This article is basically case in point for me.

"why it's dangerous and wrong"

"most awful example"

"become actually dangerous, in ways he is unwilling or unable to understand"

The author intentionally (mis)interprets sama's writing in the least charitable way and then spends the rest of it arguing a strawman (with insults sprinkled throughout) ending with a comparison to nazis.

If I wasn't sure I agreed with Sama before, I'm definitely more inclined to now.

> Speech is the one thing that can equalize rich and poor, and has the ability to evaporate decades of work and reputation.

I feel like this is a bit of a passive way of saying this.

If someone says something, _they said it_. It evaporates their reputation because _they did something_.

And when saying things, it's to communicate the idea to others. I don't really think that speech exists in a vacuum. If you know saying something to somebody could offend them, you're kinda signing up to the criticism.

It feels like a lot of the essay is trying to say "we should listen to other people with controversial opinions." We were doing this in another domain for a while, with sexism.

A lot of us have just nodded and grimaced when our coworkers would make "those comments". When we'd see the berating of female colleagues. Even the words already had such an obvious effect.

I'm not saying "ban bad speech", but I do think as society we should be reinforcing the fact that words _are_ important, especially in this political climate. And that people are responsible for what they say. And... you can always apologize and change! And the world will be better for it.

There's a difference to me between truly abusive comments and offensive opinions. I wouldn't argue in favor of workplace sexism (at least my definition of it), but if someone gives their genuine opinion then it should be tolerated to the extent that we should listen, allow them to speak, and then engage in dialog if we disagree. If they're making abusive comments for the sake of hurting another person, that is an entirely different matter. I don't think that's what the author had in mind either based on the examples given in the first blog post.

That's not entirely true. What if you get misquoted in a newspaper? By the time the newspaper prints the correction, the damage has already been done.

Sure, some damage might have been done. But this feels pretty orthogonal, more of a problem of newspaper interests or simply the difficulty of cutting down text into smaller pieces.

We all should be making sure we're hearing stuff properly. I don't think many of these things are _really_ about misunderstanding, but it has happened.

Inversely, just because the speaker says "I meant X, but I didn't mean for it to offend" doesn't completely absolve the person. The words have meanings, and if you want to share you ideas, it's important to do it properly (just like you should know how to drive before going out there with your car).

I was more using that as an example to separate speech from the person saying it.

In terms of speech that offends, we can only control what we say, not what people think about it, nor whether their thought is reasonable. Therefore, punishing someone for what they say because it offended someone seems pretty illogical, unless you can make a damned good case, based on context, that it was probably going to offend.

A simple way to resolve that question is to ask the person who said it, "Why did you say that?" If they have a response that is not "because I wanted to offend" that is also reasonable, then I'd suggest the onus falls at least equally on the person who claims offense.

> Speech is the one thing that can equalize rich and poor, and has the ability to evaporate decades of work and reputation.

Unconsidered speech from the rich and influential can disproportionately hurt the poor and disadvantaged. For example, the US President is not a shining example of "using influence for good." His behavior and speech has lowered the bar across the board for how we expect our politicians to behave, has given confidence to racists and those who would commit hate crimes, and has claimed all criticism to be invalid with faulty reasoning.

A major fault in @sama's essay is a false dichotomy: that we must choose between some sad world of uncontested ideas (even if they have major faults e.g hurting marginalized groups in society a la "gay people are evil" -- his example not mine) and one where innovation can happen. It paints political correctness (which is a movement couched in concern for peoples' well-being) as being antithetical to being able to make technological / societal progress.

This is just not true. In fact you NEED a world where people give a shit about each other so that people who would otherwise be excluded by jerks and awful behavior can be productive, moving us forward.

And he uses Galileo, who was silenced by religious elements, as a comparison point vs a small group of startup ideas perhaps lambasted by media for being out of touch. It's not an accurate comparison.

"When we move from strenuous debate about ideas to casting the people behind the ideas as heretics, we gradually stop debate on all controversial ideas." I'm curious to hear just which cases comprise his experience of valid ideas being cast as heretical.

Is it unscientific for me to not "strenuously debate" with someone who is a flat earther out of judgement for how well my time is spent? And does it hurt progress for society to brand flat earthers as unscientific (which influences our "worth my time" metric)? I don't think it is. There's a lack of nuance in Sam's argument.

"A major fault in @sama's essay is a false dichotomy: that we must choose between some sad world of uncontested ideas (even if they have major faults e.g hurting marginalized groups in society a la "gay people are evil" -- his example not mine) and one where innovation can happen. It paints political correctness (which is a movement couched in concern for peoples' well-being) as being antithetical to being able to make technological / societal progress."

