For those that are new to this topic this is quite a good read:
> According to the Atlantic, a full 80 percent of Americans believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” While today some smear the free speech movement as a “racist dog-whistle” or a “far-right talking point,” it turns out the numbers don’t fit that narrative. Turns out just about everyone thinks we need more free speech. This includes large pluralities of all races (e.g. 75% of African Americans, 87% of Hispanics) and all ages (e.g. 79% of Americans under age 24).
> A 2017 poll of 2,300 U.S. adults, found that 71% Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have and 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs.
Edit: Speaking of, somebody is flagging this story (to be clear, not this comment) to keep people from even discussing the topic. As of writing, they succeeded. We need a “this shouldn’t be flagged” button
It would be interesting to know what are these "important discussions".
> 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs
I don't think it literally prevents them, more like it makes them scared to share their political beliefs for fear of being called out when those are not "acceptable" beliefs. If anyone can give me an example of some political belief that is not justified in being "unacceptable", I'd be happy to re-evaluate this situation as being bad.
But who knows in ten years the opposite reaction might be true.
Honestly? No.
And the problem with the numbers in that poll is that there is no reason to think that all those people assign the same meaning to the words. Everyone's in favor of "free speech," but can they articulate a nuanced definition of it and the effects on society of that definition?
From their announcement on the subject:
"""
Today, we’re making an update to address this gap: Users who consistently upvote policy-breaking content within quarantined communities will receive automated warnings, followed by further consequences like a temporary or permanent suspension. We hope this will encourage healthier behavior across these communities.
"""
This applies to your entire comment, but the quoted line is most salient: Be careful not to fall into the victimized underdog mentality. There are legitimate concerns on both sides here, but there is a ton of noise in the form of pointing to imagined persons/crowds and accusing them of persecution. For example, submissions are frequently flagged for the poor quality of discussion they trigger - not simply because "somebody" is "trying to keep people from even discussing it", which is an easy sentiment to reach for, and falls under the category of fallacy that boils down to "our sociopolitical enemies are simply evil - don't you agree, fellow people on my side?".
I do not believe the comments in this thread constitute a low quality discussion. The story should not have been flagged, in my opinion at least, and this action has stopped some of the only balanced discussion of the topic I’ve seen online since the story first broke. It has people from both sides being mostly polite and has links to some high quality material. It’s just a topic that many people are upset by. Also, after getting flagged, they git repo saw the rate of new PR signings almost flatline
I think this can be appropriate when the situation is dire and all other courses of action have been exhausted. I'm just not sure this is such a situation.
In addition to not being particularly constructive, I agree with your point: the mob mentality means if I'm interested in discussing how to proceed _before_ everyone on the board of the FSF is fired, I open myself to the same mob that wants it done _now_. This makes discussing an already difficult problem significantly harder and more risky. Even if I bring myself to engage in conversation, many of the more deliberative folks I would like to hear from won't engage, likely for the same reasons that gave me pause. I encountered this to a surprising degree reading through comments on Ars Technica's coverage of this[0].
On the topic of the FSF, I really value that RMS has a very mature and well-considered understanding of the dynamics of computers and their software, and how those can shape society. But the points about him making others uncomfortable on a routine basis are concerning, and I think a more charismatic leader would certainly be an improvement. I would want that leader to have a similarly strong understanding of the core issues, though. I wonder if someone like Eben Moglen could perform in such a role. Come to think of it, it might be cool if Cory Doctorow could play a public-facing role for the FSF.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/free-software-ad...
This seems irrational. For example, I both "believe that political correctness is a problem in our country" and believe that "the free speech movement", in the modern context, is composed largely of "racist dog-whistles" and "far-right talking points". They aren't mutually exclusive opinions, yet the author writes as though they obviously are. Besides believing that "political correctness" has silenced important discussions, I also believe it's only one example of many forms of irrational side-taking and hatred that have silenced important discussions, committed across the political spectrum. It seems like the author is taking advantage of the instantly recognizable noun "political correctness" as a way to package a biased opinion that purposefully ignores closely related things that are damaging discussion and civility just as dramatically.