Comment by matt4077 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by matt4077 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"PC culture" is nothing new. In fact it's as old as humanity, and arguably even extends to other species.

Opinions, and speech, have power. Otherwise there wouldn't be a point in engaging in it. "Having power" is synonymous with the ability to cause harm. Therefore, some speech is harmful.

When someone spreads opinions that someone else considers dangerous, a deeply human mechanism kicks in: criticising/shaming/isolating.

These aren't new mechanisms. Beginning with the first species that formed groups of cooperation, i.e. societies, there was a need to establish and defend group norms. Today, the harshest mechanisms to correct people who behave in ways that are considered harmful are criminal laws. But long before we get to the level of crime, each one of us uses a repertoire of behaviours meant to inform you of your transgressions, and to put the perceived cost of them on you.

This starts with your father's raised eyebrow when you're interrupting your sister (again!). It's the teacher calling you out for being lazy. And it's the teammates not talking to you after you lost them the match.

These mechanisms escalate along with the perceived harm. It starts with subtle hints that you should work more diligently, and only when such attempts fail, it escalates to direct appeals, or even the loss of your job.

Political opinions aren't somehow exempt from the judgement by others. If there's a real danger that a reasonable employer will fire you for you political opinion, don't ask "who will be targeted next?". Ask just how far from the pack have you strayed?

> Political opinions aren't somehow exempt from the judgement by others

I agree. Nothing and no one is exempt from judgement or criticism. This is exactly what some people seem to refuse to understand.

> Opinions, and speech, have power Nonsense. People have power.

> Therefore, some speech is harmful

We are past the inquisition. Word's don't hurt, they don't kill, they don't destroy lives. People do that. There is the argument that they can encourage you to do all these things, but does it really happen outside an "echo chamber"? Throughout history this happened only when conflicting opinions weren't allowed.

In the free market of ideas the bad ideas will lose and the good ones will win. It is inevitable that the best "product" wins. These people know it, that is why they don't allow others to voice conflicting opinions. They will lose. The only sane and healthy way to fight what you called "harmful speech" (i.e. the kind that encourages violence and/or discrimination) is through debate. If we silence people and destroy their lives are we really better?

> It is inevitable that the best "product" wins.

If that were so, then pharma companies wouldn't spend more on advertising than R&D. And fat32 isn't ubiquitous because it's 'best'. There are many, many ways to beat your competition, and having the better product is just one.

I do otherwise agree that people shouldn't be silenced.

In the free market of ideas the bad ideas will lose and the good ones will win.

Do you have proof of this? Seems that a lot of bad ideas win. Or are we defining good and bad ideas circularly; the ones that win are the good ones?

> Word's don't hurt, they don't kill, they don't destroy lives. People do that.

Where do words come from?

> It is inevitable that the best "product" wins. These people know it

How? By what mechanism? An opinion isn't a product.

Take ISIS as an example that's less controversial (here): do you believe that people willing to act as suicide bombers can be convinced, by rational argument alone, to change their views?

And considering there are still extreme right-wing extremists, adopting the symbols of their predecessors from 70 years+ ago: how long does this market take to do its magic?

Yes, I'm using the most extreme example, because obviously people shouldn't lose their livelihood for, say, complaining about the weather. But note that there's a fail-safe in this mechanism: to have a reasonable expectation that doxxing someone will get them fired, the speech in question must be outside the Overton-window of what society deems acceptable.

> If we silence people and destroy their lives are we really better?

For that memo: it would seem extreme, yes–and I believe the reason for the firing wasn't meant to penalise his opinion, but an attempt to quell the damage created inside and outside of Google by his ham-fisted treatment of a sensible topic.

But for neo-nazis: yes, we are better. Because they are motivated by hate, and seek to harm innocent people ("Jews will not replace us"). Whereas their opponents only seek to stop them. I, for example, frequently attend counterprotests when neonazis try to march through the streets of my city. But I'm not Antifa or a communist or Stalinist. When they stop, I will not attend some other rally calling for the death of bankers, or people with glasses.

Also:

> Word's don't hurt, they don't kill, they don't destroy lives.

Is somewhat in conflict with "but if you tell their employer, you're destroying their lifes!"

Of course words can harm. Otherwise they're either completely useless, or have only positive impacts. In that case we should connect a source of randomness with a text-to-speech synthesiser, and watch the world magically improve.

> When someone spreads opinions that someone else considers dangerous, a deeply human mechanism kicks in: criticising/shaming/isolating.

Yes. But it's not the way to resolve interpersonal issues in a progressive society.

Do you personally condone this mechanism? (By the way, this bothers me. I sometimes hear an argument in the form: "be careful saying that, otherwise <unspecified people> will come after you, because it's human nature". Often it feels like a subtle warning, where <unspecified people> include the speaker, but without him saying it directly. For example, someone says "we should prevent immigrants coming to the country, because it will stir up racist sentiment"; without explicitly rejecting or affirming their racist beliefs.)

The way to do it properly is to have a rational discussion about why are the opinions in question considered dangerous by someone. Stop and think, where is the danger? And together, look into the merits of that claim. And maybe decide democratically about the best way to proceed.

I think the question is mood because it's human nature. But, yes, within the imo reasonable limits set by laws, this mechanism is important for the functioning of society.

A main reason is that it actually allows a much more gradual reaction than otherwise possible: if your spouse never does the dishes, and you're not allowed to disapprove of it in any way that puts emotional pressure on them (i. e. getting angry), do you believe you can convince them with only rational arguments?

And if you can't convince them with rational arguments, what's next? You'd basically have to leave them to protect yourself from the growing anger, right? So, without the gradual instruments of social coercion, all that's left will be those usually reserved as the ultima ratio.

(yes–you could hire someone, or buy a machine to do the dishes. but this was an allegory)

I don't share your fatalism. Genocides may be human nature, yet we should strive to prevent them.

So, are you saying that it's acceptable that someone is shamed and isolated by the society to the point where he cannot, for example, find a job? That's within the current laws, but I am sorry, I find this idea very morally unacceptable.

I think a relationship is a different situation. But to return to the original matter - if I cannot convince someone with rational argument, why should I take their emotions seriously (that they feel threatened by something)? They need to learn to handle their emotions first, and then we can talk.

Maybe I just don't understand what you're saying, you have confused it somehow. You started talking about somebody feeling threatened, and now you're talking about them being angry. If they cannot control their anger about things that are not really threatening to the point we cannot even have rational discussion about what they perceive as a threat, they are mentally ill and they need to learn to cope with it.

>These mechanisms escalate along with the perceived harm. It starts with subtle hints that you should work more diligently, and only when such attempts fail, it escalates to direct appeals, or even the loss of your job.

>Political opinions aren't somehow exempt from the judgement by others. If there's a real danger that a reasonable employer will fire you for you political opinion, don't ask "who will be targeted next?". Ask just how far from the pack have you strayed?

Are you suggesting that the majority is always correct in what it deems is worthy of punishment?

I'd think that ultimately, the idea of democracy is indeed that the majority gets to set the rules for punishment.

But I'll freely admit that this ideal isn't true in practice, where we see elements of a wisdom-of-the-elders system of justice mixed in, because we don't fully trust the majority to understand that democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

This is the exact reason why pure democracies do not exist. What we have instead is a representative democracy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com