But that is precisely what is happening. The aim of political correctness seems to be to make things "safer" for other people. I would argue that safety and freedom are inversely related: a free society is inherently unsafe. But in the same way that we learn and get stronger by making mistakes, I think that erring on the side of freedom helps to strengthen individuals in the long term.

The other issue that comes up with these topics is arbitration. If you're going to cast a safety net across speech, you have to figure out who decides what the standards are, and how they are enforced. And if you disagree with those standards, what recourse do you have?

When you talk about a "free" society you fail to acknowledge that some groups in a rule-less landscape are conferred natural advantages over others. For example, without societal shifts and rules protecting people who are LGBTQ, an entire group of people would be harassed and discriminated against, and be strictly less "free" than others in the society.

The idea that "safety and freedom are inversely related" is not true. You're saying we move along a curve. Why not push the curve instead? Here's a way: freedom strictly increases when you give it more equally to all people. Security doesn't decrease from that in actuality; people who were taking unfair advantage of their relative privilege are the only ones who feel "unsafe."

For example: in the current state of things women face disproportionate amounts of mental load when interacting at work. "Am I coming across as sexually interested via the way I dress or talk?" << This is something that actually has to cross womens' minds from forever ago to now.

Given today's societal landscape, many men claim "I feel unsafe" because now that same thought has to cross their mind -- society is shifting toward less tolerant toward bad male behavior so you have to be careful not to make mistakes.

But when men consider/improve how they communicate and how their words may make others feel, they really increase freedom and safety for all women. And in net we are all both more free and more safe.

If you argue that the man is now less safe than he was before, you have to ask yourself, is it fair that he was more safe than a corresponding woman to begin with? And is he really being deprived of anything at all, other than a gross privilege he had (to not be accountable for his actions toward others)?

It's all well and good to talk about maximizing freedom, but if that freedom is not equally distributed it becomes significantly less noble.

I disagree with pretty much everything in this post.

I think what is reasonable to say is that while we are all created equal in the sense that we are human, that's far as as natural equality extends. Some of us are taller, shorter, we have different interests, etc.

So this begs the question, what is the role of government. Should government treat us all equally, in the sense that we are humans and thus rational beings? Or should government (a set of formalized rules and people who enforce them) attempt to equalize the playing field, and thus treat us all unequally? In your own example, by ensuring in your model safety for women, we must treat men differently from women, and therefore ensure that for women to be safer, men must be less free. IMHO government should treat us equal in the human sense, and no other.

On the obvious response that government and society are different, I would reply that government is at least in theory a set of formalized rules intended to reflect what the informal rules of society are. Therefore, while the match might not be 1:1, it's still quite relevant.

Here's a link to a discussion with FA Hayek, who describes this far more eloquently that I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnMd40dqBlQ

> I think what is reasonable to say is that while we are all created equal in the sense that we are human, that's far as as natural equality extends. Some of us are taller, shorter, we have different interests, etc.

Your observation that "humans aren't all the same" is orthogonal to the ideal that humans should be treated equally despite their physical characteristics which are outside of their control. I cannot control what gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity I'm born as, and you should not assume anything about my abilities based on those characteristics.

Good and bad are things we decide together because we're stuck living together; that's what society is. Equality is something a lot of us decide is good. It's not "natural" but that doesn't make it bad. I think it's good to aspire for a more equitable society.

Racism is bad exactly because it assumes things about people based on a physical characteristic outside of their control (skin color). That concept is general.

> > Or should government (a set of formalized rules and people who enforce them) attempt to equalize the playing field, and thus treat us all unequally?

Equalizing the playing field does not "treat us all unequally." That's the point of equalizing. A government trying to equalize the playing field is a government that acknowledges the playing field is already unfair. If you're born rich you are already advantaged. If you're born white you're already advantaged. Government is within its rights to say "oh shit 1% of the citizens who participate in this system have disproportionate power compared to the vast majority; we should equalize it so everyone can have a better life." << This is what a progressive income tax is for.

> In your own example, by ensuring in your model safety for women, we must treat men differently from women, and therefore ensure that for women to be safer, men must be less free.

Wrong. By ensuring model safety for women, we must hold them to the same standards that we hold women to. Both women and men who harass people should be ostracized. Historically only women had to bear the burden of "how do I come across" because of men. Today men should equally bear the same burden and be responsible for how their words and actions make others feel.

