Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me.

I'm sure that's hyperbole because comparing being asked (I assume) to resign after downplaying child sex trafficking is not functionally or morally equivalent to lynching.

As far as watching what you say, that is the world:

1. As it has always existed.

2. It exists today.

3. Will always exist until the end of time itself.

And that will never, ever, change.

Don't conflate raging anonymously online with being able to say whatever you want in public.




Moral authoritarianism is quite the dangerous thing. It is at the root of every single 'evil' of times past. One has to keep in mind that these evils of times past of course did not see themselves, in general, as evils. Instead they were simply enforcing their world view which, from their perspective, was the 'right' one. It's much easier to do awful things to people when you convince yourself they deserve it.

To take one of the more innocuous examples from the past consider the Red Scares. It was fundamentally driven by people believing that they have the moral high ground against a certain view. Communism is bad and therefore it was okay to do bad things to people who held positive views of such. And it was simply 'common sense' that supporting communism in any way, shape, or form was an absolutely abhorrent thing to do. And I use that as an example only to avoid any rousing of emotion but the exact same logic drove the KKK, Nazis, and nearly every group, sinner and saint alike, throughout time. Moral authoritarianism is again, a very dangerous thing.

And I certainly do not agree with you on this was or will be the way of society. Words and actions are distinct. I think an ideal society would have no tolerance for intolerant actions but an unlimited tolerance of words. Indeed this is even what the actual quote, often egregiously bastardized and misused by the most intolerant of today's society, on the 'paradox of tolerance' fundamentally suggests. Even looking back now at the Red Scare we can generally see how quaint our intolerance was. There's no need to name and shame communists - the view itself is simply not supported by enough of society to matter. And if it does become supported by enough of society? Then we try it, almost certainly fail, and continue on our disjointed path "forwards" as always.


> There's no need to name and shame communists - the view itself is simply not supported by enough of society to matter.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

As Scott points out in https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/02/social-censorship-the-... censorship is mostly used against groups we think are dangerous (mostly because they actually have a fairly large amount of support). Someone advocating that going to church should be mandatory and divorce and blasphemy should be illegal will get eye rolls, not anger.


They used to accuse people of being communists, thus landing them on a blacklist and unable to find work.

I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society.


>I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society.

Many people seem to be complaining about this.

As far as I can tell, very few people are filming and posting publicly a video saying:

"My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”and he should face no consequences."

or

"My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” and he should face no consequences."

Instead they wave their hands and mutter about "free speech".


It seems perfectly consistent to me that someone worried about people being fired for controversial opinions would not give such an opinion non-anonymously. I don't see what point you're making.


I think the user you are responding to is attempting to undermine anything that can loosely be construed as a defense of Stallman. A bit of a dirty tactic, IMO, but the lines of battle have clearly been drawn.


Yeah this is like the authoritarians who claim that if Snowden really feared for his safety as a whistleblower, then he would be happy to be renditioned to a secret blacksite dungeon for punishment by the TLAs he has offended. Does not compute...


Give free speech and it will happen.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: