrank, Leetcode or the like to get a job probably isn't a bastion of criticial thinking.
I wonder if their focus on mind-numbing algo questions in interviews also contributed to this? Somebody willing to spend months grinding Hackerrank, Leetcode or the like to get a job probably isn't a bastion of criticial thinking.
> I wonder if their focus on mind-numbing algo questions in interviews also contributed to this? Somebody willing to spend months grinding Hackerrank, Leetcode or the like to get a job probably isn't a bastion of criticial thinking.
Fwiw, I didn't practice for my tech interviews and found my Google new-grad interviews pretty easy. IIRC, the questions were "implement a cache" and "turn a sorted array into a binary tree". I haven't done work similar to algorithm problems for a decade now, and I'm pretty sure I could ace that interview again with my eyes closed, using skills that are relatively useful for a general SWE job. Though obviously I was much closer in time to the algo questions of my CS education, and most of the complaints I've heard about the process are not centered around new-grad interviews.
Though perhaps that's your point? As the size of the organization scaled, perhaps they moved away from the type of interview I got, towards interviews that more closely match your complaint. Conducting an interview that accurately predicts job performance is basically an impossible task, so I wouldn't be surprised if, speaking generally, the quality of their interviews suffered from their scaling just as much as their candidate pool did.
Fwiw, I didn't practice for my tech interviews and found my Google new-grad interviews pretty easy. IIRC, the questions were "implement a cache" and "turn a sorted array into a binary tree". I haven't done work similar to algorithm problems for a decade now, and I'm pretty sure I could ace that interview again with my eyes closed, using skills that are relatively useful for a general SWE job. Though obviously I was much closer in time to the algo questions of my CS education, and most of the complaints I've heard about the process are not centered around new-grad interviews.
Though perhaps that's your point? As the size of the organization scaled, perhaps they moved away from the type of interview I got, towards interviews that more closely match your complaint. Conducting an interview that accurately predicts job performance is basically an impossible task, so I wouldn't be surprised if, speaking generally, the quality of their interviews suffered from their scaling just as much as their candidate pool did.
I've never interviewed at Google personally, but I've heard lots of people complain about the needless difficulty of the questions so I assume they're something harder than just turning a sorted array into a binary tree.
Truth is downvoted. There are tons of people hired after 2012 who aren't that great and survive on being political losers.
The politician needs a framework to control other people and fake enforced wokeness serves that purpose quite well.
The politician needs a framework to control other people and fake enforced wokeness serves that purpose quite well.
It's not worth paying attention to vote counts on HN; it's been years since I've taken them seriously. It's worth hanging out here for the smart people that remain, but there are a lot of dumb people with aspirations to the "magic" of success in SV that don't realize that being aggressively narrow-minded is explicitly counterproductive.
I think this is just the lifecycle of any space with low barriers to entry full of smart people. There are positive effects from smart people interacting openly, dumb people notice the effects and want a piece, and they flood the zone with their dumbness without realizing how anathema it is to what attracted them there in the first place.
I think this is just the lifecycle of any space with low barriers to entry full of smart people. There are positive effects from smart people interacting openly, dumb people notice the effects and want a piece, and they flood the zone with their dumbness without realizing how anathema it is to what attracted them there in the first place.
The flip side is what exactly do you need to say that you're silenced from saying. Our natural instinct to enter debates and "win" them really leads otherwise smart people astray as well.
Let the activists yap. And you do what you want to do.
We've evolved to speak not to win arguments, but to coordinate our actions better. And actions still speak loudest.
Let the activists yap. And you do what you want to do.
We've evolved to speak not to win arguments, but to coordinate our actions better. And actions still speak loudest.
For me, it's less about having things I need to say and more about endlessly analyzing what I'm about to say.
There is little, if any, forgiveness for the well-intentioned mistakes.
There is little, if any, forgiveness for the well-intentioned mistakes.
[deleted]
> We've evolved to speak not to win arguments, but to coordinate
Extraordinary generalizations require extraordinary evidence.
Extraordinary generalizations require extraordinary evidence.
Likewise. A few weeks ago someone took enough of an exception to me writing here that (COVID) masks are trivial that they went to my blog and vented quite unpleasantly. I know others who have had it much worse than me.
Similar thing happened to me. Last week I compared ignoring COVID guidance to reckless/drunk driving, and someone actually took time out of their day to look up my personal E-mail address and send me some unhinged rant, rather than just reply here. I don't know what it is about COVID but it's got some people totally off their rockers.
Masks are not yet "trivial" and it's stupid to argue otherwise. You don't need anything other than logic to see why: a great number of people in the US and elsewhere remain unvaccinated. And relying on the honor system to identify them (given the mentality one would expect of much of this group) is patently insane. So it's best, for now, to keep the masks on. This isn't about your freedom and it isn't even really about the direct mortality rate associated with COVID. It's about not flooding hospitals.
You don't need to worry about being canceled. In this case, it's sufficient to apply just a tad of critical thinking.
You don't need to worry about being canceled. In this case, it's sufficient to apply just a tad of critical thinking.
You misunderstand me: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2021/06/14/why-do-some...
> Masks are not yet "trivial" and it's stupid to argue otherwise.
Fauci disagrees with you.
Fauci disagrees with you.
Something is asymmetrical here. Those who cancel are also communicating things. Why don't they face pushback from what they say? Why don't they face consequences?
Power perpetuates itself through incomplete information; that's the asymmetry you're looking for.
Those who cancel often mindlessly repeat emotional lies, in anger. It takes lot more effort to engage somebody on cool, rational level.
Those who cancel often mindlessly repeat emotional lies, in anger. It takes lot more effort to engage somebody on cool, rational level.
Firstly, there's often a large mob of them. It's hard to punish 1000 people all contributing a little to the cancel attempt.
Secondly, the people who disagree and would like to see some pushback don't want to get mobbed themselves, and so they self-censor instead.
Secondly, the people who disagree and would like to see some pushback don't want to get mobbed themselves, and so they self-censor instead.
They do face consequences. Turn on Fox News for 5 minutes and you're bound to hear some talking head spreading alarmist narratives about cancel culture. Social Justice minded people get doxxed and dragged through the mud for their speech every day.
You seem to be complaining that "those who cancel" aren't being stripped of their voices. That's not a valid complaint if you care about free speech.
Free speech means you can say whatever you want about anything you like. It also means, that after hearing what you have to say, I can say whatever I like about you and your opinions. I can disagree with you just as much as you can disagree with me.
Disagreement isn't censorship, it's free speech. Social consequences are a natural counterpart to speaking your mind. People are allowed to draw lines, judge you, and cut you out of their lives for what you say.
Free speech applies to everyone with a voice, not just you. Censorship is when you aren't allowed to speak, not just simply facing consequences for what you choose to say.
You seem to be complaining that "those who cancel" aren't being stripped of their voices. That's not a valid complaint if you care about free speech.
Free speech means you can say whatever you want about anything you like. It also means, that after hearing what you have to say, I can say whatever I like about you and your opinions. I can disagree with you just as much as you can disagree with me.
Disagreement isn't censorship, it's free speech. Social consequences are a natural counterpart to speaking your mind. People are allowed to draw lines, judge you, and cut you out of their lives for what you say.
Free speech applies to everyone with a voice, not just you. Censorship is when you aren't allowed to speak, not just simply facing consequences for what you choose to say.
Let's say I post something online. And let's say that 100 people decide, not just that they disagree, but that they want to destroy me. They send anonymous rants and threats to my employer, my family, my neighbors, and my friends. They dox me, so that I have to worry about physical harm from any random nutcase who agrees with them and decides to bother.
What consequences do they face? Does anyone go to their boss (times 100) and say, what this person is doing isn't right, and is making your company look bad? Does anyone dox the doxxers?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen to Social Justice types. I'm saying, whoever it's done to, do the people doing it face consequences of their own? (If the Social Justice types are doing this themselves, then in their case the answer is yes.)
It's easy for a group of 100 angry people to cover one person they decide to destroy. It's less easy for the one person to return the favor to all 100 of them.
You say (paraphrased) that free speech still has the consequences of the feedback. That's fine. But the feedback has to also have the consequences of feedback.
What consequences do they face? Does anyone go to their boss (times 100) and say, what this person is doing isn't right, and is making your company look bad? Does anyone dox the doxxers?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen to Social Justice types. I'm saying, whoever it's done to, do the people doing it face consequences of their own? (If the Social Justice types are doing this themselves, then in their case the answer is yes.)
It's easy for a group of 100 angry people to cover one person they decide to destroy. It's less easy for the one person to return the favor to all 100 of them.
You say (paraphrased) that free speech still has the consequences of the feedback. That's fine. But the feedback has to also have the consequences of feedback.
Yes, people do doxx the doxxers, and yes those people get calls to their bosses when that happens.
The reason so many of them are pseudonymous is precisely because of that. Hell, 4chan and 8chan used to have three threads active at any time to do so until they banned it from the site (it moved to other places).
The reason so many of them are pseudonymous is precisely because of that. Hell, 4chan and 8chan used to have three threads active at any time to do so until they banned it from the site (it moved to other places).
The trick to avoid getting found out online is to change small, irrelevant details. Then, when they try to dox you, they will be chasing a phantasm.
The NSA already knows, but they don't care about that.
The NSA already knows, but they don't care about that.
Sooner or later an AI through linguistical analysis will link everything everyone has ever posted anywhere to their real name and photo from Facebook.
>Sooner or later an AI
One of the key takeaways from Mr. Andrew Ng's course on AI was that AI is not some kind of magic. There's always someone who attributes magical abilities to "lie detectors" and such wonders of technology. I think he was cautioning against such thinking. AI cannot do things a human expert is not capable of, for example predicting the stock market with 100% accuracy. It can only make predictions approximately as good as human experts.
In other words, if someone wanted to match your writings with linguistic analysis, and that were possible with AI, then they can do that today with human experts. The fact that you don't see it happen, and if anyone even tried they'd be met with great skepticism, means what you imagine probably isn't possible.
One of the key takeaways from Mr. Andrew Ng's course on AI was that AI is not some kind of magic. There's always someone who attributes magical abilities to "lie detectors" and such wonders of technology. I think he was cautioning against such thinking. AI cannot do things a human expert is not capable of, for example predicting the stock market with 100% accuracy. It can only make predictions approximately as good as human experts.
In other words, if someone wanted to match your writings with linguistic analysis, and that were possible with AI, then they can do that today with human experts. The fact that you don't see it happen, and if anyone even tried they'd be met with great skepticism, means what you imagine probably isn't possible.
Strongly agree that AI isn't magic, but I think you're making too broad a statement here. AI can certainly be superhuman in some areas, eg. chess and go. Whether or not human-level is the maximum depends on how the training data is created. If you have to rely on human experts to produce the labels (this is a dog, this is a cat, etc.), then it's going to be hard to design a system that can beat human performance. But for chess and go, you can get around that by using self-play.
In the case of matching writings, you can get around it by having a bunch of people create several pieces of writing each. Even if no human expert could tell whether two pieces were from the same person, it's still possible to give the network the correct labels when training because we know the ground truth of who wrote what.
Of course, a model can only work with information that actually exists. My gut says that writing leaks plenty of information about identity, so it should at least be possible to identify the author of large chunks of text (over 1000 words, say). But I could be wrong about that.
In the case of matching writings, you can get around it by having a bunch of people create several pieces of writing each. Even if no human expert could tell whether two pieces were from the same person, it's still possible to give the network the correct labels when training because we know the ground truth of who wrote what.
Of course, a model can only work with information that actually exists. My gut says that writing leaks plenty of information about identity, so it should at least be possible to identify the author of large chunks of text (over 1000 words, say). But I could be wrong about that.
Perhaps it's doable with humans, but not scalable.
And AI makes it scalable.
And AI makes it scalable.
Heh, my day-to-day experience of AI is cutting-edge machines from trillion-dollar companies trying to sell me *takes a quick look* diamond earrings, hair dryers, and universal remote controls. As a man who doesn't own a TV, it's hard to feel threatened by AI tracking online.
Realistically, using language models to change your writing style is probably going to stay a lot easier than using them to identify people.
Realistically, using language models to change your writing style is probably going to stay a lot easier than using them to identify people.
>They have panic attacks over the guilt and stress
They should get off of twitter
They should get off of twitter
And there you have self censorship at work!
It’s not self censorship, it’s mental hygiene.
Does avoiding 4chan also count as self censorship?
Politicians, journalists, academics, every celebrity ever, etc aren’t on 4chan (or at least trying to have serious conversations there). This isn’t a good comparison.
Nobody has tried to have a serious conversation on Twitter in 5 years. It's nothing but performance of your team allegiance.
There are multiple other places to get news and academic information from.
Twitter is the public square more than it a news source. The effects of loud voices there lead to global, real world change. Journalists talk to and police each other there. Celebrities influence millions of people there, enough to where people pay them to tweet certain things advantageous to them (“buy these cool Nike shoes!”).
4chan is an anonymous, interest-based forum that is more or less irrelevant to most non-internet people.
4chan is an anonymous, interest-based forum that is more or less irrelevant to most non-internet people.
>Twitter is the public square more than it a news source
~20% of Americans use twitter. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-...)
There's definitely some influence there, but the twitter's importance and impact on the world is severely overhyped.
~20% of Americans use twitter. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-...)
There's definitely some influence there, but the twitter's importance and impact on the world is severely overhyped.
> There's definitely some influence there, but the twitter's importance and impact on the world is severely overhyped.
I'm not sure I would make the same claim. Twitter is wildly popular among journalists, pundits, and other members of the media. Due to its outsized importance within these groups of people, I can easily see Twitter playing a large role in shaping media narratives.
I'm not sure I would make the same claim. Twitter is wildly popular among journalists, pundits, and other members of the media. Due to its outsized importance within these groups of people, I can easily see Twitter playing a large role in shaping media narratives.
They certainly are, just not to broadcast it.
>Accounts - can’t stay anonymous, ml systems working around the clock to identify posters.
Really? Thats fascinating! Anything you can provide that gives more insight into this? Has anyone written about this practice?
Really? Thats fascinating! Anything you can provide that gives more insight into this? Has anyone written about this practice?
There was a post here a few days ago that would analyze your hn comments and output the most identical looking other accounts. Lots of people wrote it output their alts and throwaways.
It looks like this was that article:
Show HN: Find Your Hacker News Doppelgänger
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27568709
Show HN: Find Your Hacker News Doppelgänger
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27568709
I believe you (and Snowden) are catastrophizing, or in other words self-cancelling. You have chosen to dramatically curtail your self-expression out of fear of social consequences.
It seems that what you fear is being "attack[ed] publicly." If that's the case, what you fear is that others will express themselves in a way that makes you uncomfortable. Wouldn't the cause of free speech be better advanced by defending to the death their right to express themselves, rather than by casting that expression as the death knell of modern society? If your side were to "win" this culture war, a whole lot of speech would be suppressed by new social norms. Free speech for me but not for thee.
If you walk into a bar and start mouthing off, there's a decent chance you'll get punched in the face. This is bad and a crime, but I never hear anyone talk about how it's a sign of the deterioration of free speech norms. Why is that?
This is what I mean by catastrophizing. In response to speech that makes you uncomfortable you have chosen to give up on self-expression on controversial topics (except this one apparently) and martyr yourself. But no one is forcing you to do that. The arena of public discourse is still open to all comers.
To the extent that I see any coherent position in the free-speech-substack cinematic universe, it's rather anodyne: "people should be nicer to each other." True enough as far as it goes.
It seems that what you fear is being "attack[ed] publicly." If that's the case, what you fear is that others will express themselves in a way that makes you uncomfortable. Wouldn't the cause of free speech be better advanced by defending to the death their right to express themselves, rather than by casting that expression as the death knell of modern society? If your side were to "win" this culture war, a whole lot of speech would be suppressed by new social norms. Free speech for me but not for thee.
If you walk into a bar and start mouthing off, there's a decent chance you'll get punched in the face. This is bad and a crime, but I never hear anyone talk about how it's a sign of the deterioration of free speech norms. Why is that?
This is what I mean by catastrophizing. In response to speech that makes you uncomfortable you have chosen to give up on self-expression on controversial topics (except this one apparently) and martyr yourself. But no one is forcing you to do that. The arena of public discourse is still open to all comers.
To the extent that I see any coherent position in the free-speech-substack cinematic universe, it's rather anodyne: "people should be nicer to each other." True enough as far as it goes.
Not OP, but there's a difference between having a legitimate and interesting discussion involving unpopular opinions and simply mouthing off at a bar. However, the reaction on the internet today tends to be one and the same for both cases: the online equivalent of being punched in the face. Being attacked publicly can go beyond uncomfortable in many cases (complaints to your work, family, death threats, etc).
The written word used to involve significant barriers that made one consider everything they said. It was also taken as a more formal medium, as it tended to be more permanent. Today, instead, you can express yourself online with next to no effort, and the majority of people write down thoughts as if they were in a verbal conversation, which has a far different permanence to it. I occasionally scroll back through comments I've even made myself on this site and have no recollection of what I was thinking or the comment when I said it. Yet there it is as a permanent record of who I am/was. Given that, I'd rather keep my controversial opinions to myself on social media, as I may not even hold those opinions in the future. I'll use meatspace discussions with friends, colleagues and others I respect to refine them, rather than the 'arena' of public opinion.
