Respectfully, it is my opinion that arresting anyone who says something, in real life, on a blog or whispering to themselves, that is not a direct threat or inciting physical violence is wrong.
>I would probably write
suggests that you are not a click bait headline writer.
Sounds like you're inciting a call to violent action.
I take it you favor a more passive approach.
>Your comment, in the context of this conversation, argues in favour of arresting anyone who points out that a genocide is taking place. That is extremely dangerous.
This is exactly what my comment was arguing. I wrote that comment not as a reflection of my personal views, but to highlight the consequences of prosecuting individuals for statements which aren't direct threats.
I don't believe arresting and prosecuting individuals for making such statements is justified. I agree that the context of this conversation argues in favor of arresting anyone who points out that genocide is taking place, and I agree that accepting it as a precedent is extremely dangerous. You've elucidated my reasoning on the subject perfectly.
The US is guilty of both those things (and more) when it comes to our treatment of trans people. However, trans people clearly aren't a singular racial, religious, ethnic, or national group. That means they can't technically be the victims of a genocide according to that UN definition, but that is an awfully uncomfortable technically we need to not be guilty of genocide.
And, once we know what was actually being claimed, then we can debate whether it meets the definition of genocide.
I really hate vague-posting like kelseyfrog's post. Don't hint. If you have a claim to make, make it. (Just to be clear, this last paragraph is not aimed at the parent.)
One of the reasons people are vague on HN about these issues is because a simple "The US is committing genocide against trans people" comment is more likely to be downvoted and flagged as being political. We often can only talk about these things here by hinting at them. Ironic considering how pro free speech this community claims to be.
Yes, trans people get beaten to death in numbers that are appallingly high. That's a tragedy and a disgrace on our society. Does it rise to the level of genocide? Blacks get shot in numbers that are appallingly high, too. Is that a genocide?
Preventing medical care? Are trans people being denied medical care for, say, cancer or heart disease? Or are they only being denied medical care for transitioning? Or are they only being denied medical care at public expense for transitioning?
If trans people are being denied medical care for regular medical issues, in large numbers, yes, I could call that genocide. If they're being denied care at public expense for transitioning, no, I probably would not call that genocide.
The problem with lowering the bar to calling things genocide in order to highlight a particular issue is that it lowers the bar for everybody else, too. And if everything's a genocide, then nothing is.
The problem with just hinting at things is it leaves the rest of us unclear on what, exactly, is being claimed. One of the things that most people on HN ought to agree on is that the details matter. If you're making vague claims, all we can do is talk in platitudes, which is unlikely to be effective.
I mean, you can trace a direct line from the current moral panic about "groomers" through QAnon to Pizzagate, and it goes through one specific political party, and you can trace another line from police brutality against black people to Jim Crow and segregation to slave-catchers. The systemic links are there.
The only things people are calling genocides are things that look disturbingly like genocides. No one is arguing everything is a genocide.
The two examples I mentioned were actions by the state. How is that not systemic?
(Yes, "all" isn't actually necessary. Some large fraction, though. You can't have a genocide by killing 1% of the people. That's an atrocity, but it's not a genocide.)
The UN definition specifically calls out that it doesn't have to be directed at the entire population. It also doesn't make any effort to define any "large fraction" that needs to be met before the definition can be applied. A culling of a percentage of specific population would likely still qualify, but the specifics of these things always varies depending on the context of the specific example being judged. However, it is clear that the UN definition primarily hinges on how people are targeted and the actions that are taken, not the scope.
I don't know if this is the right place to share a feeling, but I'm going to try to express it anyway.
I'm not sure whether you're right about this or not, but I think you might be, and it makes me sad almost more than you could believe. It genuinely depresses me.
The claim seems to be nothing short of saying that at the end of the day, all human intelligence sums to a net negative, at least in this area. That we're not collectively capable of rational discourse. That ultimately, we're so blinded by hate for the Other that debating our differences might actually lead to worse outcomes than if we just pulled guns to solve our problems. We're all ultimately just stumbling around in the dark. Maybe, one day, the light of humanity is doomed to go out.
I suspect that one reason liberals, rationalists, civil libertarians, and their allies are so insistent on free speech and an open public square is that they can't really bring themselves to take this possibility seriously. Or, to the extent they do, they think we have to ignore the possibility, because in the event this turns out to be true, who cares about humanity anyway?
Maybe the American attitude toward free speech is just a reflection of optimism about human nature?
Attempting to control second-order factors that may influence behaviour is a very short road to tyranny. How do we decide which factors to control for? Who gets to make this decision? How do we know in retrospect that such a decision was mistaken? The only justice lies in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers.