Men aren't "less free" in this model, they just have to be "more responsible." A level of responsibility women have already been forced to have. E.g why is it that women have to watch what they wear? Feminists aspire to a world where men should not assault or harass women, regardless of what they wear. We should all be equally responsible for our own behavior.

> government is at least in theory a set of formalized rules intended to reflect what the informal rules of society are

Agreed, this is a fact. Which is exactly why people who seek equality lobby government to update laws, to reflect our evolved societal norms. Laws should protect LGBTQ from discimination in the workplace for example, and help bridge the pay gap for women in the workplace. Laws were responsible for first freeing slaves in the US and then ensuring equal rights.

>"Your observation that "humans aren't all the same" is orthogonal to the ideal that humans should be treated equally despite their physical characteristics which are outside of their control. I cannot control what gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity I'm born as, and you should not assume anything about my abilities based on those characteristics."

Maybe you misunderstand my point. I mean that humans are all the same in the way that there is a Platonic form "human", which manifests itself in different ways. So one could say that they are all the same in that they share in humanity, and differ in application. I'm far more interested in a system that focuses on the common humanity than whether someone is tall or short.

>"Equalizing the playing field does not "treat us all unequally." That's the point of equalizing. A government trying to equalize the playing field is a government that acknowledges the playing field is already unfair. If you're born rich you are already advantaged. If you're born white you're already advantaged. Government is within its rights to say "oh shit 1% of the citizens who participate in this system have disproportionate power compared to the vast majority; we should equalize it so everyone can have a better life." << This is what a progressive income tax is for."

I very strongly disagree with this. I believe a government should equalize the playing field by focusing exclusively on the platonic form "human" rather than whether someone is tall or short. I think it is reasonable to say that someone's background might play a role in how they wind up, but it is by no means conclusive. I'm all about creating opportunities for people who work hard, such as scholarships for people who meet all standards for school except financial, but all those opportunities require someone to voluntarily choose that path.

These points, as well as the progressive income tax, ultimately lead to the tax dodges and loopholes that rich people slip into the system to get around them. They punish people who honestly work hard and reward the crooked.

>"Wrong. By ensuring model safety for women, we must hold them to the same standards that we hold women to. Both women and men who harass people should be ostracized. Historically only women had to bear the burden of "how do I come across" because of men. Today men should equally bear the same burden and be responsible for how their words and actions make others feel."

And how precisely can you ensure their "safety"? I'm a huge fan of individual empowerment, but not of infantilization. I'm not in favor of protecting anyone but myself unless the other people ask for it. It begins a slippery slope that leads to a boy in the bubble effect, which the helicopter parents of the 90s/00s, tried, which IMHO is one of the major factors that has lead to the mess of "safe space" nonsense on college campuses to begin with.

I have more opinions on this topic, but I defer to Camille Paglia, who is far more eloquent than me.

>"Agreed, this is a fact. Which is exactly why people who seek equality lobby government to update laws, to reflect our evolved societal norms. Laws should protect LGBTQ from discimination in the workplace for example, and help bridge the pay gap for women in the workplace. Laws were responsible for first freeing slaves in the US and then ensuring equal rights."

This sounds like a reasoning that we need more laws to fix injustices, which implies that laws are reactions to said injustices. Shouldn't laws be elaborations of first principles upon which a society has agreed? Otherwise we get a long list of laws that become out of date, and a government which no longer reflects the society it is supposed to represent.

> they share in humanity, and differ in application

You think women have one "application" and men have another. I disagree. We have what application we choose, that's real freedom.

> I think it is reasonable to say that someone's background might play a role in how they wind up, but it is by no means conclusive

What is the purpose of that kind of speculation? All it does is cast doubt on other members of that group. "Oh that's an Asian who's bad at math." "Oh that black guy is surprisingly successful." "Oh this woman is surprisingly unemotional." << These kinds of things perpetuate harmful stereotypes. These are not helpful in society. It's not reasonable to assume / "say" anything about a person based on their physical characteristics. They don't capture nuances like: black people make up of less of our GDP because, I dunno, the _legacy of slavery_? Women have less scientific achievements than men in history because, I dunno, _society didn't give them career opportunities and forced other responsibilities on them_?

Instead of giving people the freedom to define themselves, you do the injustice of pre-defining them.

> These points, as well as the progressive income tax, ultimately lead to the tax dodges and loopholes that rich people slip into the system to get around them. They punish people who honestly work hard and reward the crooked.

You think progressive income tax leads to tax dodges that rich people slip into? Think again. It's the fact that rich people earn lots of money from capital gains and capital gains isn't progressive. Progressive income tax as an algorithm does not cause inequity.