The written word used to involve significant barriers that made one consider everything they said. It was also taken as a more formal medium, as it tended to be more permanent. Today, instead, you can express yourself online with next to no effort, and the majority of people write down thoughts as if they were in a verbal conversation, which has a far different permanence to it. I occasionally scroll back through comments I've even made myself on this site and have no recollection of what I was thinking or the comment when I said it. Yet there it is as a permanent record of who I am/was. Given that, I'd rather keep my controversial opinions to myself on social media, as I may not even hold those opinions in the future. I'll use meatspace discussions with friends, colleagues and others I respect to refine them, rather than the 'arena' of public opinion.
> In response to speech that makes you uncomfortable
It is not in response to speech that makes people feel uncomfortable.
Instead it is in response to people attempting to dox you, target your friends and family and children, as well as possibly people's workplaces, and in the most extreme cases, make threats or attempts on one's life.
> The arena of public discourse is still open to all comers.
If your family gets threatened, and your children get stalked, due to things that you say, then in those cases I would not describe the area of public discourse being open.
All the things that I have described, are a threat to free speech, even if it isn't literally the government stalking down children, due to dislike of things that people are saying.
It is not in response to speech that makes people feel uncomfortable.
Instead it is in response to people attempting to dox you, target your friends and family and children, as well as possibly people's workplaces, and in the most extreme cases, make threats or attempts on one's life.
> The arena of public discourse is still open to all comers.
If your family gets threatened, and your children get stalked, due to things that you say, then in those cases I would not describe the area of public discourse being open.
All the things that I have described, are a threat to free speech, even if it isn't literally the government stalking down children, due to dislike of things that people are saying.
Seems like a bit of a motte and Bailey. Obviously it’s wrong to stalk peoples children. How often is this really happening? Again, catastrophizing
The point is that the social consequences of a comment can be catastrophic. There is the potential to lose your job, lose your friends, lose your family. Even if your opinion was just miswritten, misunderstood, misquoted, outdated, or immature one can be attacked for seemingly random reasons.
Read some of the commentary on this thread, and note some of the well written examples that counter your comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27581532
Read some of the commentary on this thread, and note some of the well written examples that counter your comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27581532
But don’t your friends and family have a right to come to their own conclusions about you? Maybe they learned something new about you and don’t like you anymore. maybe that’s unfair, you feel you’ve been mis*. But lots of things are unfair. Lots of people are misunderstood all the time. There is no affirmative right to have your coworkers at happy hour find you charming. Why should there be one for online discourse?
This chilling effect will be the downfall of western civilizations.
> backfired because their skin is the wrong colour or they aren’t trans
Are cis/white people are often discriminated against?
Are cis/white people are often discriminated against?
I don't think anyone escapes some kind of discrimination in such a deeply toxic society. It's maybe less obvious for cis, straight, white, and otherwise Default people, but it does happen. The material effects are usually not as severe as they are for anyone else.
yes? isn't this why racism is defined as "power + prejudice"? anyone can be prejudiced for or against a particular race, but only some people are in a position to do something about it.
There's no "power" component to racism. That was recently "added" so that certain groups could claim immunity from being deemed racist. Racism is simply racial prejudiced, or, prejudging someone based on their race. Anyone, of any race, can be racist, no power needed.
The saddest part is that the USA is the least racist country in the history of the world, and were in our least racist era only 20 years ago. Seems like most of the progress of the Civil Rights Movement has been lost since.
The saddest part is that the USA is the least racist country in the history of the world, and were in our least racist era only 20 years ago. Seems like most of the progress of the Civil Rights Movement has been lost since.
> That was recently "added" so that certain groups could claim immunity from being deemed racism
> There's no "power" component to racism. That was recently "added"
No it wasn’t particularly recent in the history of the term “racism”; The popular expression “prejudice plus institutional power” is more than 50 years old (1970), the idea probably older, and the word “racism” itself is less than 120 years old.
> The saddest part is that the USA is the least racist country in the history of the world
The saddest part is that people believe that as an article of faith.
> and were in our least racist era only 20 years ago.
We were in the era of least concern about racism around 20 years ago, which happened to correspond to the end of an expansion that unlike those since had not just strong aggregate numbers bit decent distributional features on both income quintile and race dimensions.
> There's no "power" component to racism. That was recently "added"
No it wasn’t particularly recent in the history of the term “racism”; The popular expression “prejudice plus institutional power” is more than 50 years old (1970), the idea probably older, and the word “racism” itself is less than 120 years old.
> The saddest part is that the USA is the least racist country in the history of the world
The saddest part is that people believe that as an article of faith.
> and were in our least racist era only 20 years ago.
We were in the era of least concern about racism around 20 years ago, which happened to correspond to the end of an expansion that unlike those since had not just strong aggregate numbers bit decent distributional features on both income quintile and race dimensions.
There's a non-trivial number of people who will tell you with a straight face that white people can't experience racism. People have redefined the word to mean what they want it to mean, which may have very little in common with the definition of the word.
> There's a non-trivial number of people who will tell you with a straight face that white people can't experience racism.
I'm not a big fan of the word games that people play these days, but I would otherwise mostly agree with those people. the status of the person/people discriminating against you makes a big difference. the worst example I can think of from my own life was when a DMV employee went out of her way to fail me on my driver's license test. another employee told me she only lets black kids pass. that sucked, but I went back the next day and passed with a different employee.
anyways, all I'm saying is people discriminate on the basis of race/gender/sexuality all the time. cis-hetero-rich-white dudes are not spared entirely, but the consequences tend to be minor in comparison.
I'm not a big fan of the word games that people play these days, but I would otherwise mostly agree with those people. the status of the person/people discriminating against you makes a big difference. the worst example I can think of from my own life was when a DMV employee went out of her way to fail me on my driver's license test. another employee told me she only lets black kids pass. that sucked, but I went back the next day and passed with a different employee.
anyways, all I'm saying is people discriminate on the basis of race/gender/sexuality all the time. cis-hetero-rich-white dudes are not spared entirely, but the consequences tend to be minor in comparison.
Low-impact racism is nonetheless racism. Saying that white people cannot experience racism is logically and demonstrably incorrect based on the universal definition of the word. There's no magnitude threshold that has to be met, only that the behavior is based on the color of your skin.
> Are cis/white people are often discriminated against?
Did you see "OFTEN"?
The parent post was clearly implying that non-trans people are facing significant discrimination rather than the opposite.
Did you see "OFTEN"?
The parent post was clearly implying that non-trans people are facing significant discrimination rather than the opposite.
Same here. Better to go covert. I've shifted over the years to maintaining a few close friends, with which you can candidly exchange.
[deleted]
> They go quiet or form a tiny invite only groups to hide after an attempt to do something good that backfired because their skin is the wrong colour or they aren’t trans.
I don't mean to be snarky since I don't know the specifics of situation your friends find yourselves in, but... is it possible that they should just grow thicker skin? I mean twitter is a cesspool of hate, bitterness, and anger. But you can simply not open it and ignore it, no?
I don't mean to be snarky since I don't know the specifics of situation your friends find yourselves in, but... is it possible that they should just grow thicker skin? I mean twitter is a cesspool of hate, bitterness, and anger. But you can simply not open it and ignore it, no?
Yeah I think anonymous accounts get a bad reputation and it's unfortunate.
Fake bought accounts have a good rep.
Fake bought accounts have a good rep.
> They go quiet or form a tiny invite only groups to hide after an attempt to do something good that backfired because their skin is the wrong colour or they aren’t trans. They have panic attacks over the guilt and stress
This right here is your indicator that this comment is an entirely made up story about hypothetical friends, with the sole intention of ragging on “liberals.”
Basically, it’s contrarian conservatism that criticizes not-very-controversial values (e.g., general equality) for incredibly vague reasons.
It’s even more ignorant than plain old bigotry because it’s so devoid of ideology. It’s just contrarianism for the sake of not doing what the “liberals” do.
The anti-masking movement of 2020 is the perfect demonstration of that contrarian ideology. Conservatives don’t even know why they oppose masks except that the liberals were putting them on.
It’s pretty sad considering that the first two sentences about ML and online identity were relatively productive conversation that could have gone somewhere thought provoking.
This right here is your indicator that this comment is an entirely made up story about hypothetical friends, with the sole intention of ragging on “liberals.”
Basically, it’s contrarian conservatism that criticizes not-very-controversial values (e.g., general equality) for incredibly vague reasons.
It’s even more ignorant than plain old bigotry because it’s so devoid of ideology. It’s just contrarianism for the sake of not doing what the “liberals” do.
The anti-masking movement of 2020 is the perfect demonstration of that contrarian ideology. Conservatives don’t even know why they oppose masks except that the liberals were putting them on.
It’s pretty sad considering that the first two sentences about ML and online identity were relatively productive conversation that could have gone somewhere thought provoking.
> This right here is your indicator that this comment is an entirely made up story about hypothetical friends, with the sole intention of ragging on “liberals.”
Nah, I’ve been inside some of the fandoms on the Internet before and I know exactly what the commenter’s talking about (and whenever a similar thing happens I do another facepalm.) /r/HobbyDrama has a fuckton of similar stories as this, you don’t need to adhere to a specific ideology to admit that these things happen. (And even the left has criticized idpol for a long time, don’t just assume the commenter is conservative because of this)
As to why people participate in these tribal fights in the Internet… well one of the problems I see in modern society is a severe lack of agency among the people. Fighting on the Internet for a cause (whether stupid or not) gives one a sense of agency that they are alive in this world and changing things. The problem is that most of the agency that the Internet provides is inconsequential for actually changing the real world and is detrimental to one’s mental health in the long term.
Nah, I’ve been inside some of the fandoms on the Internet before and I know exactly what the commenter’s talking about (and whenever a similar thing happens I do another facepalm.) /r/HobbyDrama has a fuckton of similar stories as this, you don’t need to adhere to a specific ideology to admit that these things happen. (And even the left has criticized idpol for a long time, don’t just assume the commenter is conservative because of this)
As to why people participate in these tribal fights in the Internet… well one of the problems I see in modern society is a severe lack of agency among the people. Fighting on the Internet for a cause (whether stupid or not) gives one a sense of agency that they are alive in this world and changing things. The problem is that most of the agency that the Internet provides is inconsequential for actually changing the real world and is detrimental to one’s mental health in the long term.
> They go quiet or form a tiny invite only groups to hide after an attempt to do something good that backfired because their skin is the wrong colour or they aren’t trans.
It really sounds like they accidentally offended someone, the person who was offended was so much so that they couldn't communicate why they were offended, and then your friends misinterpreted the issue.
It really sounds like they accidentally offended someone, the person who was offended was so much so that they couldn't communicate why they were offended, and then your friends misinterpreted the issue.
That's an odd reading of what they described. It sounds more like there friends did something good in the world but were told to sit-down and shut-up because they were the wrong race/gender/x.
Telling somebody to sit down and shut up is an exercise of free speech.
Yes, it sounds that way, but the event you (and they) describe has never happened.
That seems like a pretty ignorant thing to say, that in the sum of all human interactions online, the event OP described has never happened (or is even supposedly that rare). I would like to know why you think that would be true.
It certainly exists and I truly envy the fact it hasn’t affected your life yet. n=1 but it’s affected mine as a recent college graduate and person who works in FAANG.
There's a good example of just this thing happening right here[0]. A group of young climate activists disbanded because despite the good work they were doing they decided their group was too top-loaded with white people and should be led by POC.
[0] https://www.facebook.com/schoolstrike4climateauckland/posts/...
[0] https://www.facebook.com/schoolstrike4climateauckland/posts/...
[deleted]
If you try to speak for the Black community, and you aren't black, you don't have the "wrong color of skin", you are speaking for others without their permission, and they have the right to correct the record if they consider your take to be inaccurate.
If you try to speak for the trans community, and you aren't trans, you aren't being censored, you are being rebutted. Trans people have the right to correct the record when someone speaks on their behalf in a disagreeable way.
Anyone who sees disagreement as a form of censorship needs to take a step back and recognize that the right to disagree is an important facet of free speech, and attempting to defeat things like "cancel culture" and other vocal forms of public disagreement is a demonstrably larger threat to free speech than anything the social justice community could ever dish out.
Censorship is largely being redefined as experiencing consequences for what one says. This is an extraordinarily cowardly misrepresentation of censorship, that tries to redefine free speech as your speech, and tries to force the narrative that disagreement with your speech is actually stripping you of the right to speak.
Sure, public shaming and doxxing may have a chilling effect on many people's willingness to speak freely, but a lack individual willingness is not equivalent to a lack of permission.
Free speech requires bravery. If you are too much of a coward to speak freely, you aren't being censored, you're just a coward afraid of others' free speech.
If you try to speak for the trans community, and you aren't trans, you aren't being censored, you are being rebutted. Trans people have the right to correct the record when someone speaks on their behalf in a disagreeable way.
Anyone who sees disagreement as a form of censorship needs to take a step back and recognize that the right to disagree is an important facet of free speech, and attempting to defeat things like "cancel culture" and other vocal forms of public disagreement is a demonstrably larger threat to free speech than anything the social justice community could ever dish out.
Censorship is largely being redefined as experiencing consequences for what one says. This is an extraordinarily cowardly misrepresentation of censorship, that tries to redefine free speech as your speech, and tries to force the narrative that disagreement with your speech is actually stripping you of the right to speak.
Sure, public shaming and doxxing may have a chilling effect on many people's willingness to speak freely, but a lack individual willingness is not equivalent to a lack of permission.
Free speech requires bravery. If you are too much of a coward to speak freely, you aren't being censored, you're just a coward afraid of others' free speech.
> If you try to speak for the Black community, and you aren't black, you don't have the "wrong color of skin", you are speaking for others without their permission
So... wait... are you saying all these white people in BLM marches...
You're on a very slippery slope, my friend.
So... wait... are you saying all these white people in BLM marches...
You're on a very slippery slope, my friend.
You are misunderstanding. Folks marching in BLM Marches aren't speaking for the Black community.
The poster is talking about things more akin to, say, a non-trans person speaking about the experience of being trans or someone who has never went to college speaking for college graduates - when really, they shouldn't try to speak for groups they aren't a party to.
In other words, I can talk about prejudice and racism I've experienced and witnessed, but this doesn't mean that I have the credentials to talk about what it is like to, say, have dark skin in the US and experience that sort of racism. It just isn't the same, and I don't have that experience. After all, I can (in the US) basically just be a face in the crown in a small town.
The poster is talking about things more akin to, say, a non-trans person speaking about the experience of being trans or someone who has never went to college speaking for college graduates - when really, they shouldn't try to speak for groups they aren't a party to.
In other words, I can talk about prejudice and racism I've experienced and witnessed, but this doesn't mean that I have the credentials to talk about what it is like to, say, have dark skin in the US and experience that sort of racism. It just isn't the same, and I don't have that experience. After all, I can (in the US) basically just be a face in the crown in a small town.
Two people with the same shade of dark skin, but different in every other way. Are they both part of the "Black community"? Can one speak for the other?
Or is this "community" thing a political thing, where members share a narrative? If so, why do they get to claim the badge of "Black community" from other dark-shaded folk who aren't like-minded?
Or is this "community" thing a political thing, where members share a narrative? If so, why do they get to claim the badge of "Black community" from other dark-shaded folk who aren't like-minded?
> but a lack individual willingness is not equivalent to a lack of permission.
Just out of interest, are you in behavioral economics promoting nudging?
Just out of interest, are you in behavioral economics promoting nudging?
[deleted]
I very often type out comments on HN and then delete them. As Snowden alludes to, everything we submit to public forums is logged and stored. There is no doubt in my mind these comments are easily associated to my real identity with very little effort.
Another side of censorship I consider often is signal to noise. There is no reason to prevent people from saying whatever they want if no one will ever see it. I recall a stat I heard that YouTube receives ~400 hours of content uploaded every minute to their site. Or the long-tail of Twitch streamers with 0 viewers.
Finally, there is a threat of violence. We all know what happens to high-profile journalists because of their high profile. I often wonder how many nobodies disappear for some string of comments on some no-traffic forums/blogs.
Another side of censorship I consider often is signal to noise. There is no reason to prevent people from saying whatever they want if no one will ever see it. I recall a stat I heard that YouTube receives ~400 hours of content uploaded every minute to their site. Or the long-tail of Twitch streamers with 0 viewers.
Finally, there is a threat of violence. We all know what happens to high-profile journalists because of their high profile. I often wonder how many nobodies disappear for some string of comments on some no-traffic forums/blogs.
I do the same. I write tweets, or facebook notes to family or friends -- argumentative or loving. Or hacker news comments, or blog posts, or whatever. I often spend a surprising amount of time in editing, re-reading, and honing them out.
Then, I tap `CTRL+A, delete, CTRL+W`.
I have an old draft post where I mused about a coworker's hamfisted and awkward attempts to magnify the voices of those around him whom he felt were under-represented. He, a cisgender cissexual 30s-ish white tech guy, would often single out visible-minority individuals and then loudly try to cajole them into giving opinions on topics he felt they should have opinions about, or whenever he felt they were being unheard. It was surely coming from a good place, but without fail, it made his targets and everyone else uncomfortable. It was interesting, so I wrote about it.
