Sure all of that is important but why does any of that mean that we, as an online community, can't look at each case individually and assess it on it's merits as to whether we feel the person is being an arsehole and say we don't want to listen to arseholes on the site? As an analogy, would you be as insistent that a group of friends keep a person in their circle of friends even though none of them like that he is really rude to everyone else, simply because it's his right to express his opinion?
I also don't get how those who often site freedom of speech often forget to note, the ones they are defending very rarely consider what the people, they are rude and crass to, have to say nor do they call those people out for it.
Individually, I can decide person A is an arsehole and hide or downvote their comment. Or I can decide place B is full of arseholes, and never go to that place again. But our definitions of arseholes may not always overlap.
You've posted a lot in this thread and I've tried to aggregate my responses into a single post. I think, and correct me is I'm wrong, we disagree on the point of what powers the right to not listen grants us. You seem to be confusing listening and speaking.
I think your above analogy fails in the following way:
would you be as insistent that a group of friends keep a person in their circle of friends even though none of them like that he is really rude to everyone else, simply because it's his right to express his opinion?
Absolutely not, nobody is saying you should be forced to listen to things you don't like or hang out with people you hate. It is a personal decision that everyone can make for themselves: "Based on his comments, I think Shiranaihito is an asshole so I will not read them." and the other is imposing your ethics on someone else "I and my friends think Shiriranihito is an asshole and should have his ability to express his ideas removed." In your analogy it would be more like Guy X is an asshole so lets not talk to him, vs Guy X is an asshole so lets not allow him to be in the same building as us.
Down in the comments you say:
Sure the terms racist and misogynist etc can be misused but when people are not being hateful, but you are also essentially doing the same thing by assuming everyone who points out racism and misogyny to be wrong. My point is when those legitimate cases arise it is also our right to not want to listen to them. No one is saying they don't have the right to say that stuff, we are saying we don't want to listen to them say it.
It is absolutely your right not not have to listen to that stuff, but there is a difference between listening and speaking. I don't listen to the crazy religious people on the sidewalk when they shout their drivel, I just ignore them and walk by, maybe if they go too far I might say "dude, that's not cool." That is exercising ones right to not listen to bullshit. Going to the city and passing an ordinance that their group is now barred from shouting stuff on the sidewalk is not exercising ones right not to listen, it is forcing them to stop expressing their ideas and is wrong.
Another example: I think BDSM is gross. When I go to porn sites, I don't click the BDSM tab. Occasionally a BDSM video makes its way to the front page, I see that it's there but don't watch it. That doesn't mean I think BDSM should be banned on the sites I visit.
You also make a chess club analogy:
Are you then saying, that you are not ok with say, people creating a site designed for discussing chess and then asking people to leave if everything they post on that site has nothing to do with chess what so ever?
Nobody is saying that someone who only talks about football rather than chess should be removed from a chess site. People are saying when a site is designed for the sharing of ideas and creation of special interest tribes, that to allow someone to make a tribe for chess but not allow someone to make a tribe for football is wrong.
The Following are my ideals on free speech and expression:
If the KKK were holding a parade in my town, I would not go to it because I think they are terrible people. I would not however say they are barred from having a parade in my town. Freedom is a very delicate thing, if I say "I live in a free society, but do not allow the KKK to hold a lawful parade because they are terrible people." then I am lying and I do not live in a free society. Idea...
You've posted a lot in this thread and I've tried to aggregate my responses into a single post. I think, and correct me is I'm wrong, we disagree on the point of what powers the right to not listen grants us. You seem to be confusing listening and speaking.
I think your above analogy fails in the following way:
would you be as insistent that a group of friends keep a person in their circle of friends even though none of them like that he is really rude to everyone else, simply because it's his right to express his opinion?
Absolutely not, nobody is saying you should be forced to listen to things you don't like or hang out with people you hate. It is a personal decision that everyone can make for themselves: "Based on his comments, I think Shiranaihito is an asshole so I will not read them." and the other is imposing your ethics on someone else "I and my friends think Shiriranihito is an asshole and should have his ability to express his ideas removed." In your analogy it would be more like Guy X is an asshole so lets not talk to him, vs Guy X is an asshole so lets not allow him to be in the same building as us.
