Hacker News Reader

Comment by low_tech_love | Hacker News Reader

Free speech loudmouths never fail to contradict themselves, it’s one of the few things that are always true. Anyone who thinks they have the secret for freedom in their minds (and nobody else has) is obviously too narrow-minded to have any interesting idea about the complex (and collective) subject that is “freedom”.

View on HN

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make, but I would defend to the death your right to make it.

Complex ideas like freedom and free speech are often presented in simplified messaging like: "Protect our freedom" or "I'm a free speech absolutist". But underneath the slogans are many levels of complexity and personal/legal contradictions.

So, I think OP is saying, please don't shout simple slogans about complex issues.

Yeah but they're probably only say that with respect to slogans that speak to ideas they disagree with but are totally fine with simplified slogans for ideas they agree with.

Yeah, I guess if you resonate with overly simplified or impractical ideas, then that's probably a bigger problem with the listener rather than the speaker.

I've heard this a lot, but I wonder how often we mean it.

Realistically, the level of effort I'm going to put forward to defend some person on the internet's right to make a particular comment is limited approximately to "writing a comment myself."

Defending to the death? As in risking my life? Maybe if someone's violently asserting a right to regulate what everyone says, or even some particular group says, if I don't think they can defend themselves. But one person under non-violent threat? I'll surprise myself if I make it off the couch.

How about defending the right of private entities to not have to publish speech they find offensive? Free speech doesn't guarantee someone a platform. Free speech just means the government isn't stepping in to censor the speech. If someone wants to make an antisemetic speech I don't have to publish it, but they can still go rant on the sidewalk if they wish.

I took a philosophy class on "freedom" in college. The entire semester on the word and simply trying to define it. And I had a few takeaways. My main takeaway is that no one has been able define freedom successfully, or even come close. Second, anyone who simplistically uses the word to forward their agenda is not qualified to use the word (Musk, "free speech" advocates, American nationalists). Lastly, I hate philosophy because I spent an entire semester reading and studying and still have no answer to what freedom really means.

>Lastly, I hate philosophy because I spent an entire semester reading and studying and still have no answer to what freedom really means.

"Computers are useless. They only give answers." - Pablo Picasso

I think you missed the point of philosophy. It's pretty much all about pondering questions you can't answer. Once you manage to answer them, you're not doing philosophy any more but have moved into the realm of science.

Thing is, seems like a lot of those questions are not answerable simply because they use ill defined terms. Can those terms be well defined? If not, what good is the question beyond confusing humans with a surface reading? If yes, then very likely the mystery of the question vanishes.

If you were to say "hey, we should all fight for foobardom, a new term I just made up" but didn't give a good definition for then, yes, you'd have a problem: talking about foobardom would be pointless since it's an ill-defined term and the discussion would serve no purpose.

However, this discussion about philosophy and freedom is the reverse: people are already fighting and in many cases dying for what they think is this thing called 'freedom', and yet it proves elusive to find a definition.

The real-world, societal impact is already there. So it's worth studying.

And if you study it and find that it's elusive and nearly impossible to pin down... well now that's interesting, and should make you think critically about anyone who uses the term as a low-nuance bludgeon in an argument.

(In the other article around Twitter here today - this thread - https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1586955288061452289 , I think this point is made pretty clear early on by the spam example: perfectly legal, yet "bots" are a self-professed problem for pro-whatever-speech-is-legal,don't-get-involved-further Musk...)

> because they use ill defined terms

All definitions are ill-defined if you're willing to question the words in the definition.

Maybe the point of philosophy is to uncover the weaknesses in our understanding of the word, rather than gain confidence in understanding it. So, asking "am I free?" helps me uncover my assumptions about the world and find out exactly how many levels deep I'm willing to go before I trust that the words in the definition are true.

Philosophy is the constantly moving (and narrowing) circle of unanswered questions.

> Lastly, I hate philosophy because I spent an entire semester reading and studying and still have no answer to what freedom really means.

Sounds to me like the outcome was pretty positive, you came out the other end way smarter than most.

Defining what a word means is linguistics, not philosophy.

Why are you booing him? He’s right.

Linguists don't define what a word means, the people who use it do. Ethnographers record the definition that a word is used for, and dictionary editors compile those records.

Even then, dictionary definitions are circular, which is where philosophers like to come in and confuse themselves while patting each other on the back.

> My main takeaway is that no one has been able define freedom successfully

“Freedom” is always “freedom to X”. The real debate is about the X, not how to define the word “freedom” itself, which is comparatively trivial, and doesn’t have much bearing on the X part.

I don't see how this Manu fellow is a "free speech loudmouth" or where he contradicts himself. He certainly is quite protective and assertive about his rights to publish these tools, and his cartoons commenting on and sometimes satirizing his workplace... but I think that's uncharitable to call him a loudmouth who contradicts himself. He seemed to be quite accepting of the fact that his speech is not without consequences and unsurprised that it may have got him fired. Maybe I'm not reading between the lines or missing other context?

I will say though that I find authoritarians and their sycophants far worse, hypocritical and dangerous.

Musk is the loudmouth referenced here, not Manu.

We'll see what the OP says. Musk might fit better though, he may be already walking back his free speech position about Twitter, although the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We will have to wait a while longer for that.

I think he's talking about Elon

What does TFA have to do with "free speech loudmouths"? I may be missing backstory on the author, even so the comment seems out of place to the article I read.

TFA? The First Amendment?

The friggin article :)

"the fucking article"

The Fine Article

I believe what they’re saying is that Elon Musk is a free speech loudmouth, and he fired the author for being a “jester” and/or saying things Elon didn’t like. (Not endorsing this view since I doubt Elon was directly involved in the firing, but that is my read on OP’s comment).

I assume they are speaking about Elon Musk, who used 'Free Speech' as a reason for his wanting to reform Twitter. Specifically that they 'censor' people too much or 'censor' the wrong people. The person remarking about 'free speech' loudmouths is pointing out the irony that people like Elon who go on crusades of free speech advocacy do not practice it when it comes to things they don't like, don't agree with, or which have the potential to harm them in some way. This is because the article mentions that the writer made a joke at Elon's expense personally (handed him a card with a cartoon showing him breaking a twitter figurine in a shop) and then got possibly fired because of it.

That's my take on it.

dumping internal communications seems like a plenty good reason to terminate even if some comics isn't. that screams security issue.

Is free speech in the room with you now?

No but her brother l337 is biatch!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com