Then I didn't post it, because I really don't know if my own take as another 30s-ish blah blah white tech guy on some hamfisted attempt to be an ally would ring true or read well at the time. Or especially years later. But I wrote it and then stashed it. Part of that 'chilling effect,' right?
But, I also wrote a big 'intro to contributing to open source' post, which I felt was too long and rambling, maybe had its own share of bad takes, and I honestly worry that I'm not qualified to post it. I'm just some guy! So I stashed that, too.
Was I self-censoring in the most dangerous way in the first instance, but not in the second? What brings about the distinction? I felt in both cases that the post might reflect poorly on me, so I didn't post it.
Snowden's post reads to me a bit like a writer's writing about having writer's block. I imagine him sitting down to write something, because he has this big new writing project he has to do, the newsletter. He comes up with 10 ideas, but then in thinking about really seriously grappling with each of them, he crosses each one out. Who is he, after all? Just some guy! He did a great thing that one time, that doesn't make him an expert on every info-sec/cultural/political topic du-jour.
So... what's left? Well, he can write about what he's going though! And 'how bad it is to censor yourself' is a pretty unique and elevated take on writing about 'how hard it is to figure out what to write', so, voila.
(And I'd love to just delete this rather than post it.)
Then, I tap `CTRL+A, delete, CTRL+W`.
I have an old draft post where I mused about a coworker's hamfisted and awkward attempts to magnify the voices of those around him whom he felt were under-represented. He, a cisgender cissexual 30s-ish white tech guy, would often single out visible-minority individuals and then loudly try to cajole them into giving opinions on topics he felt they should have opinions about, or whenever he felt they were being unheard. It was surely coming from a good place, but without fail, it made his targets and everyone else uncomfortable. It was interesting, so I wrote about it.
Then I didn't post it, because I really don't know if my own take as another 30s-ish blah blah white tech guy on some hamfisted attempt to be an ally would ring true or read well at the time. Or especially years later. But I wrote it and then stashed it. Part of that 'chilling effect,' right?
But, I also wrote a big 'intro to contributing to open source' post, which I felt was too long and rambling, maybe had its own share of bad takes, and I honestly worry that I'm not qualified to post it. I'm just some guy! So I stashed that, too.
Was I self-censoring in the most dangerous way in the first instance, but not in the second? What brings about the distinction? I felt in both cases that the post might reflect poorly on me, so I didn't post it.
Snowden's post reads to me a bit like a writer's writing about having writer's block. I imagine him sitting down to write something, because he has this big new writing project he has to do, the newsletter. He comes up with 10 ideas, but then in thinking about really seriously grappling with each of them, he crosses each one out. Who is he, after all? Just some guy! He did a great thing that one time, that doesn't make him an expert on every info-sec/cultural/political topic du-jour.
So... what's left? Well, he can write about what he's going though! And 'how bad it is to censor yourself' is a pretty unique and elevated take on writing about 'how hard it is to figure out what to write', so, voila.
(And I'd love to just delete this rather than post it.)
> Was I self-censoring in the most dangerous way in the first instance, but not in the second? What brings about the distinction? I felt in both cases that the post might reflect poorly on me, so I didn't post it.
If you as an individual self-censor on a particular topic because of a lack of expertise, that's not particularly dangerous to society - different people have different areas of knowledge, it'll all average out.
If the environment around a particular topic leads every moderate to self-censor on that topic, that is a lot more dangerous because it applies systematically; the societal discourse on that topic will be dominated by zealots who may steer us ever further astray.
If you as an individual self-censor on a particular topic because of a lack of expertise, that's not particularly dangerous to society - different people have different areas of knowledge, it'll all average out.
If the environment around a particular topic leads every moderate to self-censor on that topic, that is a lot more dangerous because it applies systematically; the societal discourse on that topic will be dominated by zealots who may steer us ever further astray.
Note that perhaps Facebook is logging what you type but not send. In fact, *especially* what you type and not send.
No “perhaps” necessary—Facebook employees have even published academic papers based on this.
> Social media also affords users the ability to type out and review their thoughts prior to sharing them. This feature adds an additional phase of filtering that is not available in face-to-face communication: filtering after a thought has been formed and expressed, but before it has been shared. … Last-minute self-censorship is of particular interest to [social networking sites]…
> In this paper, we shed some light on which Facebook users self-censor under what conditions, by reporting results from a large-scale exploratory analysis: the behavior of 3.9 million Facebook users.
https://sauvikdas.com/uploads/paper/pdf/4/self-censorship_on...
> Social media also affords users the ability to type out and review their thoughts prior to sharing them. This feature adds an additional phase of filtering that is not available in face-to-face communication: filtering after a thought has been formed and expressed, but before it has been shared. … Last-minute self-censorship is of particular interest to [social networking sites]…
> In this paper, we shed some light on which Facebook users self-censor under what conditions, by reporting results from a large-scale exploratory analysis: the behavior of 3.9 million Facebook users.
https://sauvikdas.com/uploads/paper/pdf/4/self-censorship_on...
Thanks for fighting the urge to delete and posting this. I appreciate the nuance of your perspective, and I think it brings a lot of value to this discussion. I don’t particularly want to express an opinion about the broader topic under discussion, but I do think that regardless of the cause, introspection of our “hot takes” as to whether they’re worth taking public or not is a valuable thing, and something it seems like not enough people do.
I'm haunted by Roko's Basilisk.
The story in it's original incarnation may be a bit outlandish. However, dial it in a few notches and you get a powerful AI that can associate you with anything you have ever left a data trail for, in the hands of an unknown future bad actor. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that was the thrust for the initial conception of it.
Given that, the Basilisk may already be in it's infant stage.
The story in it's original incarnation may be a bit outlandish. However, dial it in a few notches and you get a powerful AI that can associate you with anything you have ever left a data trail for, in the hands of an unknown future bad actor. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that was the thrust for the initial conception of it.
Given that, the Basilisk may already be in it's infant stage.
Tangent: You have nothing to fear from Roko's Basilisk. I analysed it from the perspective of four different decision theories, and in every one:
• It doesn't make sense to build the evil AI agent; and
• the evil AI agent has no incentive to torture people who decided not to build it (unless its utility function relates to such torture, but it doesn't make sense to build that AI agent unless you want to torture people – in which case, you should be scared of the mad scientist, not the AI).
I didn't publish because I find my essays embarrassing, but if you have specific worries I can assuage them.
• It doesn't make sense to build the evil AI agent; and
• the evil AI agent has no incentive to torture people who decided not to build it (unless its utility function relates to such torture, but it doesn't make sense to build that AI agent unless you want to torture people – in which case, you should be scared of the mad scientist, not the AI).
I didn't publish because I find my essays embarrassing, but if you have specific worries I can assuage them.
The Basilisk's tangible threat to the person in the past also relies upon the notion that a perfect simulation of you is indistinguishable from you (or can be used as a bargaining chip to regulate your actions in the present), which is a hypothesis that rests on very shaky ground.
The easiest way to escape the Basilisk's control is to say "Future simulation of me? Screw that guy; he sucks and gets whatever's coming to him."
The easiest way to escape the Basilisk's control is to say "Future simulation of me? Screw that guy; he sucks and gets whatever's coming to him."
It also relies on the fact that you can simulate the Basilisk well enough to know that it'll definitely hurt you (or the simulated you), such that your observation of its (conditional) decision to hurt you affects your actions.
However, we're not good enough at simulating the Basilisk; if it would decide to do something else, we wouldn't know, so it has no reason to waste resources on torturing us, so we have no reason to believe the threat credible, so nobody will make the Basilisk in the first place.
However, we're not good enough at simulating the Basilisk; if it would decide to do something else, we wouldn't know, so it has no reason to waste resources on torturing us, so we have no reason to believe the threat credible, so nobody will make the Basilisk in the first place.
Maybe I'm misremembering but I thought the point of the thought experiment was that the Basilisk builds itself?
No, that would be impossible. The idea is that a future AI is built with the goal of [something good] and discovers self preservation and then does the torture stuff.
> a future AI is built with the goal of [something good]
Er, no, the idea is that someone hypothesizes the (malicious) AI, and then is compelled to (intentionally) build it by threat of being tortured if anyone else builds and they did not. The AI is working as designed.
See also prisoner's dilemma and tragedy of the commons; Roko's Basilisk is only concerning because of the reasoning that someone else will ruin things for everyone, so you had better ruin things first.
Er, no, the idea is that someone hypothesizes the (malicious) AI, and then is compelled to (intentionally) build it by threat of being tortured if anyone else builds and they did not. The AI is working as designed.
See also prisoner's dilemma and tragedy of the commons; Roko's Basilisk is only concerning because of the reasoning that someone else will ruin things for everyone, so you had better ruin things first.
No, that's a version of the Basilisk that makes sense (almost – you don't need an AI for that). The original formulation was that the AI, built with the goal of [something good], would decide to torture people who didn't help build it so the threat of torture encouraged people-in-the-past to build it. (Yes, this is as nonsensical as it sounds; such acausal threats only work in specific scenarios and this isn't one of them.)
But yes, even if the Basilisk could make the threat credible (perhaps with a time machine), your strategy would still work. You can't be blackmailed by something that doesn't exist yet unless you want to be.
But yes, even if the Basilisk could make the threat credible (perhaps with a time machine), your strategy would still work. You can't be blackmailed by something that doesn't exist yet unless you want to be.
> The original formulation was [...] would decide to torture people
That formulation is not concerning, except to the extent that all AI is concerning due to the possibility of defects in value alignment.
> You can't be blackmailed by something that doesn't exist yet unless you want to be.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/fiction/2011-yvain-fermiparadox.h...
That formulation is not concerning, except to the extent that all AI is concerning due to the possibility of defects in value alignment.
> You can't be blackmailed by something that doesn't exist yet unless you want to be.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/fiction/2011-yvain-fermiparadox.h...
> Unless...and here 9-tsiak's agent-modeling systems came online...unless ve could negotiate a conditional surrender.
9-tsiak wanted to be. Or, at least, had good reason to risk the possibility.
9-tsiak wanted to be. Or, at least, had good reason to risk the possibility.
I think you've got an interesting idea there, but I'm not sure why you'd associate it with Roko's Basilisk given that people who are aware tend not to take it very seriously. It seems like you'd be better off just presenting your own idea, and maybe gesturing that it was "inspired by other ideas from LessWrong" if you really feel the need.
I had never heard about this. Interesting. Sounds like the AI in A Fire Upon the Deep. Awesome hard SciFi by Vernor Vinge.
That was the plot for "The Inquisitor" episode of Red Dwarf.
> I often wonder how many nobodies disappear for some string of comments on some no-traffic forums/blogs.
Maybe a bit conspiratorial. Even dictators need to prioritize their actions. And they'd go for speech that has impact (like said high-profile journalists), and less so for random noise on no-traffic forums with anonymous authors.
A lot gets lost in the internet noise. Nobody cares about it.
Maybe a bit conspiratorial. Even dictators need to prioritize their actions. And they'd go for speech that has impact (like said high-profile journalists), and less so for random noise on no-traffic forums with anonymous authors.
A lot gets lost in the internet noise. Nobody cares about it.
> Even dictators need to prioritize their actions.
A bastardization of Andy Grove's famous words: "Only the paranoid [dictators] survive".
You'd be surprised at how paranoid dictators get. Every little sign of disobedience is magnified into a "threat". This is the reason why almost all autocratic systems end up devolving into police states with (usually) multiple large intelligence agencies keeping each other in check.
A bastardization of Andy Grove's famous words: "Only the paranoid [dictators] survive".
You'd be surprised at how paranoid dictators get. Every little sign of disobedience is magnified into a "threat". This is the reason why almost all autocratic systems end up devolving into police states with (usually) multiple large intelligence agencies keeping each other in check.
Obligatory link to CGP Grey’s “The Rules for Rulers”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
I try not to be paranoid about it, but there are several governments that I just don't talk about online. They are known for aggressive Internet task forces and have histories of taking actions. I don't see any benefit publicly voicing my opinion on them.
All it takes is for them to indefinitely store all content posted to certain sites (and you can bet reddit and hacker news are on that list), then run algorithms to de-anonymize it. Then they can score you.
Maybe in the future you get a promotion. Maybe you're crossing a border. Maybe a YouTube video you post goes viral. Suddenly that scored record of you sets off an alarm.
The digital history you are creating today isn't going away for the rest of your life.
All it takes is for them to indefinitely store all content posted to certain sites (and you can bet reddit and hacker news are on that list), then run algorithms to de-anonymize it. Then they can score you.
Maybe in the future you get a promotion. Maybe you're crossing a border. Maybe a YouTube video you post goes viral. Suddenly that scored record of you sets off an alarm.
The digital history you are creating today isn't going away for the rest of your life.
It's typically after you end up in the public eye for some other reason that someone becomes motivated to hunt for material from your past.
Today you're a random internet commentator; tomorrow you're in a fight with your kid's school board, publishing a popular book, who knows.
Today you're a random internet commentator; tomorrow you're in a fight with your kid's school board, publishing a popular book, who knows.
[deleted]
You seemed fairly reasonable up until you revealed that you believe in some paranoid conspiracy to disappear internet nobodies for their social media comments...
>I often wonder how many nobodies disappear for some string of comments on some no-traffic forums/blogs.
The answer is zero. I hope this helps.
>I often wonder how many nobodies disappear for some string of comments on some no-traffic forums/blogs.
The answer is zero. I hope this helps.
I post and edit. It's become an obsession frankly.
This is possibly a unique angle, but by being in taboo art circles (erotic art specifically), I'm struck at how much I see this topic resonating with my fellow artists.
I know so many, too many, far more than I can count on my hands who have simply given up posting kink art because they keep getting mobbed, doxxed, slandered, and harassed simply by posting art (or seeing their friends getting shredded as well). I know so many that have forced to bounce from platform to platform from instagram to tumblr to twitter because either the algorithm censors you or the mob abuses the "report user" button if they simply don't care for your art.
I know so many who have had to host on friend's servers because big-name hosts ban erotic art and kinks in tiny print in the TOS and it's just not worth it to fucking bounce from host to host unless if it's an actual friend who supports true artistic freedom.
I know so many who are winding up in making zines as a last resort, because zines can be printed at the home computer, so they're one of the last truly uncensored artistic mediums in comparison to the internet. And yet - how many trailblazing artists have we lost from that crushing top-down censorship even with that one meager avenue open?
So yes, this is relevant and urgent, and in more ways than it appears.
I know so many, too many, far more than I can count on my hands who have simply given up posting kink art because they keep getting mobbed, doxxed, slandered, and harassed simply by posting art (or seeing their friends getting shredded as well). I know so many that have forced to bounce from platform to platform from instagram to tumblr to twitter because either the algorithm censors you or the mob abuses the "report user" button if they simply don't care for your art.
I know so many who have had to host on friend's servers because big-name hosts ban erotic art and kinks in tiny print in the TOS and it's just not worth it to fucking bounce from host to host unless if it's an actual friend who supports true artistic freedom.
I know so many who are winding up in making zines as a last resort, because zines can be printed at the home computer, so they're one of the last truly uncensored artistic mediums in comparison to the internet. And yet - how many trailblazing artists have we lost from that crushing top-down censorship even with that one meager avenue open?
So yes, this is relevant and urgent, and in more ways than it appears.
Have you tried Pixiv ;P It's a gallery, not a social platform. It's pretty effortless too, I just hit 5k followers and I started in 2019 after Tumblr exploded. Just post your art, tag it, and the horny people will come
I've actually been on it for 5+ years, and dA for 10+. :)
A great niche for what it serves, but this topic is far beyond what a single site can bring to the table, and much more like a cultural/moral war.
A great niche for what it serves, but this topic is far beyond what a single site can bring to the table, and much more like a cultural/moral war.
I know not this platform, and with the context as given I am not about to visit it at work. I am amused at this given the article talks about social chilling. :-P
But your description seems at odds with itself.
Who is following you if it isn't a social platform?
But your description seems at odds with itself.
Who is following you if it isn't a social platform?
A gallery site like Pixiv and Deviantart has users, and they can comment and you can reply etc, but the primary purpose isn’t to chat. You can’t post anything other than content. It’s not for blogging or shower thoughts. The followers are people who typically just make collections of pictures they like.
Perhaps an unpopular opinion on this thread, but this is just a convenient distraction while republican state houses and Secretaries of State across the country erode our real voice - access to the ballot box.
Republicans are suing Twitter to unmask fake cows that post unflattering things about them because, feelings? Death threats and plans to kidnap elected officials? A goddamn noose erected on the steps of the capitol amid the first incursion on that building in something like 200 years? And I’m supposed to empathize?
The whole thing is a mess. Nobody talks to each other. There was another thread I came across - don’t forget where I found it - but people who had put some tough guy face online suddenly weren’t so aggressive once they were face to face.
There is a lot of division but there is common ground to find. It’s hard when the right paints you as literal child eating demons and the left says you are a racist xenophobic asshole, but damnit we need to come together - what’s the alternative????
When there are topics we should truly come together on - enfranchisement comes to mind - we are too busy infighting that we lose sight of the real goal. And that’s how democracies die.
Republicans are suing Twitter to unmask fake cows that post unflattering things about them because, feelings? Death threats and plans to kidnap elected officials? A goddamn noose erected on the steps of the capitol amid the first incursion on that building in something like 200 years? And I’m supposed to empathize?
The whole thing is a mess. Nobody talks to each other. There was another thread I came across - don’t forget where I found it - but people who had put some tough guy face online suddenly weren’t so aggressive once they were face to face.
There is a lot of division but there is common ground to find. It’s hard when the right paints you as literal child eating demons and the left says you are a racist xenophobic asshole, but damnit we need to come together - what’s the alternative????
When there are topics we should truly come together on - enfranchisement comes to mind - we are too busy infighting that we lose sight of the real goal. And that’s how democracies die.
Another unpopular opinion (that I don't strongly hold but often think about) - but isn't a little voter friction a good thing? Voting friction (a little, not a lot) acts like a filter. It filters for voters who want to participate in democracy and make an effort to do so. In other words, I question the assumption that the more frictionless the voting, the healthier the democracy.
For example, if commenting on a website were truly frictionless (i.e. anonymous users could post without an account), the quality of the discussion would go to pot and the signal-to-noise ratio would dramatically deteriorate. A small barrier to entry (sign-in required) increases the quality/signal-to-noise by a large factor even if it "disenfranchises" some people that would have otherwise commented but couldn't because they didn't have time to create an account.
In that same vein, I think that if you make voting too easy you'll increase "noise" of the ballots, since lots of people that otherwise wouldn't have voted are now submitting low-effort ballots with essentially random bubbles filled in (other than perhaps the most prominent candidate). If it's not unreasonable to require users of websites to create an account before they can participate, why is it unreasonable to essentially require the same thing before contributing to the government of a nation?
For example, if commenting on a website were truly frictionless (i.e. anonymous users could post without an account), the quality of the discussion would go to pot and the signal-to-noise ratio would dramatically deteriorate. A small barrier to entry (sign-in required) increases the quality/signal-to-noise by a large factor even if it "disenfranchises" some people that would have otherwise commented but couldn't because they didn't have time to create an account.
In that same vein, I think that if you make voting too easy you'll increase "noise" of the ballots, since lots of people that otherwise wouldn't have voted are now submitting low-effort ballots with essentially random bubbles filled in (other than perhaps the most prominent candidate). If it's not unreasonable to require users of websites to create an account before they can participate, why is it unreasonable to essentially require the same thing before contributing to the government of a nation?
Any voter friction is an attack on democracy.
What you deem "adequate" friction is just your opinion that only "the right people" can vote.
Maybe that's an opinion that people should have to put on clothes to go vote, but then, if this was actually a lot of people, don't they deserve a societal voice?
Democracy is only democracy when everyone has the vote, because otherwise it's just another variant of the King asking his small council.
What you deem "adequate" friction is just your opinion that only "the right people" can vote.
Maybe that's an opinion that people should have to put on clothes to go vote, but then, if this was actually a lot of people, don't they deserve a societal voice?
Democracy is only democracy when everyone has the vote, because otherwise it's just another variant of the King asking his small council.
Is having a constitution an attack on democracy? It does after all mean that there are times the will of the majority won't be respected.
Fuck it, babies should vote, the ballot they try to eat is their choice.
Fight me XorNot
Fight me XorNot
It's reasonable to have a discussion about voter friction and whether it can be advantageous to democracy. The point of the parent though is that changes to voter laws discriminate in friction; that is, some groups are more affected than others. When friction is applied unevenly, it becomes disenfranchisement.
[deleted]
What would you consider to be “enough” friction? Equating voting to commenting on Internet forums is a bit disingenuous IMO. I mean, if you had to register at your local government internet commenter office at least a few days or even months before commenting, then show up on a given day to comment long hand in person after waiting in line, perhaps you would have a point.
My point is that we already have significant friction built into the process of voting.
I think a more interesting thought experiment is around compulsory voting. Making the incentives work the other way- where you’re expected to participate in the process. I wonder if people would take it more seriously if you had penalties for not participating?
My point is that we already have significant friction built into the process of voting.
I think a more interesting thought experiment is around compulsory voting. Making the incentives work the other way- where you’re expected to participate in the process. I wonder if people would take it more seriously if you had penalties for not participating?
Voting isn't and can't be free in the "throwaway internet comment" sense, since there's always the cost of having to live with whoever wins for however long there term is.
I doubt it helps you achieve your objective of conversation by generalizing extremist actions toward the republicans. Any more than suggesting antifa actions drive the democratic ideology.
I'd argue that (among other things) it's the echoing of this type of polarizing talk that creates the "sides" of the conversation.
I'd argue that (among other things) it's the echoing of this type of polarizing talk that creates the "sides" of the conversation.
Was there something I said that was untrue? We have to have conversations but those conversations have to be grounded in a shared reality. I would be interested to hear about your views on antifa.
I'm not objecting to the veracity of what you wrote. I'm objecting to the immediate framework of political party in which the conversation started. Once the comment is placed into that box, the nature of the discussion changes.
I would draw the discussion lines more around those in power versus the people and would further argue that this model is really the defining conversation of modern politics today.
I would draw the discussion lines more around those in power versus the people and would further argue that this model is really the defining conversation of modern politics today.
I don't see requiring an ID to vote as a very big hurdle. I needed to provide a lot more than that to get my COVID vaccine.
This is a question that is highly dependent on culture, history and location. In Europe nobody would bat an eye and agree to that. But the US had malignant actors that tried to exclude people from voting that were not in their camp. It was nothing else than targeted discrimination. So being skeptical is completely warranted, even if you believe that the US has changed. And even then there can still be problems.
It has to do with lacking trust in today's institutions as well as towards the police.
It has to do with lacking trust in today's institutions as well as towards the police.
If the requirement for ID was paired together with laws mandating that the ID be free of charge and easy to get by every citizen, I'd agree.
Are there any states that do not provide free IDs for those in need?
A quick google search suggests that it is easier to list the states that do have a provision for free ID than to list the ones that do not.
It is also not that simple, it is not just about cost, there are other barriers to getting identification. Availability of DMV offices, limited hours, etc.
Perhaps we should make passport cards free, and then fund an organization to proactively identify and issue cards to every US citizen who does not already have one. Then we can require that card in order to vote.
Problem, of course, is that the US Constitution makes voting a state problem. So we are probably doomed to continue having some states adding as much friction as possible while others seek to eliminate that friction altogether.
It is also not that simple, it is not just about cost, there are other barriers to getting identification. Availability of DMV offices, limited hours, etc.
Perhaps we should make passport cards free, and then fund an organization to proactively identify and issue cards to every US citizen who does not already have one. Then we can require that card in order to vote.
Problem, of course, is that the US Constitution makes voting a state problem. So we are probably doomed to continue having some states adding as much friction as possible while others seek to eliminate that friction altogether.
Don’t you also have to register in advance, prove that you are resident and not voting in multiple places ?
I’d love to believe it’s literally just showing up with an ID, but that doesn’t seem realistic to me.
I’d love to believe it’s literally just showing up with an ID, but that doesn’t seem realistic to me.
For you, it probably isn't. But it isn't like the US makes sure everyone can easily get an ID even if rules state you should be able to get one for free.
The same folks may or may not need to provide more than that to get a Covid vaccine. If they need more, they probably won't get a vaccine. Less, and they will.
The same folks may or may not need to provide more than that to get a Covid vaccine. If they need more, they probably won't get a vaccine. Less, and they will.
When I think back to the me of my teenage years or early twenties, I recognize that I had many strong beliefs that were probably wrong. I think that modern requirements of self-censorship have at least one really valuable outcome. They force people (with jobs, reputations, etc) to think carefully before posting online. I suspect that many people may be like me - they are hesitant to click "add comment" not out of fear of having a mob come after them, but rather because (a) they have realized that their own current opinions may be wrong, and recognize that there is harm that comes from an abundance of wrong opinions or (b) the cost in time of careful self-editing is too high. Maybe the author of this piece would argue that this is a bad thing, but my impression is that it's almost universally the case that if you can't be careful in speaking/writing there will usually be less harm from silence than from blurting out whatever comes to mind immediately.
There are plenty of people that cheerfully post extreme opinions, even under their own names on Facebook. I get the impression that these people are some combination of: reckless/impulsive, in a social bubble, "got nothing to lose", or not very careful thinkers. I think that the effect of more careful and cautious thinkers self-selecting out of the conversation is often just to make the conversation dominated by the above sorts of people, and I don't think that's an improvement.
" think that modern requirements of self-censorship have at least one really valuable outcome. They force people (with jobs, reputations, etc) to think carefully before posting online. "
There's nothing wrong with being wrong.
Especially in hindsight.
We all regret things we've once said - that's the point of being human.
This has nothing to do with 'getting people to think before they act' - in oppressive regimes with all of the power, it's about control. In open societies with competing ideologies it's a 'nation-sized knife-fight where certain groups are cutting down even their own in the name of antagonizing glory.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong.
Especially in hindsight.
We all regret things we've once said - that's the point of being human.
This has nothing to do with 'getting people to think before they act' - in oppressive regimes with all of the power, it's about control. In open societies with competing ideologies it's a 'nation-sized knife-fight where certain groups are cutting down even their own in the name of antagonizing glory.
If all decent people keep their ideas quiet out of fear of writing something wrong, what's the public discourse going to look like?
I think it'd be far better to acknowledge that even the best people are wrong a lot of the time, there will always be a plurality of views on a given subject, but having everyone chip in their best guess paints a far truer and more useful picture than having everyone defer to a handful of overconfident extremists.
I think it'd be far better to acknowledge that even the best people are wrong a lot of the time, there will always be a plurality of views on a given subject, but having everyone chip in their best guess paints a far truer and more useful picture than having everyone defer to a handful of overconfident extremists.
Conversely though, if you're afraid to express an opinion that may be incorrect, then you're likely to hold that opinion much longer because nobody will be there to tell you you're wrong.
> they have realized that their own current opinions may be wrong
May be wrong how? In the eyes of a future Twitter mob?
May be wrong how? In the eyes of a future Twitter mob?
[deleted]
What about the self-censorship of our neo-cortex telling us not to insult other people? Is that bad too?
Expression, and respectful expression, is a very nuanced and complex topic. This dramatic post presents the far end of the spectrum where every word can lead one to be fired. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Expression, and respectful expression, is a very nuanced and complex topic. This dramatic post presents the far end of the spectrum where every word can lead one to be fired. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
I think it's different on the internet though. Like, if we state an opinion in person, there's a few key differences:
- People are likely to respond in a much more civil manner, they're not just going to yell at you
- A lot of complex intonation and nuance gets across a lot easier
- Any misunderstandings can be quickly corrected
On the other hand with the internet, you lose all those things, so IMO it's more up to the receiver to give the speaker the benefit of the doubt, unless it's clear the speaker's intent is to insult.
- People are likely to respond in a much more civil manner, they're not just going to yell at you
- A lot of complex intonation and nuance gets across a lot easier
- Any misunderstandings can be quickly corrected
On the other hand with the internet, you lose all those things, so IMO it's more up to the receiver to give the speaker the benefit of the doubt, unless it's clear the speaker's intent is to insult.
>- People are likely to respond in a much more civil manner, they're not just going to yell at you
While I think that's true to a certain extent, I'd also say that the internet selects for the loudest, rudest voices.
Example. I was reading this this morning. (this this? English is an odd language).
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-bret-weinste...
Fine. I get it. Look for the first response (and others) from some guy named Thom Prentice. That's what the internet is all about. 10 second of research shows you that he's That Guy who goes to all the city council meetings to yell, continuously runs for office, has restraining orders. Every town has them.
That Guy has come to their full potential on social media.
While I think that's true to a certain extent, I'd also say that the internet selects for the loudest, rudest voices.
Example. I was reading this this morning. (this this? English is an odd language).
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-bret-weinste...
Fine. I get it. Look for the first response (and others) from some guy named Thom Prentice. That's what the internet is all about. 10 second of research shows you that he's That Guy who goes to all the city council meetings to yell, continuously runs for office, has restraining orders. Every town has them.
That Guy has come to their full potential on social media.
I love taiibi's substack! As to that comment, WOW. There's this weird internet hate for guy's like weinstein or jordan peterson when, even if you happen to disagree with them they're incredibly tame about what they say.
I read some blog about why this happens. There's no tribal value in showing you hate someone who's obviously bad because everyone hates them no matter what side they're on. You have to show you hate someone who's good enough for reasonable people to like them. Then your expression of hate reinforces your position as being deep within your side and far from the middle ground which is dangerously close to the enemy.
Maybe there's just an endorphin rush from being outrageous.
> - People are likely to respond in a much more civil manner, they're not just going to yell at you
People are going to ignore you and leave as well, because they (a) want to go about their day and have no interest in what you have to say, or (b) actively fear physical violence because you're within arm's reach of them, or (c) [my favorite] I'm actually in the office (or worse, with family) and still need to work with this person (or deal with them for the rest of their natural life), and would like to avoid an adversarial campaign of passive-aggressive retribution or (maybe worse?) an ongoing daily update on the dangers of chemtrails or whatever.
Basically, people who think dialogue happens better in person I don't think are necessarily being very cognizant of the fact that in person I'm equal parts trying to mind my physical safety and mind the overall environment I have to work in.
So am I self-censoring? Aggressively. Continuously.
People are going to ignore you and leave as well, because they (a) want to go about their day and have no interest in what you have to say, or (b) actively fear physical violence because you're within arm's reach of them, or (c) [my favorite] I'm actually in the office (or worse, with family) and still need to work with this person (or deal with them for the rest of their natural life), and would like to avoid an adversarial campaign of passive-aggressive retribution or (maybe worse?) an ongoing daily update on the dangers of chemtrails or whatever.
Basically, people who think dialogue happens better in person I don't think are necessarily being very cognizant of the fact that in person I'm equal parts trying to mind my physical safety and mind the overall environment I have to work in.
So am I self-censoring? Aggressively. Continuously.
> What about the self-censorship of our neo-cortex telling us not to insult other people? Is that bad too?
It's appropriately calibrated.
If something would anger 50 people out of your neolithic tribe of ~100, it might well be a bad idea to say it. If something would anger 50 people on Twitter... I'm not sure there's a single thing that wouldn't anger 50 people on Twitter.
It's appropriately calibrated.
If something would anger 50 people out of your neolithic tribe of ~100, it might well be a bad idea to say it. If something would anger 50 people on Twitter... I'm not sure there's a single thing that wouldn't anger 50 people on Twitter.
> What about the self-censorship of our neo-cortex telling us not to insult other people? Is that bad too?
Sometimes it's bad. Insults are an occasionally useful tool, and can be wielded to diminish the standing of adversaries who might otherwise be more powerful.
EDIT: speaking of insults, this is on the HN front page right now:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27595429
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossa...
Sometimes it's bad. Insults are an occasionally useful tool, and can be wielded to diminish the standing of adversaries who might otherwise be more powerful.
EDIT: speaking of insults, this is on the HN front page right now:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27595429
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossa...
> Sometimes it's bad. Insults are an occasionally useful tool, and can be wielded to diminish the standing of adversaries who might otherwise be more powerful.
If we're moving past pure reason into useful tools and tricks to diminish people's standing... where is the bright line between that and the "cancel culture" bogeyman?
If we're moving past pure reason into useful tools and tricks to diminish people's standing... where is the bright line between that and the "cancel culture" bogeyman?
> If we're moving past pure reason into useful tools and tricks to diminish people's standing...
Without getting into the "cancel culture" aspect (which seems like a red herring), in order to even get to a point where "pure reason" comes into play, you have to force your adversary to engage on that level.
For instance, a powerful politician isn't going to take the risk of engaging in any argument unless there is something that makes ignoring it costly. If anything, they'll especially ignore a well-reasoned argument against them if they can get away with it. They're not going to get into a debate with someone because their points seem interesting or insightful; they're going to avoid engaging altogether. It's not worth the risk.
Insults are one of the tools that can create enough negative publicity to diminish their standing, and to force them to engage, in order to avoid further diminution.
Without getting into the "cancel culture" aspect (which seems like a red herring), in order to even get to a point where "pure reason" comes into play, you have to force your adversary to engage on that level.
For instance, a powerful politician isn't going to take the risk of engaging in any argument unless there is something that makes ignoring it costly. If anything, they'll especially ignore a well-reasoned argument against them if they can get away with it. They're not going to get into a debate with someone because their points seem interesting or insightful; they're going to avoid engaging altogether. It's not worth the risk.
Insults are one of the tools that can create enough negative publicity to diminish their standing, and to force them to engage, in order to avoid further diminution.
Yes, it is bad. Cultures that discourage “rude” comments invariably have more corruption than cultures that encourage frankness. Take the Netherlands for example. People say they are rude. But really, it’s just that Americans can’t tell the difference between objective honesty and malicious insults.
People who say what they mean and call it like they see it are brave. They don’t cash in tomorrow for a little convenience today.
People who say what they mean and call it like they see it are brave. They don’t cash in tomorrow for a little convenience today.
Are you actually arguing that we should always communicate every thought that comes to our head? That we should never choose to keep a thought to ourselves?
This does not seem like a good idea in practice. There are lots of thoughts we should keep to ourselves. If you see a friend with a new haircut, and you think it looks ugly, should you immediately just blurt out “hey, your new haircut looks awful”? Why? Just because it is how you feel doesn’t mean you need to tell everyone.
I find the people who insist on “telling it like it is” and who are “just being honest” are often just being assholes.
This does not seem like a good idea in practice. There are lots of thoughts we should keep to ourselves. If you see a friend with a new haircut, and you think it looks ugly, should you immediately just blurt out “hey, your new haircut looks awful”? Why? Just because it is how you feel doesn’t mean you need to tell everyone.
I find the people who insist on “telling it like it is” and who are “just being honest” are often just being assholes.
For what it’s worth, “radical honesty” does exactly that. Best done with the consent of those you’re being radically honest with, because without that one definitely comes across as a dick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_honesty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_honesty
> If you see a friend with a new haircut, and you think it looks ugly, should you immediately just blurt out “hey, your new haircut looks awful”? Why?
My friends would expect me to say this, yes, and I have the same expectation. If everyone thought my haircut looked bad, I would want to know.
My friends would expect me to say this, yes, and I have the same expectation. If everyone thought my haircut looked bad, I would want to know.
> If you see a friend with a new haircut, and you think it looks ugly, should you immediately just blurt out “hey, your new haircut looks awful”?
There's a middle ground: you can be honest if asked, but not volunteer negative opinions.
There's a middle ground: you can be honest if asked, but not volunteer negative opinions.
Yeah except that countries that lean closer to what you’re talking about are universally better than countries that lean in the direction of politeness. Lower corruption, happier by all metrics and so on. Should you let your friend walk around town and become a laughing stock of the community just because you were too afraid to tell him the guy at Supercuts must have had a hangover? Like I said, you’re trading in tomorrow for today. Trading in the big picture for short term gain or convenience. Ultimately it’s a net loss and it’s societal poison that, if left unchecked, leads to corruption and stagnation.
The emotional reaction to harmless words is not an intrinsic aspect of human biology. If someone says mean things in a malicious attempt to hurt you, it is natural to be emotionally disturbed or upset at the fact that someone has malicious intent toward you. But in some cultures you can tell someone their haircut is messed up and they understand that you don’t have malicious intent. It’s a cultural artifact, albeit a widespread one. It tripped me up for a long time too because I was born in a country that doesn’t know any better.
The emotional reaction to harmless words is not an intrinsic aspect of human biology. If someone says mean things in a malicious attempt to hurt you, it is natural to be emotionally disturbed or upset at the fact that someone has malicious intent toward you. But in some cultures you can tell someone their haircut is messed up and they understand that you don’t have malicious intent. It’s a cultural artifact, albeit a widespread one. It tripped me up for a long time too because I was born in a country that doesn’t know any better.
Any evidence of this claim? It hasn't been my experience. For instance, I believe that politeness is more valued in Asian countries like Japan and Korea and I would disagree with your assertion.
Anecdotally, I've found Russians to be the frankest and corruption is rampant there, so I am not sure what the basis of your assertion is.
Politeness is about respecting others. You can communicate difficult things while still being polite.
Anecdotally, I've found Russians to be the frankest and corruption is rampant there, so I am not sure what the basis of your assertion is.
Politeness is about respecting others. You can communicate difficult things while still being polite.
Yes, Japan. Where people literally work themselves to death and where the truth goes to die a brutal death. Consider the time that Japanese pilots crashed a plane because the senior pilot was mistaken and his subordinates were afraid of correcting him. The only reason Japanese society functions, if you could call such an unhappy society functional, is because the core tenants of its culture are quietly overridden from time to time. Any system where people never say what they mean and where seniority trumps the truth is insane, full stop.
And let’s not forget Korea. Korea where they have this little problem called “the highest suicide rate in the developed world.” And it’s no cake walk over there. Inequality is insane. What else would you expect from a place where people insanely ignore what is right in front of them for a little short-term gain?
Do frank, direct cultures like Denmark and the Netherlands suffer from these problems? You tell me.
And Russia? Are you kidding? They are completely a culture of respect. Everything is based on respect. It’s one of the most emotion-based societies in the developed world. They will happily overlook little niggling and inconvenient truths for the sake of respect or perceived virtue, as evidenced by their former system of government. Try learning something about Russia… I remember the founder of Scihub had a parasite named after her out of respect by an American biologist or something. She was super offended. Russia is perhaps one of the worst countries in that respect. Almost anything will upset a Russian, let alone the truth. It’s one of the most “never say anything even remotely offensive or else they will be upset” countries out there. The fact that you don’t know this really reflects poorly on your argument. You cite your “experience” but then don’t appear to have much.
And yes I realize she’s not Russian, there’s a huge amount of overlap in their cultures.
And let’s not forget Korea. Korea where they have this little problem called “the highest suicide rate in the developed world.” And it’s no cake walk over there. Inequality is insane. What else would you expect from a place where people insanely ignore what is right in front of them for a little short-term gain?
Do frank, direct cultures like Denmark and the Netherlands suffer from these problems? You tell me.
And Russia? Are you kidding? They are completely a culture of respect. Everything is based on respect. It’s one of the most emotion-based societies in the developed world. They will happily overlook little niggling and inconvenient truths for the sake of respect or perceived virtue, as evidenced by their former system of government. Try learning something about Russia… I remember the founder of Scihub had a parasite named after her out of respect by an American biologist or something. She was super offended. Russia is perhaps one of the worst countries in that respect. Almost anything will upset a Russian, let alone the truth. It’s one of the most “never say anything even remotely offensive or else they will be upset” countries out there. The fact that you don’t know this really reflects poorly on your argument. You cite your “experience” but then don’t appear to have much.
And yes I realize she’s not Russian, there’s a huge amount of overlap in their cultures.
No, it isn't invariable.
Singapore is less corrupt than the Netherlands.
Hong Kong is less corrupt than Austria and Belgium and Estonia.
Japan has less corruption than Poland.
Your claim seems based on cherry picking.
Singapore is less corrupt than the Netherlands.
Hong Kong is less corrupt than Austria and Belgium and Estonia.
Japan has less corruption than Poland.
Your claim seems based on cherry picking.
Well some of those are good points but not really. Out of the hundreds of countries with cultures of silence and respect, you can count the “successful” ones on one hand. Semantics? Corruption isn’t the whole picture either. See my other comment. I just say corruption because it’s a pretty good metric of whether or not the machinery of society is functional and rational.
Imagine a spectrum where on one side you can’t say anything that would offend someone or put your immediate interests at risk, and on the other side you blurt out the truth even if you don’t want to.
In the former, corruption is inevitable. Nothing gets called out. In the latter, corruption is impossible. You obviously want to be closer to the latter. Just because you pull up some examples where they are pretty close but not all the way doesn’t really say anything about my argument. But thank you for calling out my hyperbolic use of the word “invariably,” like a good Scandinavian.
Imagine a spectrum where on one side you can’t say anything that would offend someone or put your immediate interests at risk, and on the other side you blurt out the truth even if you don’t want to.
In the former, corruption is inevitable. Nothing gets called out. In the latter, corruption is impossible. You obviously want to be closer to the latter. Just because you pull up some examples where they are pretty close but not all the way doesn’t really say anything about my argument. But thank you for calling out my hyperbolic use of the word “invariably,” like a good Scandinavian.
> Americans can’t tell the difference between objective honesty and malicious insults.
Sometimes it is both when you are speaking with the Dutch.
Sometimes it is both when you are speaking with the Dutch.
"Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter" are not moral highgrounds for free speech - they're engagement-driven platforms that thrive on drama and conflict.
Posting on these platforms is not real human communication.
If you can't calm down and remove yourself from an online argument before posting something that is almost guaranteed to be misunderstood, you're not evading self-censorship, you're feeding an addiction.
I'm probably doing it right now.
Posting on these platforms is not real human communication.
If you can't calm down and remove yourself from an online argument before posting something that is almost guaranteed to be misunderstood, you're not evading self-censorship, you're feeding an addiction.
I'm probably doing it right now.
I think we need to let go of the idea that offending people is harmful. It's fine to take offense, we are all free to do that, but I don't think there should be any expectation that people do anything to avoid offending you other than practicing basic civility. You are likely not harmed just because I believe something different from you. Frankly, if you feel like you need a safe space to hide from ideas that you disagree with, the world is too sharp for you to handle.
On that same note, if you decide to express offensive views, you should be willing to accept the social backlash for doing so.
Your right to speak isn't infringed by allowing others to exercise their own right to speak against you.
Letting go of the idea that offending people is harmful is probably a good thing, but you will also need to let go of the idea that people aren't permitted to be offended by what you say.
If you cannot accept the consequence of offending others, you should keep your mouth shut. Free speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want and hear nothing in return.
Your right to speak isn't infringed by allowing others to exercise their own right to speak against you.
Letting go of the idea that offending people is harmful is probably a good thing, but you will also need to let go of the idea that people aren't permitted to be offended by what you say.
If you cannot accept the consequence of offending others, you should keep your mouth shut. Free speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want and hear nothing in return.
'Offense' - its definition changes based on person's emotional state, their ideology, their background, how much sleep they had last night, or simply they're trolls, or get offended because they want to play a victim, etc.
So, if we follow your template of society, it would be impossible to not offend someone. Society would come to a complete halt.
A society where expression is nulled by people that follow this ideology would have no art, no expression, no culture and a single authoritarian mindset of following the line and never deviating from it. The ministry of emotional well-being will be keeping an eye on you. At best it would be a boring stagnant society, at worst it will be dangerous and impossible to protest against it.
It's a destructive concept and I'd like to question who determines the line that you walk on. I hope you can reflect a little bit and it should be easy how this can be problematic.
So, if we follow your template of society, it would be impossible to not offend someone. Society would come to a complete halt.
A society where expression is nulled by people that follow this ideology would have no art, no expression, no culture and a single authoritarian mindset of following the line and never deviating from it. The ministry of emotional well-being will be keeping an eye on you. At best it would be a boring stagnant society, at worst it will be dangerous and impossible to protest against it.
It's a destructive concept and I'd like to question who determines the line that you walk on. I hope you can reflect a little bit and it should be easy how this can be problematic.
"We should encourage people to express their views, but also normalize lynching them if we disagree with those."
Can you conceive of any views one can express that deserve social backlash?
The question is who is the mob. I fear the crazies much more who stormed the capital and tried to overthrow our democracy than some online SJWs who are going to try and cancel someone for having an unpopular opinion.
Not that either are great, for instance I didn't find Damore's opinions outlandish although expressed poorly.
Not that either are great, for instance I didn't find Damore's opinions outlandish although expressed poorly.
Personally, I fear mob violence commited with the sanction and cooperation of the state and news media. That's the sort of violence which starts, keeps going, and doesn't stop until it literally burns itself out.
In general, organized violence ends when 1) law enforcement takes decisive action to detain the perpetrators, and 2) organizers think the violence no longer serves their political goals. Both 1) and 2) were true of the Capitol insurrection, which was universally condemned and whose perpetrators were swiftly rounded up. Neither were especially true of the far-left anarchist uprisings, particularly in cities like Portland where permissive DAs let the same rioters out literally within hours of their arrest, while NPR and the Washington Post praised those who threw firebombs at courthouses and police stations. So, I expect less of the former and more of the latter.
In general, organized violence ends when 1) law enforcement takes decisive action to detain the perpetrators, and 2) organizers think the violence no longer serves their political goals. Both 1) and 2) were true of the Capitol insurrection, which was universally condemned and whose perpetrators were swiftly rounded up. Neither were especially true of the far-left anarchist uprisings, particularly in cities like Portland where permissive DAs let the same rioters out literally within hours of their arrest, while NPR and the Washington Post praised those who threw firebombs at courthouses and police stations. So, I expect less of the former and more of the latter.
> 1) law enforcement takes decisive action to detain the perpetrators, and 2) organizers think the violence no longer serves their political goals. Both 1) and 2) were true of the Capitol insurrection, which was universally condemned
1) The law enforcement has a track record of glad handling the far right. 2) many prominent right wing media and political figures tried blaming the insurrection on antifa, are blocking any investigations, and are justifying the event and the big lie that created it.
I don’t think most people who aren’t supporters of right wing viewpoints will agree with your assessments.
1) The law enforcement has a track record of glad handling the far right. 2) many prominent right wing media and political figures tried blaming the insurrection on antifa, are blocking any investigations, and are justifying the event and the big lie that created it.
I don’t think most people who aren’t supporters of right wing viewpoints will agree with your assessments.
(Considered not replying, but then looked again at the link title...)
The view of law enforcement as going easy on the far-right may have been true in 1970s America, but it does not appear so 2021. Far-right militia movements have been subject to intense scrutiny and violence (and some allege, entrapment) since their growth in the 1990s [0][1]. In the case of the Capitol riot, 525 people have now been federally charged [2]. Arrested rioters have been "savagely beaten" in jail by prison guards, to the point of skull fractures and permanent blindness [3].
It's true that fringe Congressional Republicans such as Josh Hawley or Marjorie Taylor Greene have tried to blame antifa for the Capitol insurrection. They hold no powerful Senate or House positions, and appear "prominent" mainly due to the attention the the press gives them. The actual Republican Congressional leadership swiftly denounced the insurrection, and placed blame for the attack on President Trump [4][5].
In contrast, President Biden and prominent Senators such as Jerry Nadler have repeatedly denied the existence of organized far-left violence at all [6][7], describing events such as the month-long nightly siege of the federal courthouse in Portland "a myth" and "imaginary." Speaker Nancy Pelosi has acknowledged antifa gangs' existence in the past, after they vandalized her house and sprayed it with pig blood.
As rioters threw Molotov cocktails and firebombs at the federal courthouse in Portland, attacked federal agents with hammers, lasers, and bricks, beat and stabbed journalists, set fire to the Mayor's condo building, and were arrested carrying illegal firearms, the Washington Post gave them a glowing photo shoot [8]. They were praised as morally virtuous freedom-fighters. In Seattle, anarchists occupied several city blocks for weeks with assault rifles, and shot dead an unarmed black child [9] before destroying the evidence and concealing the killer's identity. These stories disappeared from the Washington Post, NPR, and even Fox News within days, yet we still get frequent updates on the Capitol insurrection.
Finally, it makes no difference whether cops arrest more left-wing rioters if the local DA and US Attorney decide to release them and dismiss all charges [10][11]. There's been little such leniency applied to violent actors in the Capitol insurrection. This has not gone unnoticed by either the far-right or far-left.
The exasperation I feel watching this unfold as someone on the center-left is a shadow of what I sense from the actual right wing. I think anger at the leniency given to far-left violence last summer is what propelled a lot of people to attack the Capitol, in a "if they can get away with it, why can't we?" sort of tantrum. This emotional potential still remains. The risk of an eventual organized right-wing backlash, which so far has not reached the level of burning down buildings, executing people in the street, or occupying city blocks with armed militants, is what worries me most about the chance of more far-left violence. The extreme right is watching the extreme left get away with it, and they are taking notes.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25839889
[1] https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/06/07/w...
[2] https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-ar...
[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/06/capitol-riot-defend...
[4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-blam...
[5] https://www.newsweek.com/kevin-mccarthy-tells-gop-stop-claim...
[6] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2020/07/27/nadle...
[7] https://news.yahoo.com/biden-says-antifa-idea-not-025049929....
[8] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/08/trump-sent-...
[9] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25671284
[10] https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2020/08/11/district-attorn...
[11] https://www.kgw.com/article/news/investigations/portland-pro...
The view of law enforcement as going easy on the far-right may have been true in 1970s America, but it does not appear so 2021. Far-right militia movements have been subject to intense scrutiny and violence (and some allege, entrapment) since their growth in the 1990s [0][1]. In the case of the Capitol riot, 525 people have now been federally charged [2]. Arrested rioters have been "savagely beaten" in jail by prison guards, to the point of skull fractures and permanent blindness [3].
It's true that fringe Congressional Republicans such as Josh Hawley or Marjorie Taylor Greene have tried to blame antifa for the Capitol insurrection. They hold no powerful Senate or House positions, and appear "prominent" mainly due to the attention the the press gives them. The actual Republican Congressional leadership swiftly denounced the insurrection, and placed blame for the attack on President Trump [4][5].
In contrast, President Biden and prominent Senators such as Jerry Nadler have repeatedly denied the existence of organized far-left violence at all [6][7], describing events such as the month-long nightly siege of the federal courthouse in Portland "a myth" and "imaginary." Speaker Nancy Pelosi has acknowledged antifa gangs' existence in the past, after they vandalized her house and sprayed it with pig blood.
As rioters threw Molotov cocktails and firebombs at the federal courthouse in Portland, attacked federal agents with hammers, lasers, and bricks, beat and stabbed journalists, set fire to the Mayor's condo building, and were arrested carrying illegal firearms, the Washington Post gave them a glowing photo shoot [8]. They were praised as morally virtuous freedom-fighters. In Seattle, anarchists occupied several city blocks for weeks with assault rifles, and shot dead an unarmed black child [9] before destroying the evidence and concealing the killer's identity. These stories disappeared from the Washington Post, NPR, and even Fox News within days, yet we still get frequent updates on the Capitol insurrection.
Finally, it makes no difference whether cops arrest more left-wing rioters if the local DA and US Attorney decide to release them and dismiss all charges [10][11]. There's been little such leniency applied to violent actors in the Capitol insurrection. This has not gone unnoticed by either the far-right or far-left.
The exasperation I feel watching this unfold as someone on the center-left is a shadow of what I sense from the actual right wing. I think anger at the leniency given to far-left violence last summer is what propelled a lot of people to attack the Capitol, in a "if they can get away with it, why can't we?" sort of tantrum. This emotional potential still remains. The risk of an eventual organized right-wing backlash, which so far has not reached the level of burning down buildings, executing people in the street, or occupying city blocks with armed militants, is what worries me most about the chance of more far-left violence. The extreme right is watching the extreme left get away with it, and they are taking notes.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25839889
[1] https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/06/07/w...
[2] https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-ar...
[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/06/capitol-riot-defend...
[4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-blam...
[5] https://www.newsweek.com/kevin-mccarthy-tells-gop-stop-claim...
[6] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2020/07/27/nadle...
[7] https://news.yahoo.com/biden-says-antifa-idea-not-025049929....
[8] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/08/trump-sent-...
[9] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25671284
[10] https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2020/08/11/district-attorn...
[11] https://www.kgw.com/article/news/investigations/portland-pro...
OANN suggests people should be executed over the 2020 election.
But yeah antifa is the real problem. https://www.newsweek.com/qanon-executions-oann-presenter-tra...
The invasion of the capitol basically proves law enforcement goes easy on the far right. That there was going to be a far right shit show in the capitol was no secret and everyone knew in advance but the law enforcement leaders Literally prevented their people from making adequate preparations because they could not believe those “fine” people would ever do something bad. But when what surprised no one happened, it kinda forced their hand to respond. It’s the capitol and cops died, they don’t have a choice but go hard.
Maybe garland is changing things but it’s yet to be seen, all I know is up to Jan 6 white nationalists were kid gloved. White nationalist infiltration of law enforcement is a known issue.
But yeah antifa is the real problem. https://www.newsweek.com/qanon-executions-oann-presenter-tra...
The invasion of the capitol basically proves law enforcement goes easy on the far right. That there was going to be a far right shit show in the capitol was no secret and everyone knew in advance but the law enforcement leaders Literally prevented their people from making adequate preparations because they could not believe those “fine” people would ever do something bad. But when what surprised no one happened, it kinda forced their hand to respond. It’s the capitol and cops died, they don’t have a choice but go hard.
Maybe garland is changing things but it’s yet to be seen, all I know is up to Jan 6 white nationalists were kid gloved. White nationalist infiltration of law enforcement is a known issue.
I encourage you to read the Senate's comprehensive report on the Capitol attack, released earlier this month:
https://www.rules.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan%206%20HSGAC%2...
There was incompetence and miscommunication at every level of the multi-agency, multi-layer bureaucracy in charge of protecting the Capitol. For example: "In at least once instance, USCP protective shields were locked in a bus during the riot so that a CDU platoon was unable to access them, and as a result, the platoon was required to respond to the crowd without the protection of their riot shields." Worse: "USCP officers, for example, were given defective riot shields that had been improperly stored and, as a result, shatter[ed] upon impact."
Planners thought the Jan. 6 rally would "be similar to the previous Million MAGA March rallies" in which participants stayed in the designated areas, and violence was only provoked by counter-protestors. Given attendees' vocal support for police and years of prior peaceful rally behavior, I understand their assumption. In hindsight they were clearly mistaken, and their lack of preparation for every contingency was inexcusable.
The report describes general incompetence, complacency, and failures of communication. It does not describe favoritism or cooperation with the far-right. It does not show that Trump or his subordinates obstructed the National Guard deployment. In fact, on Jan. 4 call with DC officials, acting Secretary of Defense Miller "suggested locking down D.C. to avoid potential violence; however, the idea was not pursued." The Guard was only requested to provide aid at the Capitol at the last minute.
https://www.rules.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan%206%20HSGAC%2...
There was incompetence and miscommunication at every level of the multi-agency, multi-layer bureaucracy in charge of protecting the Capitol. For example: "In at least once instance, USCP protective shields were locked in a bus during the riot so that a CDU platoon was unable to access them, and as a result, the platoon was required to respond to the crowd without the protection of their riot shields." Worse: "USCP officers, for example, were given defective riot shields that had been improperly stored and, as a result, shatter[ed] upon impact."
Planners thought the Jan. 6 rally would "be similar to the previous Million MAGA March rallies" in which participants stayed in the designated areas, and violence was only provoked by counter-protestors. Given attendees' vocal support for police and years of prior peaceful rally behavior, I understand their assumption. In hindsight they were clearly mistaken, and their lack of preparation for every contingency was inexcusable.
The report describes general incompetence, complacency, and failures of communication. It does not describe favoritism or cooperation with the far-right. It does not show that Trump or his subordinates obstructed the National Guard deployment. In fact, on Jan. 4 call with DC officials, acting Secretary of Defense Miller "suggested locking down D.C. to avoid potential violence; however, the idea was not pursued." The Guard was only requested to provide aid at the Capitol at the last minute.
One's opinion on this probably depends on identity and political views.
From what I understand, Trump blocked the National Guard from supporting officers during the Capitol insurrection, so it was supported by the President at the very least.
Preventing the certification of Biden is a more grave threat to our democracy than the BLM protestors in cities like Portland, IMO.
Mainly since White Americans are still the majority and by and large supporters of the right, I don't see movements like BLM gaining much power.
From what I understand, Trump blocked the National Guard from supporting officers during the Capitol insurrection, so it was supported by the President at the very least.
Preventing the certification of Biden is a more grave threat to our democracy than the BLM protestors in cities like Portland, IMO.
Mainly since White Americans are still the majority and by and large supporters of the right, I don't see movements like BLM gaining much power.
The Senate's comprehensive report on the Capitol attack [0], released earlier this month, appears to exonerate Trump in deployment of the National Guard. In fact, his acting Secretary of Defense (to whom deployment authorization was delegated) suggested locking down DC ahead of time, but city officials demurred.
>Mainly since White Americans are still the majority and by and large supporters of the right, I don't see movements like BLM gaining much power.
You'd be surprised. Most violent actors who call themselves antifa are white, especially in the Pacific Northwest [1]. During last summer's Portland courthouse siege, a white BLM/antifa rioter stabbed a black Trump supporter in the stomach [2]. This stabbing wasn't reported in outlets like NPR or the Washington Post, even as they praised rioters and criticized the police response.
[0] https://www.rules.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan%206%20HSGAC%2...
[1] https://twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1302964750817652739
[2] https://heavy.com/news/2020/07/blake-hampe/
>Mainly since White Americans are still the majority and by and large supporters of the right, I don't see movements like BLM gaining much power.
You'd be surprised. Most violent actors who call themselves antifa are white, especially in the Pacific Northwest [1]. During last summer's Portland courthouse siege, a white BLM/antifa rioter stabbed a black Trump supporter in the stomach [2]. This stabbing wasn't reported in outlets like NPR or the Washington Post, even as they praised rioters and criticized the police response.
[0] https://www.rules.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan%206%20HSGAC%2...
[1] https://twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1302964750817652739
[2] https://heavy.com/news/2020/07/blake-hampe/
Snowden's publisher was sued and prevented from paying him for the work. What's the deal with the paid subscription option then? Will substack end up just pocketing the money, or is there some legal workaround? For that matter, could the government try and go after any paying subscribers?
Stripe probably has better lawyers with more experience dealing with payments than the publisher. They might even be the same lawyers Substack has since they're both YC companies.
Not sure about substack, but usually the Fed won't chase small time subscribers. They are more likely to yank the money at the payment processor.
The most dangerous censorship is the one that is happening to you.
We used to have a policy literally called "Don't Tell" in the US. People who "told" (or were outed) were fired... assuming they weren't killed for it, by somebody who would claim that they "panicked" (a defense still legal in 38 states[1]). That wasn't the most dangerous censorship.
Women are commonly told that if they wear the wrong thing, then they deserve to be raped. Clothes are a form of self-expression -- but shutting that up isn't the most dangerous censorship.
A Pulitzer Prize winning journalist was denied tenure because one donor didn't like what she said. But that's not the most dangerous censorship.
We all watched a videotaped murder last year, and when the police were sent in to beat up peaceful protesters -- including journalists -- that wasn't the most dangerous censorship.
A lot of censorship goes on, and has gone on. As far as I can tell, this one rises to the level of "most dangerous censorship" because he thinks it's the one that's happening to him. I hear not a peep about any of the others.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/virginia-becomes-12t...
We used to have a policy literally called "Don't Tell" in the US. People who "told" (or were outed) were fired... assuming they weren't killed for it, by somebody who would claim that they "panicked" (a defense still legal in 38 states[1]). That wasn't the most dangerous censorship.
Women are commonly told that if they wear the wrong thing, then they deserve to be raped. Clothes are a form of self-expression -- but shutting that up isn't the most dangerous censorship.
A Pulitzer Prize winning journalist was denied tenure because one donor didn't like what she said. But that's not the most dangerous censorship.
We all watched a videotaped murder last year, and when the police were sent in to beat up peaceful protesters -- including journalists -- that wasn't the most dangerous censorship.
A lot of censorship goes on, and has gone on. As far as I can tell, this one rises to the level of "most dangerous censorship" because he thinks it's the one that's happening to him. I hear not a peep about any of the others.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/virginia-becomes-12t...
You are dangerously close to the truth here, but it isn't what the thread is about.
In one sense, I'd argue that the feeling of censorship is misguided. People are more free to communicate now with a larger audience than ever before in history. Before if you had something controversial to say, unless you were an extremely well-known academic or politician, it didn't get any further than your barstool or bridge club. Now your thoughts can be instantly transmitted to an audience of literally millions. Ideas are being hyper-amplified, not hyper-suppressed.
However, it comes with a catch. In pre-Internet days, when your verbal blurts potentially reached dozens, you felt fairly free and unimpeded to reach the limits of your communication bubble, tiny as it was. Even if you were roundly condemned, the area of effect was likely small and the duration transitory. Now that your verbal blurts can reach millions, so many more people can take issue with your words, and they remain part of your dreaded "permanent record" forever. Consequently the stakes have become much higher. Speech doesn't feel free and unimpeded, even though in practice structural impediments have been greatly reduced.
It seems to me unfortunately that the lowering of structural impediments to communication ineluctably goes hand in hand with the raising of social impediments. People are becoming cautious because we simply can't take for granted that any speech we generate will stay safely within its intended audience. Private emails can be dredged up years later. Screenshots can be taken without our knowledge. Phones can record videos of us saying and doing things we thought were personal and confidential. Information just wanted to be free, and got its wish, but it's turned people into prisoners in a panopticon. My point being, these are two sides of the same coin. Blaming "Marxism" or "cancel culture" and the like isn't going to change that fact.
However, it comes with a catch. In pre-Internet days, when your verbal blurts potentially reached dozens, you felt fairly free and unimpeded to reach the limits of your communication bubble, tiny as it was. Even if you were roundly condemned, the area of effect was likely small and the duration transitory. Now that your verbal blurts can reach millions, so many more people can take issue with your words, and they remain part of your dreaded "permanent record" forever. Consequently the stakes have become much higher. Speech doesn't feel free and unimpeded, even though in practice structural impediments have been greatly reduced.
It seems to me unfortunately that the lowering of structural impediments to communication ineluctably goes hand in hand with the raising of social impediments. People are becoming cautious because we simply can't take for granted that any speech we generate will stay safely within its intended audience. Private emails can be dredged up years later. Screenshots can be taken without our knowledge. Phones can record videos of us saying and doing things we thought were personal and confidential. Information just wanted to be free, and got its wish, but it's turned people into prisoners in a panopticon. My point being, these are two sides of the same coin. Blaming "Marxism" or "cancel culture" and the like isn't going to change that fact.
I think this is a good analysis and I think too few people consider it this way. I'm not convinced that changes in culture are driving this as much as changes in how information is shared and spread and I'm disappointed how few people, even on Hacker News, seem interested in this angle.
> Even if you were roundly condemned, the area of effect was likely small and the duration transitory.
In the past, the duration could be transitory even if the audience was larger!
I think that because mass media archives were previously much less available and less easily searchable. If you got on TV or had an article or letter published in a newspaper or magazine, a whole lot of people might have seen it at a point in time, but it would be relatively inconvenient for people to do the research to dig it up on microfiche or VHS tape archives or something in order to try to punish you for what you said later on. So opposition research was mostly done against political candidates, judicial nominees, or whatever, but not necessarily against other people.
When I was a college student I wrote a lot of letters to my college newspaper. Many of them got printed, and some of them greatly angered activists on campus, some of whom then expressed strong anger toward me. That was very shocking and upsetting for me, but probably the lifecycle of that anger was on the order of days to weeks, as opposed to having people routinely and easily look up my views in order to get angry at me over and over again months or years later (or even try to get me in hot water with friends or employers). In that case, I sought out a larger audience, but "enjoyed" that audience in a mostly pretty ephemeral way.
In the past, the duration could be transitory even if the audience was larger!
I think that because mass media archives were previously much less available and less easily searchable. If you got on TV or had an article or letter published in a newspaper or magazine, a whole lot of people might have seen it at a point in time, but it would be relatively inconvenient for people to do the research to dig it up on microfiche or VHS tape archives or something in order to try to punish you for what you said later on. So opposition research was mostly done against political candidates, judicial nominees, or whatever, but not necessarily against other people.
When I was a college student I wrote a lot of letters to my college newspaper. Many of them got printed, and some of them greatly angered activists on campus, some of whom then expressed strong anger toward me. That was very shocking and upsetting for me, but probably the lifecycle of that anger was on the order of days to weeks, as opposed to having people routinely and easily look up my views in order to get angry at me over and over again months or years later (or even try to get me in hot water with friends or employers). In that case, I sought out a larger audience, but "enjoyed" that audience in a mostly pretty ephemeral way.
This makes a lot of sense to me, thank you.
This is why I delete all my old tweets, posts and comments on all sites with a passing link to my actual profile.
Nothing good has ever become of people's old tweets popping up years later. Ever.
I think HN has the longest history of my comments, just because it's not possible to delete or anonymize comments without creating a bunch of throwaway accounts.
Nothing good has ever become of people's old tweets popping up years later. Ever.
I think HN has the longest history of my comments, just because it's not possible to delete or anonymize comments without creating a bunch of throwaway accounts.
Powerful comment on how we cancel ourselves, before we let others do it to us
--
Just observing today my favourited and most impactful (to me) articles on HN were all flagged
Why do we do this to ourselves?
--
Just observing today my favourited and most impactful (to me) articles on HN were all flagged
Why do we do this to ourselves?
Because most people don't want to be tracked down, harassed, or forced out of their job because they said something someone took as offensive to the wrong people.
People use twitter as their personal army and no one is worse than people who think they are morally just.
C.S. Lewis articulates this well. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/19967-of-all-tyrannies-a-ty...
People use twitter as their personal army and no one is worse than people who think they are morally just.
C.S. Lewis articulates this well. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/19967-of-all-tyrannies-a-ty...
Free speech includes calling your employer and telling them what you said online.
Your employer doesn't have to listen or do anything about it. Should they choose to fire you, it's because whatever you said online was deemed worth firing you for.
If the things you want to say online could get you fired, find a new job before opening your mouth. If you like your job, don't do things that will get you fired.
Free speech doesn't mean that people have to be forced to tolerate what you say. If your words make it to your employer's ears, and they decide to terminate your employment, that's because your employer no longer views your employment as worthwhile, which is entirely their choice to make.
Most of America is at-will employment. If you want to establish the right to work, fight for that - otherwise, accept that your employment comes with certain terms.
Your employer doesn't have to listen or do anything about it. Should they choose to fire you, it's because whatever you said online was deemed worth firing you for.
If the things you want to say online could get you fired, find a new job before opening your mouth. If you like your job, don't do things that will get you fired.
Free speech doesn't mean that people have to be forced to tolerate what you say. If your words make it to your employer's ears, and they decide to terminate your employment, that's because your employer no longer views your employment as worthwhile, which is entirely their choice to make.
Most of America is at-will employment. If you want to establish the right to work, fight for that - otherwise, accept that your employment comes with certain terms.
> Free speech includes calling your employer and telling them what you said online.
Sure, and quoting things out of context is of course also free speech /s
Sure, and quoting things out of context is of course also free speech /s
> If you want to establish the right to work, fight for that
I do, at every opportunity. But in the meantime we live in an imperfect world and should adjust our social norms accordingly.
I do, at every opportunity. But in the meantime we live in an imperfect world and should adjust our social norms accordingly.
What articles were those? Was on my phone for most of the day (i.e. not in front of my work desktop) and I couldn’t catch them as easily.
Even if censorship / canceling / doxing were out of the picture, there is still another source of danger: The combination of surveillance and persistence.