Down in the comments you say:
Sure the terms racist and misogynist etc can be misused but when people are not being hateful, but you are also essentially doing the same thing by assuming everyone who points out racism and misogyny to be wrong. My point is when those legitimate cases arise it is also our right to not want to listen to them. No one is saying they don't have the right to say that stuff, we are saying we don't want to listen to them say it.
It is absolutely your right not not have to listen to that stuff, but there is a difference between listening and speaking. I don't listen to the crazy religious people on the sidewalk when they shout their drivel, I just ignore them and walk by, maybe if they go too far I might say "dude, that's not cool." That is exercising ones right to not listen to bullshit. Going to the city and passing an ordinance that their group is now barred from shouting stuff on the sidewalk is not exercising ones right not to listen, it is forcing them to stop expressing their ideas and is wrong.
Another example: I think BDSM is gross. When I go to porn sites, I don't click the BDSM tab. Occasionally a BDSM video makes its way to the front page, I see that it's there but don't watch it. That doesn't mean I think BDSM should be banned on the sites I visit.
You also make a chess club analogy:
Are you then saying, that you are not ok with say, people creating a site designed for discussing chess and then asking people to leave if everything they post on that site has nothing to do with chess what so ever?
Nobody is saying that someone who only talks about football rather than chess should be removed from a chess site. People are saying when a site is designed for the sharing of ideas and creation of special interest tribes, that to allow someone to make a tribe for chess but not allow someone to make a tribe for football is wrong.
The Following are my ideals on free speech and expression:
If the KKK were holding a parade in my town, I would not go to it because I think they are terrible people. I would not however say they are barred from having a parade in my town. Freedom is a very delicate thing, if I say "I live in a free society, but do not allow the KKK to hold a lawful parade because they are terrible people." then I am lying and I do not live in a free society. Ideas, even hateful ones, should be allowed to be spoken; whether or not anyone listens to them is up to the people listening (this does not apply to speech that is not ideas ie. threats, personal attacks, individual harassment).
Whether someone is being an asshole can be determined through rational, logical, objective evaluation. It's not a matter of opinion. Either someone has objectively behaved in a callous, hurtful way, or he hasn't.
(Yeah, I just whipped up a brief "definition" there. I think it's good enough for making the point)
Of course people's comments should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But the problem is that instead of rationally evaluating what someone is saying, people get emotional and attack him.
It's easy to come up with an excuse for rejecting what someone is saying even though it doesn't make sense to. The most common labels are probably "racist" and "misogynist", and of course you can just call anything that bothers you "hateful" because it's vague enough to be meaningless, but still handy in silencing someone.
Sure the terms racist and misogynist etc can be misused but when people are not being hateful, but you are also essentially doing the same thing by assuming everyone who points out racism and misogyny to be wrong. My point is when those legitimate cases arise it is also our right to not want to listen to them. No one is saying they don't have the right to say that stuff, we are saying we don't want to listen to them say it. The next question is how you decide what is legitimate and what isn't.
That in my opinion is part of what is being consider within the discussions around changing the downvote button to a report button or rather change it's symbol so it is not considered the opposite of upvote along with the requirement of giving a reason. That way people are more likely to stop and think as to whether this is occurring due to simply not liking the point or because it is hateful and doesn't actually contribute to the conversation.
As far as disallowing the forming of tribes and such goes, that's a little more difficult to define. But when you have the word hate with regard to a group of people in the name of your tribe, you are essentially announcing that you are practicing hate speech.
I feel I should also say though, seeing as Snapzu never did claim to be a champion of free speech and that they are always going to be against discrimination and such, it's kind of just up to us to then say, "well do we want to be part of that community. " It's like walking into a chess club then getting angry if they no longer want you there when all you to do is talk about is football. They have defined who they "as a club" are and we have to decide if that's what we want to be part of. The reason it is more important to enforce free speech in a country but not as important on a site is that people have a choice as to whether they are on a particular site or not. Very few people have a choice as to whether they are in the country they are in.
Of course there are real racists and real misogynists out there, but that doesn't make it alright for people to use those words as bludgeons with which to silence people who are making them uncomfortable (by making sense and pointing out things they don't want to accept).
