Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghoststories | Hacker News Reader

What does "more inclusive" actually mean? People are being forced to be overly accommodating to the sensitivities of certain "oppressed" groups, for fear of being ostracized and branded as horrible people.

For example, if as a Christian you don't like the idea of gay marriage, you better not mention it in a group, unless maybe if you're Muslim, in which case your oppressed religious status allows that. It's a social minefield that has been created.

View on HN

You can't have a group that is inclusive of X and also of people who believe that X are subhuman, e.g. to be inclusive towards Jews you have to exclude antisemites. Or generally: to be inclusive of marginalized people you have to exclude the intolerant.

If you don't push away the intolerant then those who are discriminated against figure out they're not welcome in the group and so they leave. Those who remain are the intolerant and those indifferent to intolerance. That results in very bad communities.

What you say is generally true, full stop.

However, the centrist objection to today's leftist critical theory post-modernist rhetoric is not (as is too often asserted) "well, a little anti-semitism / sexism / racism / homo- and transphobia / genocide advocacy is okay in the interests of compromise and harmony with Nazis". This is clearly absurd, and no one reasonably would believe this. Those who spout reprehensible ideas should suffer social consequences. By all means, do not invite them to participate in your community.

The centrist objection is that the Overton window of ideas that are acceptable to express is becoming increasingly narrow while the reaction to ideas outside of this narrow band of acceptability is becoming so extreme that people who are merely misunderstood will have their lives destroyed.

Never mind "Nazi". Never mind the well-meaning Christian who has no personal animosity towards individual gay people but who sincerely believes their God said that homosexuality is a sin; we're talking a misunderstood joke (Justine Sacco; the fellows who were fired for their overheard "big dongle" joke); we're talking people appropriately using the word "niggardly" (meaning 'miserly', in use since the 1400s).

Calmly stated ideas, even the most reprehensible, must never be suppressed through violence or state sanction. Throughout history, ideas that have moved us forward ("It's wrong to keep other humans as slaves.") were met at some point with violence and suppression. A climate where the majority are convinced that deviation from a narrow band of acceptability must be met with extreme violence will suppress good ideas along with bad ideas.

The problem with your summary of the centrist objection is that it's false. The Overton window isn't narrowing -- it's expanding. Look at the last presidential elections. You had Bernie Sanders expressing socialist ideas and opposition to the 1%. Expressing those ideas used to be political suicide, but not anymore. At the same time Trump expanded the Overton window enormously to the right. Look at the political discourse in its totality and compare that to the discourse from just 5 years ago. Voices in the far right and far left are louder than they have been for at least a generation. How is this compatible with claims about a narrowing Overton window? It's patently absurd.

As for your remark about calmly states ideas: hate speech laws exist for a reason in most of the world. The United States is the exception in its free speech absolutism. A lot more harm can be done by calm speech than by a baseball bat, and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights. I value free speech but I don't value it over everything else, and I don't think State suppression of free speech is meaningfully different from the many other ways in which speech can be suppressed.

"... A lot more harm can be done by calm speech than by a baseball bat"

Then it should be easy for you to supply even one example where calm speech caused a grievous head injury.

"...and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights"

I cannot imagine a single right infringed by someone else's free speech. Again, perhaps you can supply an example?

Kids driven to suicide because of verbal bullying for example. Or religious leaders who call upon their flock to engage in horrific violence against the other.

Indeed. I would argue those examples are not protected "free speech", since their intent is to cause imminent harm.

But point taken. I did misspeak when I said "Calmly stated ideas". I meant, specifically, any idea that is not intended to cause imminent harm. Imminent being the operative word, there. So, to my mind, "I think minorities should be turned into lampshades." is reprehensible and worthy of social sanction, but should not be suppressed. "You should kill yourself!" to a suicidal person is dangerous and potentially criminal.

Let's turn it around:

Imagine someone expresses a racist idea, and then the universe splits in two.

In one universe, the person gets a punch in the nose and their books are burned.

In the other universe, a centrist says, "that idea is reprehensible, and here's where you have failed..." and then outlines ethical, philosophical and scientific objections to the racist idea. There is a calm discussion.

In which universe is the racist more likely to consume an underground press of unchallenged racist ideas? In which universe is the racist more likely to change their mind? Which universe is more dangerous, more likely to lead to violence?