I often cringe when I read things I wrote several years ago. I have evolved, my views have changed. Had I posted that somewhere on the Internet it would be out there “forever”. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that someone (or worse, some shitty “AI”) would be able to pick that up years later and mis-interpret it into biased conclusions, with real-world consequences.
The Internet has become a huge Petri dish for social dynamics, power struggles, and human psychology. I'm sure we have only just scratched the surface of what effects that will have on society and individuals.
I often cringe when I read things I wrote several years ago. I have evolved, my views have changed. Had I posted that somewhere on the Internet it would be out there “forever”. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that someone (or worse, some shitty “AI”) would be able to pick that up years later and mis-interpret it into biased conclusions, with real-world consequences.
The Internet has become a huge Petri dish for social dynamics, power struggles, and human psychology. I'm sure we have only just scratched the surface of what effects that will have on society and individuals.
As usual Snowden, America’s Freedom Laureate in exile, gets right to the heart of things. I do worry that his laser focus on the philosophy of things —and concomitant lack of specific (contemporary) detail/examples— will result in readers simply affirming their own dogmas rather than searching themselves for complicity. I hold out hope that, in the aggregate, the deeply subversive undercurrent of his writing pulls those dogmas under and drowns them to death.
[deleted]
[deleted]
As a general, open question:
How do we distinguish self-censorship (justifiably bad connotations and all) from "Choosing to not say things that would piss people off for no gain?"
The latter just seems like prudent behavior when one lives in a society, because one's words have material impact on other people's mental state. Unmeasured words wide-cast can easily do more harm than good.
How do we distinguish self-censorship (justifiably bad connotations and all) from "Choosing to not say things that would piss people off for no gain?"
The latter just seems like prudent behavior when one lives in a society, because one's words have material impact on other people's mental state. Unmeasured words wide-cast can easily do more harm than good.
>How do we distinguish self-censorship (justifiably bad connotations and all) from "Choosing to not say things that would piss people off for no gain?"
The key thing is that there's a mentally unstable subset of people that will get pissed off by pretty much anything. Letting their feelings control your discourse basically leaves no room for discourse.
The key thing is that there's a mentally unstable subset of people that will get pissed off by pretty much anything. Letting their feelings control your discourse basically leaves no room for discourse.
Ironically, when I finished reading this article, I found myself skeptical to subscribe to Snowden's mailing list when presented with a prompt to do so at the bottom of the article. I didn't want to be put on some list. Aware of this after the article, I'm subscribing anyway. :)
slight tangent, but as a teenager we had to read a Danilo Kis book: "Early Sorrows" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Sorrows ), that was quite a jolt.
Here's a good and poignant clip about "mail snooping" from Little Murders (1971): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g16InStip5k
"I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is what makes me more of a selective human than someone who doesn't believe anything."
- David St. Hubbins
- David St. Hubbins
Today's reality in the US is one where <snip> ... <snip> ... <snip> ... <snip> ... <snip> ... <snip>.
Yeah. No comment.
Yeah. No comment.
And at the bottom they invite you to submit your email.
Yeah, if you want to be on a list.
Yeah, if you want to be on a list.
This is pretty rich. I'd argue the worst kind of censorship is getting murdered/disappeared by a totalitarian government for speaking out against them. Kind of like what happens to critics of Putin, Snowden's current patron. But hey, I guess getting some mean tweets directed at you is pretty bad too.
Anyone appreciate the irony that Snowden's posts are probably monitored/vetted by the KGB?
Anyone appreciate the irony that Snowden's posts are probably monitored/vetted by the KGB?
> Anyone appreciate the irony that Snowden's posts are probably monitored/vetted by the KGB?
FSB, that's news to me, are they vetting his posts?
FSB, that's news to me, are they vetting his posts?
I wonder how Snowden reconciles his position on self-censorship with his current country of residence. Is it meta, in the sense that he too has to self-censor out of fear for own life? Does he consider it a necessary move, presuming any country with stronger freedom of speech is also a country that would extradite him to the US?
> I wonder how Snowden reconciles his position on self-censorship with his current country of residence.
By remembering that he got only got stuck in Russia because the United States revoked his passport while he was on an international flight that was to make a connection in Moscow?
By remembering that he got only got stuck in Russia because the United States revoked his passport while he was on an international flight that was to make a connection in Moscow?
While it’s a good point, it doesn’t really explain anything here.
I don’t have the details, but isn’t there a way to apply for an asylum, say, in neighbouring Georgia, Ukraine or Finland (by walking into an embassy or even straight to a land border)? Is he being held against his will? Does he not desire to move? Is it because he’s thinking those countries would be likely to deport him at the request of the US? Is it because he doesn’t believe living in a country which regime is closer to one’s own philosophy is worth the hassle of moving there? Or he doesn’t consider those countries any better than Russia in this regard? Etc.
I don’t have the details, but isn’t there a way to apply for an asylum, say, in neighbouring Georgia, Ukraine or Finland (by walking into an embassy or even straight to a land border)? Is he being held against his will? Does he not desire to move? Is it because he’s thinking those countries would be likely to deport him at the request of the US? Is it because he doesn’t believe living in a country which regime is closer to one’s own philosophy is worth the hassle of moving there? Or he doesn’t consider those countries any better than Russia in this regard? Etc.
He applied to 27 countries including Finland. Apart from Russia, the ones he could actually reach turned him down.
I have no doubt Russia is milking this for all it’s worth (wouldn’t you in their place?) but Snowden really didn’t have a totally free hand in where he ended up after his passport was cancelled — just America or Russia.
I have no doubt Russia is milking this for all it’s worth (wouldn’t you in their place?) but Snowden really didn’t have a totally free hand in where he ended up after his passport was cancelled — just America or Russia.
If he did apply for asylum and was refused, that explains the situation to me personally. I never thought all of the (admittedly, quite few) directly adjacent to Russia democratic countries would do that to him. I hope he continues to write on these topics from wherever he is.
> directly adjacent to Russia democratic countries
I wonder how necessary the "directly adjacent" criteria is. Couldn't he sail from Russia to Iceland, for example? Perhaps if he was wanted by Interpol he would find it hard to travel through the territorial waters of European nations (assuming their coast guards would intercept a vessel carrying him).
In practice, though, I assume that Putin's government has made it very clear to him that his safety relies on him remaining a useful propaganda piece for the regime, so he wouldn't even get as far as Russian waters.
I wonder how necessary the "directly adjacent" criteria is. Couldn't he sail from Russia to Iceland, for example? Perhaps if he was wanted by Interpol he would find it hard to travel through the territorial waters of European nations (assuming their coast guards would intercept a vessel carrying him).
In practice, though, I assume that Putin's government has made it very clear to him that his safety relies on him remaining a useful propaganda piece for the regime, so he wouldn't even get as far as Russian waters.
The moment that ship sails into international waters, he's at risk of being spirited off it by a detachment of the FBI [https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/fawaz-younis].
... and if he books passage on a ship that doesn't reach international waters, there's nothing to stop US operatives from bribing the captain to take a detour.
... and if he books passage on a ship that doesn't reach international waters, there's nothing to stop US operatives from bribing the captain to take a detour.
> Couldn't he sail from Russia to Iceland, for example?
The United States has a recent history of kidnapping people in other countries and sending them off to CIA black sites where some have ended up tortured to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site
The United States has a recent history of kidnapping people in other countries and sending them off to CIA black sites where some have ended up tortured to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site
Except Snowden is a citizen of the US. The Constitution unequivocally applies to his relationship with the US gov't anywhere in the world.
There was no due process for the citizens that a former president ordered to be killed in a drone attack and justified it after the fact that they were enemy combatants.
That time it was probably the right call but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that that special relationship isn't flexible when the government deems it so.
That time it was probably the right call but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that that special relationship isn't flexible when the government deems it so.
It is a pretty big step, however, from drone strikes against terrorists to kidnapping a US citizen and throwing them into a secret prison for committing a crime. The blowback would be immense, and the gov't knows it.
Do I think they'd take a convenient opportunity, even extralegal, to snatch Snowden? Yep. But only to bring him back to the US to stand trial.
Do I think they'd take a convenient opportunity, even extralegal, to snatch Snowden? Yep. But only to bring him back to the US to stand trial.
I’d like to think there would be immense blowback, but there was less than I expected and hoped for from his revelations. I’m still surprised by public figures denouncing him as a traitor.
My thought processes seem to be nowhere near normal when it comes to politics. I’m not ASD (AFAICT), but I am definitely not neurotypical either.
My thought processes seem to be nowhere near normal when it comes to politics. I’m not ASD (AFAICT), but I am definitely not neurotypical either.
Obama killed American citizens with drone strikes.
Trump normalized it.
>Nawar "Nora" al-Awlaki was an eight-year-old American citizen of Yemeni descent who was killed on January 29, 2017 during the Raid on Yakla, a commando attack ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki
It's hard to claim that citizenship affords you due process.
Trump normalized it.
>Nawar "Nora" al-Awlaki was an eight-year-old American citizen of Yemeni descent who was killed on January 29, 2017 during the Raid on Yakla, a commando attack ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki
It's hard to claim that citizenship affords you due process.
American operatives cant move freely in Russia as they can in any other European/Western country.
> Putin's government has made it very clear to him that his safety relies on him remaining a useful propaganda piece for the regime
If so, then there would be an obvious conflict between what he writes and his personal circumstances. I’d be reluctant to assume such circumstances without evidence, though.
If so, then there would be an obvious conflict between what he writes and his personal circumstances. I’d be reluctant to assume such circumstances without evidence, though.
Dude it's not like Snowden is stoked to be living the dream in Russia. He's an exile.
Not blaming him and not sure whether he had a choice. Just noting a certain dissonance in reality, which I’d assume he also experiences, and wondering how he frames it in his mind (e.g., does he think “yes, my writing is affected by the very thing I describe, but I currently have no other choice”, or “I’m not self-censoring since somehow I have a deal that I can write anything I want, as long as I’m not trying to disseminate it in Russia”, or “self-censorship is a thing happening everywhere now, so Russia or not there’s not much difference where to reside”, or something else entirely).
It’s not quite an elephant in the room, but IMO if he went a bit meta on this it could make for an interesting read (maybe he does elsewhere—I’m not using Substack and not following his writing very closely).
It’s not quite an elephant in the room, but IMO if he went a bit meta on this it could make for an interesting read (maybe he does elsewhere—I’m not using Substack and not following his writing very closely).
It's not like he had a huge amount of choice in where he ended up. Putin allows it because he can point to Snowden and say "see, he uncovered programs in the American system that are doing things they accuse me of". And likely also because Putin sees Snowden as a potentially valuable bargaining chip.
> I wonder how Snowden reconciles his position on self-censorship with his current country of residence. Is it meta, in the sense that he too has to self-censor out of fear for own life? Does he consider it a necessary move, presuming any country with stronger freedom of speech is also a country that would extradite him to the US?
TFW your thought piece is a subtweet of itself.
TFW your thought piece is a subtweet of itself.
"with his country of residence" wtf? ... he prefers Russia to "suicide" in an American jail, and this is supposed to negatively impact his credibility?
Or should he martyr himself to integrity and start calling Putin and the leaders of Russia out for their bad behaviors?
I honor the man as a hero; but if I was him I'd STFU and try to live a quiet life in the woods somewhere, never attracting public attention again. Lest the end be messy and spectacular like Assange is being treated to.
Or should he martyr himself to integrity and start calling Putin and the leaders of Russia out for their bad behaviors?
I honor the man as a hero; but if I was him I'd STFU and try to live a quiet life in the woods somewhere, never attracting public attention again. Lest the end be messy and spectacular like Assange is being treated to.
How do people reconcile that Snowden, who should be lauded as a hero finds refuge at a country where Vladimir Putin is president is frankly a much more interesting question.Btw: He doesn’t need to be a martyr to be a hero.
Because he didn't have much of a choice? I have a feeling he'd much prefer being back in the US or somewhere in Europe or any other number of places, but all of those lead to a jail cell.
You misread that question.
> Self-censorship means reading your own text with the eyes of another person, a situation where you become your own judge, stricter and more suspicious than anyone else.
That's how many people write novels!
All humor aside, Snowden has once again managed to convince me that he is one of the most articulate--yet horror-inducing--thinkers of our age. The fact that, were he to talk to a podcast, the discussion's transcript would be close to pure text quality is what I love about the guy.
BTW Freud goes pretty deep on the matter of internalized surveillance in his book 'Civilization & its Discontents', written in 1929. It's supposedly one of the mechanisms that keep society functioning: you don't need cops if citizens are copping themselves.
That's how many people write novels!
All humor aside, Snowden has once again managed to convince me that he is one of the most articulate--yet horror-inducing--thinkers of our age. The fact that, were he to talk to a podcast, the discussion's transcript would be close to pure text quality is what I love about the guy.
BTW Freud goes pretty deep on the matter of internalized surveillance in his book 'Civilization & its Discontents', written in 1929. It's supposedly one of the mechanisms that keep society functioning: you don't need cops if citizens are copping themselves.
Why I carry weapons for defensive purposes but speak facts and reality even if other may wish to impugn or murder me for it. Tribal ideologies are intellectual dishonesty cults incarnate. Saying you're a "D," "R," "communist," etc. puts your mind and your positions in a camp to defend. Why not weigh each issue, policy, and scenario standing-alone with consistent common-sense?
If you don't have a weapon, others with weapons with different beliefs can and will eventually silence you permanently. This is what happens in Mexico to reporters and civil society activists. They don't carry guns and so they make themselves easy targets to eliminate.
If you don't have a weapon, others with weapons with different beliefs can and will eventually silence you permanently. This is what happens in Mexico to reporters and civil society activists. They don't carry guns and so they make themselves easy targets to eliminate.
The pattern of evidence to date is that Ed Snowden is a traitor working for Russian foreign intelligence and now fled to exile in Russia, living there only under Putin's protection. He's been a key part of their effort to smear and undermine the US and their alliance partners for many years. He has no honor or moral authority or credibility.
We can't say the truth/opinion about certain topics because it will offend certain people and the mob will exert its power to take something from you by threatening you or an employer.
Could it be considered blackmail to get someone fired from their job for outing something they said to an employer?
Could it be considered blackmail to get someone fired from their job for outing something they said to an employer?
Blackmail as a crime requires the blackmailer trying to get money or something of value out of their victim to prevent them from exposing some sensitive information. Would be interesting if someone could argue the outcome of cancelling someone fell within that definition.
What happened to the concept of being proud of your beliefs and ensuring they align with the lifestyle you lead?
The nebulous fear so many have seems rooted either in not thinking through the problem of so-called "cancel culture", or in people thinking they shouldn't suffer the consequences of their decisions.
The nebulous fear so many have seems rooted either in not thinking through the problem of so-called "cancel culture", or in people thinking they shouldn't suffer the consequences of their decisions.
Honestly I'm not sure being "proud of your beliefs" is a great advice. I'm trying to think of beliefs I'm proud of. Can't recall any in particular.
The phrase communicates lack of flexibility, because if they're "beliefs" they're firmly held, and if you're "proud" you won't have an open mind ready to change those beliefs in face of new evidence.
In fact I very often see beliefs and pride be exploited to push propaganda where you get to defend someone else's interests without even realizing it.
The phrase communicates lack of flexibility, because if they're "beliefs" they're firmly held, and if you're "proud" you won't have an open mind ready to change those beliefs in face of new evidence.
In fact I very often see beliefs and pride be exploited to push propaganda where you get to defend someone else's interests without even realizing it.
I am proud of my belief in Philosophy of Liberty[1], and the principle of self ownership[2].
You are also correct as I am inflexible in this belief, as they are foundational ethical beliefs for which there can be no new evidence for me to change my mind over
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership
You are also correct as I am inflexible in this belief, as they are foundational ethical beliefs for which there can be no new evidence for me to change my mind over
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership
The [1] video is just Propertarianism peddled as Freedom/Liberty. Not sure how you can have self-professed dogmatic attitude to that. I mean it contains a line something like this: "people exchange property voluntarily, otherwise they wouldn't do it". What? That's the level of analysis why people exchange "property"? "voluntary"? Sigh.
It's funny how people just invent shallow concepts like this and it always end up doing nothing but protecting - and extending - the privileges of the wealthy. It's just a predetermined outcome looking for a theory to justify it.
It's funny how people just invent shallow concepts like this and it always end up doing nothing but protecting - and extending - the privileges of the wealthy. It's just a predetermined outcome looking for a theory to justify it.
No, that is not true at all. Fundamentally I support more of a Geo-Libertarian[1] system, so I support property rights for things you create from your own labor, but natural property that was not created by humans belongs to all. Those that want to make exclusive use of this natural properly owe a "rent" to all.
This rent is the only ethical tax[2] one can use to publicly finance a government. Taxes on labor, voluntary transaction, etc are all unethical theft of a persons labor
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
[2] https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/the-geoliberta...
This rent is the only ethical tax[2] one can use to publicly finance a government. Taxes on labor, voluntary transaction, etc are all unethical theft of a persons labor
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
[2] https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/the-geoliberta...
Do you realize how easy it is to deconstruct the definitions you rely on?