I haven't claimed that "everyone who points out racism" is wrong, and I don't think that way (because there are legitimate cases and I'm not an idiot).
What would you change the downvote button to? Is there a symbol for "I think you're wrong"? :P Because that's how most people use it.
But did you notice how you used the word "hateful" as if it was a common thing for a comment to be so "hateful" that it needs to be downvoted? Think about what it means to be "hateful"? There is no clear definition. Anyone can deem anything hateful in their opinion.
Do you hate something? -Will your comment on it be hateful and therefore objectively worthy of disdain? Or do you just hate something because there's a legitimate reason for hating it? What if you just hate something for no particular reason, kind of like having a favourite colour? Are you hateful then, and what does it mean with regard to the world around you?
What is "hateful" besides a hand-wavy, negative characterization that's used for shaming people into shutting up?
seeing as Snapzu never did claim to be a champion of free speech
The thing is, it's not alright to silence people who are objectively telling people things they need to hear. It doesn't matter whether a site has declared itself a champion of free speech - they're either detrimental to humanity's future/development, or they're not.
The reason it is more important to enforce free speech in a country
Freedom of speech is only ever violated by rulers and their thugs. It's only meaningful in that context, but it's meaningless in the sense that it doesn't matter to the rulers who would violate it, and it certainly doesn't prevent anything.
Considering freedom of speech only applies as long as no one intervenes in speech, the only way you could enforce it would be to somehow magically prevent the government from intervening.
Fundamentally, it's just an idea that's meant to make us more comfortable with being enslaved. In other words, it's a propaganda tool.
Sure all of that is important but why does any of that mean that we, as an online community, can't look at each case individually and assess it on it's merits as to whether we feel the person is being an arsehole and say we don't want to listen to arseholes on the site? As an analogy, would you be as insistent that a group of friends keep a person in their circle of friends even though none of them like that he is really rude to everyone else, simply because it's his right to express his opinion?
I also don't get how those who often site freedom of speech often forget to note, the ones they are defending very rarely consider what the people, they are rude and crass to, have to say nor do they call those people out for it.
But who are we to decide who's being an arsehole?
Individually, I can decide person A is an arsehole and hide or downvote their comment. Or I can decide place B is full of arseholes, and never go to that place again. But our definitions of arseholes may not always overlap.
I think I addressed this in my response to /u/shiranaihito above you. If not drop a response to this comment and I'm happy to follow from there :)
Edit: don't know why I keep typing their in place of there and vice versa. Itstlike my brain has switched the two.
You've posted a lot in this thread and I've tried to aggregate my responses into a single post. I think, and correct me is I'm wrong, we disagree on the point of what powers the right to not listen grants us. You seem to be confusing listening and speaking.
I think your above analogy fails in the following way:
Absolutely not, nobody is saying you should be forced to listen to things you don't like or hang out with people you hate. It is a personal decision that everyone can make for themselves: "Based on his comments, I think Shiranaihito is an asshole so I will not read them." and the other is imposing your ethics on someone else "I and my friends think Shiriranihito is an asshole and should have his ability to express his ideas removed." In your analogy it would be more like Guy X is an asshole so lets not talk to him, vs Guy X is an asshole so lets not allow him to be in the same building as us.
Down in the comments you say:
It is absolutely your right not not have to listen to that stuff, but there is a difference between listening and speaking. I don't listen to the crazy religious people on the sidewalk when they shout their drivel, I just ignore them and walk by, maybe if they go too far I might say "dude, that's not cool." That is exercising ones right to not listen to bullshit. Going to the city and passing an ordinance that their group is now barred from shouting stuff on the sidewalk is not exercising ones right not to listen, it is forcing them to stop expressing their ideas and is wrong.
Another example: I think BDSM is gross. When I go to porn sites, I don't click the BDSM tab. Occasionally a BDSM video makes its way to the front page, I see that it's there but don't watch it. That doesn't mean I think BDSM should be banned on the sites I visit.
