Comment by djsumdog | Hacker News Reader

Comment by djsumdog | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There was a time when the cesspit were all the people promoting the debauchery of homosexuality, or the idea that blacks were somehow equal to whites in intelligence and genetic disposition. These were greatly offensive statements at one time. People were ridiculed and deplatformed for having them.

Translate the Bible into a barbaric language like German or English? That caused great offense. People were excommunicated and even killed for that (like Wycliffe).

The book "The Coddling of the American Mind" goes into this concept that ideas and speech are not violent. We do a huge disservice to young people today by teaching them to fear ideas and block speakers at Universities they don't agree with. Listening to other viewpoints and challenging them makes us better thinkers. By banning speech is to say, "I agree people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Let's make the world 'safe' for them and ban ideas I don't agree with."

I highly recommend Brendan O'Neill's video on offensiveness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA

> "By banning speech is to say, "I agree people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Let's make the world 'safe' for them and ban ideas I don't agree with."

1. People are stupid. Really, really stupid. Especially when given the means to surround and reinforce themselves with other idiots. See for example - antivax and alt-med in general, chemtrails any number of ridiculous conspiracy theories that propagate through the web.

2. These people are not thinkers, they are not open to having their viewpoints challenged and reason will not move them from their course.

I agree, this whole area is massively subjective, I'm not saying I have a solution. But this black and white idea that censorship is always bad, and the notion that we have a functional marketplace of ideas which people re-evaluate based on reason is ... well it's a fantasy.

> These people

I'm not sure what group of people you just Other'd, but I am suggesting that you re-read your post and consider:

a) whether you still hold the view you espoused 13 minutes ago that some group of humans are non-thinking.

b) whether the message you're trying to make could be more clearly articulated.

to me, it reads like you're making really broad statements which you believe to be immune to any challenge or reasoning.

> I'm not sure what group of people you just Other'd,

Then try re-reading my comment.

> a) whether you still hold the view you espoused 13 minutes ago that some group of humans are non-thinking.

I said they are not thinkers, and they aren't, they aren't interested in competing ideas or what's factual, and as such high ideals as the marketplace of ideas coming true in the end are at best naive.

> b) whether the message you're trying to make could be more clearly articulated.

I was pretty clear - a lot of people are very stupid. Look at how they hurt themselves and each other, look at reality tv, look at ... hell you don'[t have to look very far.

Again, I'm not claiming to be the smartest guy in the room, neither am I claiming to have a solution. I'm just trying to point out that these abstract ideals about ideas being allowed to propagate and compete, about allowing and supporting the dissemination of hatred from your platform in order to better fight it in the open, that when you do fight them with better arguments, people will listen... these ideas are pretty demonstrably flawed.

> People are stupid. Really, really stupid.

But thank god you and I are smart - really, really smart. So smart, in fact, that we should take it upon ourselves to police the thoughts and words of the 'lessers'.

Not what I claimed, I'm not saying I have a solution here, or that anyone should be empowered to arbitrate. Merely that the idealist position is also pretty wrongheaded.

> I'm not saying [...] that anyone should be empowered to arbitrate.

> I think those providing speech platforms [...] should probably take more responsibility for what they propagate.

Hmm... It seems like that's exactly what you said earlier. Walking it back now?

> Hmm... It seems like that's exactly what you said earlier. Walking it back now?

Nope.

First one is in reference to government, I'm not suggesting that the government should have the power to shut people down, as I've said in multiple places, I'm not sure what a good solution looks like.

The second one is about platform owners, who are not governments, but should take some more responsibility for spreading (for instance) hate by providing their platform to people.

Oh ok, so when you say "anyone" you mean only the government. That makes a lot of sense.

When I say I'm not sure anyone should be empowered to arbitrate, I mean that yes, and that's a very different thing to people having control over what they broadcast on their own platforms.

Not sure what your problem is here TBH.

People ought to have as much a right to be as stupid as they want, as you have the right to be as smart as you clearly are.

Really? So we should sell 'em bombs and to hell with it if they blow up the neighbourhood?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com