> And how precisely can you ensure their "safety"? I'm a huge fan of individual empowerment, but not of infantilization.

You ensure the safety of members in your society by making it socially unacceptable to harass and assault people, and punishing people who violate these basic requirements. You hold individuals responsible for individual behavior. For example, allowing men to get away with harassment is the real infantalization; "boys will be boys" takes responsibility away from them and puts it on the people they hurt.

> IMHO is one of the major factors that has lead to the mess of "safe space" nonsense on college campuses to begin with.

Crash course on safe spaces: speech is free so we can say stuff. But society is free and we can organize into groups and run those groups. For educated society there is a wide consensus that intolerant speech has chilling effects and silences others, and is ultimately at odds with free exchange of ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

So the rational response is: create safe spaces. Reject intolerance. Those voices have been heard enough, they have other platforms and groups, they have no place on college campuses which need to allow free exchange of ideas.

> I have more opinions on this topic, but I defer to Camille Paglia, who is far more eloquent than me.

Thanks for citing this woman. I disagree with her views and web comments are probably not going to solve our disagreements here.

> This sounds like a reasoning that we need more laws to fix injustices, which implies that laws are reactions to said injustices. Shouldn't laws be elaborations of first principles upon which a society has agreed?

American society originally agreed that slaves were not human. And then 3/5 human. You said it yourself; laws are loose reflection of societal norms, but norms change and laws need to be pushed. Therefore yes, laws ARE reactions to injustices, because injustices are addressed by changing norms, and then laws.

> You think women have one "application" and men have another. I disagree. We have what application we choose, that's real freedom.

I wasn't actually referring to sex here, I was using this to explain why everyone is different. Some are tall, some are short, etc.

> What is the purpose of that kind of speculation? All it does is cast doubt on other members of that group. "Oh that's an Asian who's bad at math." "Oh that black guy is surprisingly successful." "Oh this woman is surprisingly unemotional." << These kinds of things perpetuate harmful stereotypes. These are not helpful in society. It's not reasonable to assume / "say" anything about a person based on their physical characteristics. They don't capture nuances like: black people make up of less of our GDP because, I dunno, the _legacy of slavery_? Women have less scientific achievements than men in history because, I dunno, _society didn't give them career opportunities and forced other responsibilities on them_?

I focus on individuals and individual circumstances rather than groups and group identities. Identity is complex and multifacted, and while we are indeed influenced by our upbringing, I also believe that individuals with drive to succeed can surpass things that might hold other back. Thomas Sowell is probably my favorite example of this, but there are many others.

> Crash course on safe spaces: speech is free so we can say stuff. But society is free and we can organize into groups and run those groups. For educated society there is a wide consensus that intolerant speech has chilling effects and silences others, and is ultimately at odds with free exchange of ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I generally answer this reference (and have elsewhere on this page) with that of "On Liberty" from John Stuart Mill. This goes back to one of my original questions which I don't think you answered, which was about arbitration. If you consider limits of tolerance, who do we trust to judge where those limits are, and why do we trust them with this?

> So the rational response is: create safe spaces. Reject intolerance. Those voices have been heard enough, they have other platforms and groups, they have no place on college campuses which need to allow free exchange of ideas.

This is actually not true for publicly funded universities, which is one of the reasons the deplatforming that UC Berkley did has drawn so much ire. I'm still impressed that they managed to get both Bill Maher and Bernie Sanders defending Ann Coulter.

> Thanks for citing this woman. I disagree with her views and web comments are probably not going to solve our disagreements here.

Yep, we can agree to disagree. But thankfully we're able to do so with civility, through our use of free speech. It's a pity there aren't more such discussions these days, so thank you!

> American society originally agreed that slaves were not human. And then 3/5 human. You said it yourself; laws are loose reflection of societal norms, but norms change and laws need to be pushed. Therefore yes, laws ARE reactions to injustices, because injustices are addressed by changing norms, and then laws.

Which is why I push back and suggest that the laws need to also be based on first principles of some sort. One of the reasons the 1957 Civil Rights Act was passed is because the only thing it actually did was reaffirm the right for blacks to vote, which was a first principle the South couldn't argue against.

On a side note, it sounds like you believe the purpose of laws is to enable freedoms, something with which I could not disagree more. I argue the purpose of laws is to restrain government from infringing on our freedoms. Notice how in the US Bill of Rights, the statements are all "Congress shall make no law..."

Money has always been able to amplify or suppress speech, even before the supreme court rule that it was speech. Toilets, death, pant legs: these are among the things that equalize the rich and the poor. Speech is not and has never been one of those things.