From a centrist point of view, the suppression of stupid ideas is more likely to be dangerous, than having them out in the open.

We don't have to take your hypothetical as a hypothetical. After WW2 Germany banned books espousing Nazi ideology, and punished similar speech because they learned first-hand what happens when you let that ideology roam free. And free speech didn't die. Germany today is one of the freest countries in the world.

The "banning" of media that espouses Nazi ideology is actually very limited in Germany. Hitler's "Mein Kampf", for instance, is not actually banned.

Germany may be "one of the freest" countries, but they too now have far-right parties in their parliament and there have been hundreds of attacks (assaults, firebombings) on refugees.

Also, Neo-Nazi ideology is still popular in the East, despite all the efforts of the socialist government against it. If people are shoved an ideology down their throats, the alternatives suddenly look much more attractive. I'm firmly convinced that it is the left that got Trump elected, not the right.

I think the Overton window might very well be expanding on a society scale, but that doesn't preclude it from narrowing on 'community scale'.

Anecdotally I do get the impression that engaging with others about politics ('community scale') is much more explosive these days, on both 'sides' of various issues. I get the same impression when I think about the publications that often come up in conversations. It's like two parallel universes while I know for a fact that not too long ago reading habits included much more 'mixed' publications (also generally of lower quality, but I'd say that's not entirely relevant to the overton window 'issue')

What can and what cannot be said is in constant flux. For every newly introduced taboo other taboos go away. It's conceivable that the Overton window narrows on 'community scale', but I don't see any evidence for that. In some communities the Overton window is shifted massively in one direction, but not at the expense of width.

Bernie Sanders is no socialist, he’s basically a mainstream New Deal Democrat. His positions would not have surprised President Eisenhower, who said, in fact, that anyone who does not accept New Deal programs doesn’t belong in the American political system. That’s now considered very radical.

->https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1115/Was-Eisenho...

Trump for me wasn't that different to any of the other Republican candidates, they all don't believe in global warming and have pretty much the same agenda. He just didn't dress things up and speak smoothly, like most politicians, but says it as it is.

I didn't say he was a socialist, I said he expressed socialist ideas. For example his calls for universal healthcare and free college.

As for Trump, the discussion was specifically about what people can _say_. Trump said things other politicians didn't dare say, and by doing so he made a big impact on the political discourse. As for his agenda, in a country of 325 million even small differences between republican candidates are really significant.

So we should all reject tolerance wholesale if we think at any point in the future website could be in the out group? The point is to jostling and get along with and not murder peole who's ideas we despise at our very core.

Tolerance is radical "choosing to get along" or why bother?

People are free to feel how they like, like not liking gay marriage, but if they actually act on those beliefs, they're infringing on the rights and freedoms of others and that's not ok. I don't care if you're Christian or Muslim.

You don't think Muslims are more oppressed than Christians? They're way more oppressed. It's Christians which get a free pass.

What exactly do you mean by "acting on those beliefs"? Let's say you have a debate and somebody questions the very idea that gay marriage is or should be a right? What do you mean by "not OK", what should be the consequences here?

"You don't think Muslims are more oppressed than Christians? They're way more oppressed. It's Christians which get a free pass."

I don't even know what "Muslims are more oppressed than Christians" is even supposed to mean. There's no context.

If we're talking about expressing opinions on campus regarding gay marriage or abortion, I doubt Christians would get a "free pass" over Muslims.

What I mean is 50, 60 years ago, a university was mostly white males, wearing suits, hats, mostly deferential. These days it's women, people of all colours, they can say what they want, express themselves etc. That's what I mean by more inclusive.

"These days it's women, people of all colours, they can say what they want, express themselves etc."

They can only say "what they want" on account of their "oppressed" status. Everybody else has to censor their speech, for fear of offending those groups.

Of course, they can't really all say what they want, but opinion dissenters from the "oppressed" groups are merely written off as "sockpuppets" (i.e. victims) with a chance to repent, instead of being declared an outright enemy.

You don't think universities are more open than in the 50's? There's a lot more dissent these days. I don't know about oppression on campuses.

I don't know what you mean by "open" or "oppression".

How about this?

http://www.thetower.org/article/in-the-safe-spaces-on-campus...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com