You also make a chess club analogy:
Nobody is saying that someone who only talks about football rather than chess should be removed from a chess site. People are saying when a site is designed for the sharing of ideas and creation of special interest tribes, that to allow someone to make a tribe for chess but not allow someone to make a tribe for football is wrong.
The Following are my ideals on free speech and expression: If the KKK were holding a parade in my town, I would not go to it because I think they are terrible people. I would not however say they are barred from having a parade in my town. Freedom is a very delicate thing, if I say "I live in a free society, but do not allow the KKK to hold a lawful parade because they are terrible people." then I am lying and I do not live in a free society. Idea...
Read FullWhether someone is being an asshole can be determined through rational, logical, objective evaluation. It's not a matter of opinion. Either someone has objectively behaved in a callous, hurtful way, or he hasn't.
(Yeah, I just whipped up a brief "definition" there. I think it's good enough for making the point)
Of course people's comments should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But the problem is that instead of rationally evaluating what someone is saying, people get emotional and attack him.
It's easy to come up with an excuse for rejecting what someone is saying even though it doesn't make sense to. The most common labels are probably "racist" and "misogynist", and of course you can just call anything that bothers you "hateful" because it's vague enough to be meaningless, but still handy in silencing someone.
Sure the terms racist and misogynist etc can be misused but when people are not being hateful, but you are also essentially doing the same thing by assuming everyone who points out racism and misogyny to be wrong. My point is when those legitimate cases arise it is also our right to not want to listen to them. No one is saying they don't have the right to say that stuff, we are saying we don't want to listen to them say it. The next question is how you decide what is legitimate and what isn't.
That in my opinion is part of what is being consider within the discussions around changing the downvote button to a report button or rather change it's symbol so it is not considered the opposite of upvote along with the requirement of giving a reason. That way people are more likely to stop and think as to whether this is occurring due to simply not liking the point or because it is hateful and doesn't actually contribute to the conversation.
As far as disallowing the forming of tribes and such goes, that's a little more difficult to define. But when you have the word hate with regard to a group of people in the name of your tribe, you are essentially announcing that you are practicing hate speech.
I feel I should also say though, seeing as Snapzu never did claim to be a champion of free speech and that they are always going to be against discrimination and such, it's kind of just up to us to then say, "well do we want to be part of that community. " It's like walking into a chess club then getting angry if they no longer want you there when all you to do is talk about is football. They have defined who they "as a club" are and we have to decide if that's what we want to be part of. The reason it is more important to enforce free speech in a country but not as important on a site is that people have a choice as to whether they are on a particular site or not. Very few people have a choice as to whether they are in the country they are in.
Of course there are real racists and real misogynists out there, but that doesn't make it alright for people to use those words as bludgeons with which to silence people who are making them uncomfortable (by making sense and pointing out things they don't want to accept).
I haven't claimed that "everyone who points out racism" is wrong, and I don't think that way (because there are legitimate cases and I'm not an idiot).
What would you change the downvote button to? Is there a symbol for "I think you're wrong"? :P Because that's how most people use it.
But did you notice how you used the word "hateful" as if it was a common thing for a comment to be so "hateful" that it needs to be downvoted? Think about what it means to be "hateful"? There is no clear definition. Anyone can deem anything hateful in their opinion.
Do you hate something? -Will your comment on it be hateful and therefore objectively worthy of disdain? Or do you just hate something because there's a legitimate reason for hating it? What if you just hate something for no particular reason, kind of like having a favourite colour? Are you hateful then, and what does it mean with regard to the world around you?
What is "hateful" besides a hand-wavy, negative characterization that's used for shaming people into shutting up?
The thing is, it's not alright to silence people who are objectively telling people things they need to hear. It doesn't matter whether a site has declared itself a champion of free speech - they're either detrimental to humanity's future/development, or they're not.
Freedom of speech is only ever violated by rulers and their thugs. It's only meaningful in that context, but it's meaningless in the sense that it doesn't matter to the rulers who would violate it, and it certainly doesn't prevent anything.
Considering freedom of speech only applies as long as no one intervenes in speech, the only way you could enforce it would be to somehow magically prevent the government from intervening.
Fundamentally, it's just an idea that's meant to make us more comfortable with being enslaved. In other words, it's a propaganda tool.