What does it mean "created from your own labor" for example? We apply labor to existing things and we transform them as a continuous process. We don't manifest them in one step out of vacuum. So "create with labor" is a fuzzy concept at best. You don't create anything. At what precise point does this property that "belongs to all" become your property? You draw sharp divide between those two categories, so surely there's a sharp divide in terms of time and action that causes said property to shift those categories.
I see a wild tree, I cut it off. Is it mine now? Not yet, so I chop it up, is it mine? No? So I take a chunk and make it into an owl figure. Which precise stroke of my instruments turned this tree from shared property into my own property? Or am I being given imaginary shares of this property as I work on it, so it's 10% mine, then 11% mine, then 15% mine...
The rest of these definitions are similarly meaningless if you explore them at depth.
It doesn't mean that as a system they're bad. As long as you have objective proof they work in reality (not just in our imagination). But you need to realize in terms of "correctness" they're arbitrary. In fact, there's no such thing as objective ethics. So to declare things are ethical or unethical in a universal way is non-sequitur.
A concept is only as useful as how applicable it is for achieving certain goals. If it's just a self-referencing system that feels good, but no one has realized it, or even worse, many have tried and keep failing at it... then you have nothing.
What does it mean "created from your own labor" for example? We apply labor to existing things and we transform them as a continuous process. We don't manifest them in one step out of vacuum. So "create with labor" is a fuzzy concept at best. You don't create anything. At what precise point does this property that "belongs to all" become your property? You draw sharp divide between those two categories, so surely there's a sharp divide in terms of time and action that causes said property to shift those categories.
I see a wild tree, I cut it off. Is it mine now? Not yet, so I chop it up, is it mine? No? So I take a chunk and make it into an owl figure. Which precise stroke of my instruments turned this tree from shared property into my own property? Or am I being given imaginary shares of this property as I work on it, so it's 10% mine, then 11% mine, then 15% mine...
The rest of these definitions are similarly meaningless if you explore them at depth.
It doesn't mean that as a system they're bad. As long as you have objective proof they work in reality (not just in our imagination). But you need to realize in terms of "correctness" they're arbitrary. In fact, there's no such thing as objective ethics. So to declare things are ethical or unethical in a universal way is non-sequitur.
A concept is only as useful as how applicable it is for achieving certain goals. If it's just a self-referencing system that feels good, but no one has realized it, or even worse, many have tried and keep failing at it... then you have nothing.
I'd disagree on both notions- while my beliefs are firmly held, I also try to question them regularly. The reason they're firmly held is that they've managed to stand up to what scrutiny I've tried them against, repeatedly, for years.
On other things, I simply haven't spent a lot of energy thinking about it, and as a result am more than happy to apologize if I'm even slightly in the wrong. Generally, I'm quick to apologize if someone's made a good reason for me to, as I don't regard the need to apologize necessarily with me being a worse person.
On other things, I simply haven't spent a lot of energy thinking about it, and as a result am more than happy to apologize if I'm even slightly in the wrong. Generally, I'm quick to apologize if someone's made a good reason for me to, as I don't regard the need to apologize necessarily with me being a worse person.
That worked as long as both sides ran by the gentlemans agreement that you debate and let the best argument win.
As with many things, that worked until people forgot why the argument (or indeed why it is called a gentleman) was created in the first place and so tore it up for political points.
As with many things, that worked until people forgot why the argument (or indeed why it is called a gentleman) was created in the first place and so tore it up for political points.
I mean, if you're somehow under the false impression that people were more cordial in these disagreements in the past, I don't know what to tell you.
One of the largest popular phenomenons in the new millenium is a musical based on a politician being shot by another politician. Fist fights have been a regular occurrence by members of congress since our inception. We show pictures to every schoolchild in the US of violence used during the 1960s Civil Rights movement.
I'd also wonder, how the concept of "cancel culture" impacts that at all. Not once have I seen someone getting "cancelled"(which itself is nebulous enough that more than half of those it is perpetrated against have better careers after than before) remove any inability for public discourse to continue about what they did.
Even the article from yesterday, about a man who experienced harassment for admitting to a problem he'd supposedly fixed long ago, largely became a conversation about the issue at hand.
Essentially, I'm wondering why so many are convinced that someone else's use of their free speech so negatively impacts their own.
One of the largest popular phenomenons in the new millenium is a musical based on a politician being shot by another politician. Fist fights have been a regular occurrence by members of congress since our inception. We show pictures to every schoolchild in the US of violence used during the 1960s Civil Rights movement.
I'd also wonder, how the concept of "cancel culture" impacts that at all. Not once have I seen someone getting "cancelled"(which itself is nebulous enough that more than half of those it is perpetrated against have better careers after than before) remove any inability for public discourse to continue about what they did.
Even the article from yesterday, about a man who experienced harassment for admitting to a problem he'd supposedly fixed long ago, largely became a conversation about the issue at hand.
Essentially, I'm wondering why so many are convinced that someone else's use of their free speech so negatively impacts their own.
What happened is that any minor offense, misunderstanding, obtuse comment or joke is taken to nth degree by a permanent victim culture that is looking to be offended at everything to highlight how oppressed they are by society.
as to "Suffer the consequences", when a single tweet results in your complete ostracization from society, your lively hood terminated, your safety put in danger, etc well I think the punishment does not fit the crime. I dont care how offensive that tweet was. Doubly for those that have had this happen for comments made 10, 20, or even 30 years in the past.
Neither proportionality of punishment nor forgiveness seem to be concepts that are entertained in cancel culture.
As I was told many times growing up, Sticks and Stones can break my bones but words can never harm me. It seems today we have replaced that valid and correct axiom with "Words are violence" which is a most dangerous precedent indeed. Further here lately I have begun to see an even more dangerous one that is being put forth "Silence is Violence"..
as to "Suffer the consequences", when a single tweet results in your complete ostracization from society, your lively hood terminated, your safety put in danger, etc well I think the punishment does not fit the crime. I dont care how offensive that tweet was. Doubly for those that have had this happen for comments made 10, 20, or even 30 years in the past.
Neither proportionality of punishment nor forgiveness seem to be concepts that are entertained in cancel culture.
As I was told many times growing up, Sticks and Stones can break my bones but words can never harm me. It seems today we have replaced that valid and correct axiom with "Words are violence" which is a most dangerous precedent indeed. Further here lately I have begun to see an even more dangerous one that is being put forth "Silence is Violence"..
I would be careful about accusing anyone of indulging in a victim culture, because it's a very easy script to flip.
The common "leftist" perspective is that "cancelling" is a rare occurrence, mainly targets the rich and is not particularly effective in the grand scheme of things given that politically incorrect speakers routinely reach hundreds of millions of people. They would also argue that it can be tricky to tell whether someone is "cancelled" because primarily because of their views, or because they are insufferable and people were already looking for excuses to get rid of them. In other words, they don't think it's a big deal.
Now, if the leftist is correct (I'm not saying they are), then your post ironically becomes a textbook example of victim culture: you're blowing up a relatively minor phenomenon out of proportion, painting yourself as being oppressed. The only reason you don't see it that way is because you think you're right and that the problem you see is truly serious. But obviously the people you think indulge in a "victim culture" also believe that the problem they see is serious. You should be more understanding of their mindset. Otherwise, all I'm seeing here are victims screaming past each other.
The common "leftist" perspective is that "cancelling" is a rare occurrence, mainly targets the rich and is not particularly effective in the grand scheme of things given that politically incorrect speakers routinely reach hundreds of millions of people. They would also argue that it can be tricky to tell whether someone is "cancelled" because primarily because of their views, or because they are insufferable and people were already looking for excuses to get rid of them. In other words, they don't think it's a big deal.
Now, if the leftist is correct (I'm not saying they are), then your post ironically becomes a textbook example of victim culture: you're blowing up a relatively minor phenomenon out of proportion, painting yourself as being oppressed. The only reason you don't see it that way is because you think you're right and that the problem you see is truly serious. But obviously the people you think indulge in a "victim culture" also believe that the problem they see is serious. You should be more understanding of their mindset. Otherwise, all I'm seeing here are victims screaming past each other.
there is soo much incorrect and inaccurate in your statement I am not sure where to even begin, as not only to you incorrect state the position of the "left" you have also completely mischaracterized my comments.
First and for most the left absolutely believes cancelling in effective, infact they believe it is very effective and have used it to great effect, their problem is that for a few perculiarly popular indivuals, the one you kinda of highlight in your comment about "reaching millions" are insulated from the lefts ability to cancel them simply because they have more social power than the groups on the left
However that has not stopped the left from canceling in the 100's, 1000's or more from de-platforming on the popular social platforms of people with little to no following, small youtube channels, to getting people fired from their mundane jobs due to a twitter they did not like.
To deny the real world impact cancel culture has had to more or less irreverent people, people that do not have millions of followers, it is to deny reality itself
Sure for those creators, pundits, personalities that have a fan base in the millions "cancelling" may be ineffective, but I am not talking about those select few people.
I am talking about the school teacher that happened to support Trump in 2016, or 2020. I am talking about the marketing person they may have a controversial political view on immigration or abortion has dares to say so on twitter. I am talking about sub 100,000 subscriber you tube channel that may have said "hey that lab leak theory may have some merit" before the "authoritative sources" approved saying that, I am talking about a facebook user that happened to quote Ben Shapiro...
The examples are endless, real, and provable.
First and for most the left absolutely believes cancelling in effective, infact they believe it is very effective and have used it to great effect, their problem is that for a few perculiarly popular indivuals, the one you kinda of highlight in your comment about "reaching millions" are insulated from the lefts ability to cancel them simply because they have more social power than the groups on the left
However that has not stopped the left from canceling in the 100's, 1000's or more from de-platforming on the popular social platforms of people with little to no following, small youtube channels, to getting people fired from their mundane jobs due to a twitter they did not like.
To deny the real world impact cancel culture has had to more or less irreverent people, people that do not have millions of followers, it is to deny reality itself
Sure for those creators, pundits, personalities that have a fan base in the millions "cancelling" may be ineffective, but I am not talking about those select few people.
I am talking about the school teacher that happened to support Trump in 2016, or 2020. I am talking about the marketing person they may have a controversial political view on immigration or abortion has dares to say so on twitter. I am talking about sub 100,000 subscriber you tube channel that may have said "hey that lab leak theory may have some merit" before the "authoritative sources" approved saying that, I am talking about a facebook user that happened to quote Ben Shapiro...
The examples are endless, real, and provable.
> that valid and correct axiom
There is nothing valid and correct in the saying "words can never harm me". Repeated insults and threats can lead to psychological harm (even if they are never followed up with physical violence) and a concerted effort to misinform someone can cause them to make physically harmful decisions.
This should be particularly obvious in the case of children, and as you mention, the saying is generally used to influence that group in particular (which is ironic, given the harm the saying ends up doing).
The more pertinent debate isn't whether words can harm, but whether censorship is likely to do more harm than the words it would prevent being spoken.
There is nothing valid and correct in the saying "words can never harm me". Repeated insults and threats can lead to psychological harm (even if they are never followed up with physical violence) and a concerted effort to misinform someone can cause them to make physically harmful decisions.
This should be particularly obvious in the case of children, and as you mention, the saying is generally used to influence that group in particular (which is ironic, given the harm the saying ends up doing).
The more pertinent debate isn't whether words can harm, but whether censorship is likely to do more harm than the words it would prevent being spoken.
The purpose of the axiom and lesson is for children to learn how to deal with those types of situations.
To give children the tools to deal with harmful words and not break down.
I think that is worthily en devour which I am sure is very controversial in the age of Safe Spaces, and participation trophies where by we weaken not strengthen the emotional foundation of children to be able to handle real world situations. The Coddling of the American Mind is setting Up a generation for failure
To give children the tools to deal with harmful words and not break down.
I think that is worthily en devour which I am sure is very controversial in the age of Safe Spaces, and participation trophies where by we weaken not strengthen the emotional foundation of children to be able to handle real world situations. The Coddling of the American Mind is setting Up a generation for failure
> The purpose of the axiom and lesson is for children to learn how to deal with those types of situations.
That is a noble purpose, but I don't think it's a particularly powerful tool to tell a child "Well, at least they only insulted and threatened you, they haven't actually broken any of your bones yet."
I agree that children need better tools for dealing with verbal aggression, and maybe modern societies are relying on simplistic approaches that don't build resilient minds; I just think that teaching kids that they are in the wrong for feeling hurt when they're insulted is letting them down too.
That is a noble purpose, but I don't think it's a particularly powerful tool to tell a child "Well, at least they only insulted and threatened you, they haven't actually broken any of your bones yet."
I agree that children need better tools for dealing with verbal aggression, and maybe modern societies are relying on simplistic approaches that don't build resilient minds; I just think that teaching kids that they are in the wrong for feeling hurt when they're insulted is letting them down too.
No where in the either the saying nor the lesson that have been taught around it is the position that a child or anyone is "wrong" for the feeling hurt if they are insulted. The purpose is to take those feelings, understand them, deal with them in a healthy way, and not let them return as anger, resentment, or worse. To be "the bigger person" emotionally and to view those that would use verbal insults as social outcast, to be mentally strong enough to walk away and dissociate with people that do not respect you. To no engage or "meet them at their level" by just tossing verbal insults at each other, etc
Also round the concept is a respect for free expression, to teach that someone may say something you dislike or you feel is offensive / harmful and you need to be able deal with that. As a culture in America anyway we used to place free expression, even "harmful expression" above all else, this is something I absolutely agree with. Nations, and culture that attempt to regulated "acceptable speech" with so called "hate speech" law is not something I can ever support or understand.
Also round the concept is a respect for free expression, to teach that someone may say something you dislike or you feel is offensive / harmful and you need to be able deal with that. As a culture in America anyway we used to place free expression, even "harmful expression" above all else, this is something I absolutely agree with. Nations, and culture that attempt to regulated "acceptable speech" with so called "hate speech" law is not something I can ever support or understand.
I'm glad you got such a positive message out of that saying, then, and I hope other people did too.
Perhaps the saying just needs to be updated a little, to add some clarity. Here is an attempt:
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, and words may try to hurt me, but I'm the bigger person"
Perhaps the saying just needs to be updated a little, to add some clarity. Here is an attempt:
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, and words may try to hurt me, but I'm the bigger person"
Cancel culture can go to far. But tolerance of intolerance is also a problem.
The US has a dark & dirty history and it seems the reason this has become a subject of debate again is because a certain element of people seem to want to pretend none of that ever happened, or worse, that it did but has no effect on our society today.
The US has a dark & dirty history and it seems the reason this has become a subject of debate again is because a certain element of people seem to want to pretend none of that ever happened, or worse, that it did but has no effect on our society today.
Unless you define "intolerance", your argument is just a meaningless assertion. I wouldn't call wanting to pretend something didn't happen as intolerance. You do?
Ideologically pure "free speech" leads to infringement on the rights of others, including their own free speech.
There is a line to be drawn here.
There is a line to be drawn here.
[deleted]
The people repeating that axiom are generally the ones who are defining the term, which seems...convenient.
Free Snowden. Free Hong Kong. Why do we care more about Hong Kong than Snowden? Snowden needs to work on his marketing.
> Why do we care more about Hong Kong than Snowden?
Well, Hong Kong is an entire city of people, while Snowden is just one guy.
Well, Hong Kong is an entire city of people, while Snowden is just one guy.
Hong Kong got more coverage than Minneapolis protests as well. It was only after Hong Kong protests were proudly displaying their racism to Black people that we stopped covering them. Which is hilarious to say the least. But I guess you have a point because Minneapolis is a smaller city.
Sorry, I respectfully disagree.
Censorship is someone else preventing you from saying something you want to say. Self censorship (as something you want to say but do not because of fear of the consequences) is not a thing, simply because you cannot distinguish between the want to utter and the want not to utter and which is eventually winning in your head and the fact that you did or did not utter something. It is a process we call thinking. We choose our words or the absence of them and that makes them worth while.
There is also no opposite to self-censorship: I want to be able to say everything I want without consequence. You say something because you want it to have and audience and thus consequences. Saying you want the consequences, just not the negative ones is saying you want everyone to confirm you are right. Well join the other 7 billion.
The idea of self-censorship is also not innocent because you are robbing people of agency. You actually deny them to choose their own words. The idea of self-censorship requires an external party to declare someone wanted to say something, but he or she is self-censoring, That implies that you know what they think and the absence or presence of words gets filled in with whatever that third party thinks that person wanted to say.
There is also no opposite to self-censorship: I want to be able to say everything I want without consequence. You say something because you want it to have and audience and thus consequences. Saying you want the consequences, just not the negative ones is saying you want everyone to confirm you are right. Well join the other 7 billion.
The idea of self-censorship is also not innocent because you are robbing people of agency. You actually deny them to choose their own words. The idea of self-censorship requires an external party to declare someone wanted to say something, but he or she is self-censoring, That implies that you know what they think and the absence or presence of words gets filled in with whatever that third party thinks that person wanted to say.
There are a lot of topics I won’t touch any more, more every year. Accounts - can’t stay anonymous, ml systems working around the clock to identify posters. My social justice focused friends have it worse, their online “friends” attack them publicly over every single little thing. They go quiet or form a tiny invite only groups to hide after an attempt to do something good that backfired because their skin is the wrong colour or they aren’t trans. They have panic attacks over the guilt and stress