Also, how "slow burning" does a "genocide" have to be before it's indistinguishable from a normal process of cultural shift and assimilation? (honest question)
> Attempting to control second-order factors that may influence behaviour is a very short road to tyranny. How do we decide which factors to control for? Who gets to make this decision? How do we know in retrospect that such a decision was mistaken? The only justice lies in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers.
It is very hard to read this as not sealioning. Is there a way you could rephrase it so that it doesn't come across that way?
It's an inevitable consequence of power (read: to do harm) being distributed rather than concentrated. With distributed power you're at the mercy of group dynamics and trends. However the risks of concentrated power have borne out to be much more severe.
> rephrase it so that it doesn't come across [as sealioning]
I'm genuinely mystified as to what distinguishes "well-intentioned" use of authority to control people from what we see as obviously tyrannical. What principle would you use to distinguish between the kind of control over speech exercised by the UK and what is commonplace in China? Or are you willing to concede that these are different degrees of the same thing? I'm simply arguing that this "thing" (the use of authority to limit speech) should be avoided at all costs in a free society.
Again, please refrain from sealioning. Simply rephrasing your arguments in ways that don't appear indistinguishable from it. If you keep doing it, I will have to assume you're doing it on purpose an in bad faith. It's not a good debate tactic in a conversation about "rational debate" and its effects on violence. Sealioning is exactly one of the tactics used in the topic we're discussing. You must appreciate the irony.
In addition to all of this, we have to agree that "reduction of harm" is a valid guiding principle to hold above all others. This is fundamentally consequentialist (and valid as such). My thesis though is that "freedom" itself has deontological value, even if it causes harm. Deontologists and consequentialists have a notoriously hard time seeing eye to eye.
I'm not at all trying to derail the conversation, but it just doesn't seem all that clear-cut to me.
I'm so sorry that you came up with the idea that I need to have a test and then continue to ask me what it would be. I hope you can simply lay this to rest. The longer you insist that you're asking questions under the pretense of rational debate, the more and more it looks like it's definitionally sealioning.
The parent reply that started this discussion says they believe it is wrong to suppress speech that is not a call to violence. You responded saying that this logic doesn't work if speech that is non-violent can still lead to violence, with the insinuation being that you are okay banning speech that falls into this category of "not violent, but leads to violence." Which is a perfectly valid point, and I believe a strong argument!
thegrimmest has then attempted to point out that it can be extremely difficult to pinpoint what speech falls into this category, and stated that these sorts of bans can be inappropriately used as tools of oppression by authoritarian governments. He asks how you feel this sort of ban could be properly implemented, given these potential problems. This is a very on-topic response; you appear to be proposing that the government expand its abilities to censor speech, and thegrimmest is asking how we could ensure the government doesn't abuse this power if it is implemented. Given the current state of the world, and the authoritarian trends rearing their head in dozens of countries, this criticism is valid, on-topic, and very far from sealioning.
Rather than try to address his concerns by proposing ways this sort of ban could be thoughtfully and morally implemented, you immediately chose to accuse him of sealioning, which is a form of trolling and a pretty serious accusation. He gamely attempted to appease you by rephrasing his wording, only for you to become snarky, smug, and accuse him of repeatedly pestering you with questions--when you had directly asked him multiple times to please rephrase his questions!
As someone who has experienced sealioning, and finds it quite infuriating, I am genuinely baffled how you can see this interaction as thegrimmest sealioning. I think you may need to take a moment to re-read the HackerNews code of conduct and remember that engaging in good faith is a must.
If you don't wish to engage with thegrimmest's criticisms, that is 100% okay. You can always say, "I support banning speech in this category, and I'm not interested in discussing the possible ways a government could abuse this power." But you cannot pretend that thegrimmest is somehow morally at fault for wishing to discuss government abuse, because presenting these sorts of on-topic and civil criticisms is exactly what these forums are for.
You're a very intelligent person, and I think you raise some great points. I almost always enjoy reading your comments and listening to your insights. But they get lost when you engage like this. I see from your previous comments that this isn't the first time this has happened; other commenters have complained of you being rigid and accusatory. It's probably worth taking a step back and examining why this is a recurring theme in your interactions on here.
I don't think I agree. Almost by definition authorianism doesn't acknowledge what people want. A law passed because people want it would be either democratic or populist, depending on whom you ask.
I think that the issue here is that all laws are authoritarian at some level, since the principle of a law is to impose. And indeed most citizens would probably support most laws. That doesn't really make the law "bad" or "good" per se, though.
Imagine you're a gay person, and marrying the person you love is illegal in your country. The authoritarianism of that isn't contingent on whether that law was put into place by a man in a scary suit or your fellow citizens voting.