https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21120806
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21103133
That seems like a very vague concept. I'm not sure what couldn't be placed under that umbrella.
James Damore. And if you believe what he said really was hate speech, that just illustrates the problem.
This is the initial comment we are discussing. It’s a pretty specific choice of words, so it’s not unreasonable to continue the discussion based on a reasonable interpretation of those actual words.
That claim is the specific issue being discussed, so I don’t think it’s a distraction. If you’re interested in some other issue, then by all means openly discuss that.
If the challenge was just to name any event that has occurred that didn’t involve hate speech, then sure, we can list many such events.
Your quote is a response to throwawaysea's comment, which is clearly much more general than that:
>Leaving aside culture wars waged by individuals, I see institutional tightening on free speech all over America. I see it in big tech companies, where only a progressive monoculture exists with no psychological safety for other viewpoints. I see it in censorship applied by defacto digital public squares like YouTube. I see it in the left's rampant use of deplatforming to silence opposing views. Increasingly, I also see it in universities (see this incident at the University of Washington today https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-university-of-was...).
2) Virtually no one actually read his essay in its entirety, including the media figures and bloggers who commented on it incessantly. His actual message and claims were completely ignored or outright twisted to fit a specific narrative. The fact that you had to go all the way to places like the Joe Rogan podcast to listen to him actually explain his thoughts without being editorialized was insane.
3) He lost his job as a direct result.
However, it was not well written nor was it particularly well reasoned. While there were some potentially good ideas buried it it, they were buried under poorly understood and debunked science and statements that were easily misunderstood.
I think critical debunking of where he went wrong and charitable interpretation of some of the things he may have gotten right would have been far more effective.
Unfortunately it was pulled into the morass that is partisanship in US these days. (I personally harbor a suspicion that this was deliberate and that he fully intended to get himself fired given the way that it and numerous other personal details of googlers got leaked in the lead up to his firing).
I didn't read his essay or follow this case at all, but from Wikipedia it seems he was arguing that biological differences between the sexes are a driving factor for the lack of women programmers at Google. That's a position that's solidly backed by the science.
I mean, come on, if it was a paper in any other field, even economy, people here at HN would have either ignored him or called him out.
Anyway he was dumb and should not have been fired (unless this essay looked like his work at Google).
That's the definition of creating a vicious and predatory workplace. Hence, fired.
Not to mention every source he quoted came out saying that the information was misused.
But really, this only highlights the real problem: if you censor someone, you can accuse them of having said anything because, by virtue of having censored the person, there’s no way for anyone to know better. Obviously many of us actually can still read Damore’s writeup, but that’s largely because the censorship isn’t actually effective yet. I’m just impressed that still doesn’t stop the would-be censors from lying about the stuff they’re trying to censor!
To understand why all speech is protected realize that the first amendment is partly to prevent arguments about which speech is permissible from occurring by allowing all of it. So... by saying "hate speech is not allowed" you are having the argument that was supposed to not be had.
Protected against the government, but not protected against community ostracization.
> In that blog, I discussed the issue of politically well-connected groups securing funds at the public trough and used the century-old political metaphor of “pigs at a trough”, not in the text, but in a single picture (see below).
> This metaphor is frequently used in the media and books, such as Arianna Huffington’s hard hitting book on political corruption in America, which described the greed of the politically connected (see below).
> The activist students claimed that such a metaphor was racist because some members of the 1631 consortium were from minority groups. They ignored the fact that the 1631 coalition was overwhelmingly white and well-to-do. The fact I was expressing political opinions outside the UW did not seem important to them, nor did they care about the concept of freedom of speech. They wanted the department and college administration to do something about me and my blog.
> Will the College of Environment Deans Accuse Arianna Huffington of Racism? Or Australian Adam Schwab? And shamefully and potentially illegally, the Atmospheric Sciences chair and COENV Deans, ignoring First Amendment protections and the essential principles of an academic institution, did exactly what the students wanted
> Between the end of October and early November 2018, Department Chairman Dale Durran, COENV Associate Dean of Research Robert Wood, COENV Associate Dean of Administration Stephanie Harrington, and COENV Assistant Dean of Diversity Terryl Ross wrote a letter attacking my blog that was formally approved by Dean Lisa Graumlich. (all of this is documented in their internal emails).
> Their letter, “Message on Departmental Civility”, was sent to MY ENTIRE DEPARTMENT (including staff, faculty, and students—over 120 people) on November 22, stating that my blog “included imagery and text that was racially insensitive and caused offense.” The letter accused me of racism through the statement “Racism is in direct contradiction to our shared values and has no place in our college” as well as suggesting that I harmed the community through my blog.
> This letter was not only inappropriate and arguably unethical but a violation of University of Washington faculty code, including the protection of academic freedom.
> UW administrators were sanctioning and shaming a faculty member inside the university for expressing political free speech outside of the UW: also an apparent violation of constitutionally protected freedom of speech at a public university. Importantly, freedom of speech is protected BOTH inside and outside a public university by the U.S. and Washington State constitutions.
There are numerous examples to point at, but this is a very recent one showing how far the definition of 'hate speech' has been stretched. By making every issue political, and every issue one of oppression, the notion of intersectionality has been twisted to weaponize rhetoric and curtail free speech. I think that is very bad for healing divisiveness and operating a rational society.
Freedom of speech is important.
And Freedom of Association is important.
Everyone has a right to say what they please. And everyone has a right to associate with whoever they please.
If you don't like what someone says, well, sorry. I don't know what to tell you? Go listen to someone else, I guess? But you can't make the guy you don't like stop talking. That's attacking his freedom.
If people don't want to associate with you, well, sorry. I don't know what to tell you? Go find different friends, or don't be a douchebag, I guess? But you can't force people who don't like you to associate with you. That's attacking their freedom.
Hate speech may be a thing, but it's entirely legitimate free expression.
Other people don't lose their rights simply because you feel they should to accommodate your belief system.
"Deplatforming", whatever that is, may be a thing, but it's entirely legitimate free expression.
Other people don't lose their rights simply because you feel they should to accommodate your belief system.
But if they want to behave like a publisher, they need to be prepared to be legislated as a publisher.
And that's the difference between digital and paper. What digital properties have discovered is that, regardless of whether or not they behave like a publisher, they will be held accountable for the actions of their users. (Believe me, the blue jackets are always at your door after every mass shooting. At times, they are there during the mass shooting.) So you may as well be a publisher and at least be able to make some money.
I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd like to hear about them to broaden my views.
> Free speech is a fundamental good that must be protected
The freedom of speech and association comes with a corollary: the freedom to dissociate and shun. So welcome to the consequences of being on the other side of progress, I suppose? This is what happens.
> progressive left
Do you mean social democratic left?