That just means your views are not very controversial (most people’s aren’t).

The argument you’re making is just a different face of the “I have nothing to hide” in the privacy debates.

I have controversial views (the EM Drive works! Sport is the opiate of the masses!) but I seem to get along just fine on social media. It’s really only the people who have boring, discredited political views who have problems.

"EM Drive works" is not a controversial view because most people have no idea what you're talking about (I had to Google it myself).

> I have controversial views

This is nowhere controversial.

Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation...

> Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation...

I don't think it's as rare or controversial as you think, many people just haven't formed a full opinion on judicial interpretation. Textualism in particular appeals to STEM folks. We've needlessly politicized them as Red Team vs Blue Team, when they don't see themselves as anything close to that. They're all first and foremost legal nerds.

Now if you're making pro-life arguments wrapped with original intent, I can see you getting some aggressive pushback.

I'm already upset.

> You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person?

No, an originalist doesn't treat the unamended text as sacred, they (in principal) treat the original meaning (textualist) or intent (intentionalist) of the current, amended text as controlling.

Also, you don't understand the 3/5 compromised which has nothing to do with the worth of a black person. It had to do with how much voting power free Whites should get on account of having enslaved Blacks; the free states mostly thought the answer ought to be zero, the slave states thought it ought to be equal to one free citizen per slave held, and the 3/5 compromised was the compromise to keep the two sides in one system.

Saying that it represents a Black person being worth 3/5 of a White person makes it sound like you think that it would be more just of they had taken the position the slavers proposed, since that, apparently, would make Blacks of equal value to Whites.

Have you found people apply this logic consistently, or do you find people cherry pick?

I fall firmly into the category being described. From my experience, the internet is an abysmal place to discuss these ideas regardless of which side you're on. The left and right both love to misapply statistics and misrepresent their counterparts whenever it's convenient to do so.

Modern social platforms simply do not allow you the room to express the nuance required for the topics at hand. You need far more than 280 characters and a few memes to articulate a point where you have to literally reference text, history, and tradition because so few people are versed in it.

The most incendiary example is the 2nd Amendment. Discussing it without your counterpart understanding the history and philosophies that spawned it (British longbow tradition, assize of arms laws from 1100s on, centralized Prussian style military vs militias, etc) makes for a nauseating experience.

You're forgetting a aspect: the Constitutional clause has been superseded by the 14th Amendment. So in this case, an originalist would rule based on the Amendment, not the just Constitution's original text.

And this display a crucial point, there is a legal process to amend the Constitution not relying on a few scholars re-re-re-interpretation. I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, as long as it's the Will of the People, not the Will of a few jurists. If you can get a Constitutional Amendment for the prohibition of intoxicating beverages, you can certainly get a Constitutional Amendment behind abortion... unless it's less of a consensus as you make it seems. Also, using one's 14th Amendment Right to privacy to "legalize" abortion is a pretty weak argument.

The point is that originalism relies on the idea that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form with a couple adjustments, where in reality it was a deeply, deeply flawed document that has been patched repeatedly to a workable state but still has serious shortcomings.

> The point is that originalism relies on the idea that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form

No, it doesn't. It is simply the idea that the legal impact of an enactment is set by the meaning (for the textualist form or originalism) or intent (for the intentionalist form of originalism) of the law when passed (whether you are referring to a statute or the Constitution or anything else.)

It has nothing to do with belief about the merits of the Constitution prior to subsequent amendments.

And you would only take that approach as a judge in the United States if you believed that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form.

Why else? Point me at someone who believes the Constitution is deeply, deeply flawed and in serious need of major revisions yet takes an originalist approach in their jurisprudence.

> Why else? Point me at someone who believes the Constitution is deeply, deeply flawed and in serious need of major revisions yet takes an originalist approach in their jurisprudence.

All of the people who supported amendments?

> And you would only take that approach as a judge in the United States if you believed that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form.

Given that, despite the cases that get the most public attention at the highest levels, most judicial interpretation isn’t of the Constitution, that doesn't make sense; it also doesn't make sense otherwise, since the Constitution has had extensive (either from a textualist or an intentionalist perspective) radical changes within the perspective of originalism, so originalism is in no way incompatible with believing the 1789 Constitution needed major revision, even if one assumes that an originalist must be operating ends-first and looking to rationalize their desired end-state of Constitutional law, rather than honestly.

That is blatantly false, originalism is relying on both the Constitution + associated Constitutional Amendments. As OP mentioned, the latter are not set in stone.

> That is blatantly false

You're missing my point. And I don't care right now.

That's not true, and I'm not even an originalist at all. Their point is that you stick to the letter of the law (the constitution) rather than trying to bend it around current social norms and sensibilities. I've never met an originalist who thinks black people are "3/5" of a person. They will cite the 13th and 14th amendments if you do. Clearly they would feel that the Constitution shouldn't be changed ever if they felt the way you say they feel. They think if you want to change the Constitution (or laws in general) that you should pass a new law or amend the Constitution to fit the situation, not sidestep it with a liberal judge who thinks it should be interpreted through the lens of society or even social justice.

> You're forgetting a aspect: the Constitutional clause has been superseded by the 14th Amendment.

The 13th, actually (it determined how chattel slaves were counted in apportionment, and the 13th abolished chattel slavery, so there were no chattel slaves to count.)

There's two ways to interpret the constitution: the honest way, and the way where you pretend that not only were the Founders of one mind on what the Constitution meant, but also that you can read that mind two and a half centuries later.

So, you are saying that textualist originalism, like Scalias, is the honest way, whereas intentionalist originalism is dishonest?

(And, yeah, there's actually more than two ways to interpret the Constituion.)

Not the OP, but of those two, I certainly agree textualism is more "honest". I don't see how you could ever divine a singular true intent behind a compromise of hundreds of divergent minds.

"Textualism" requires divining a single true meaning as interpreted by some not-well-specified group contemporary to the writing, instead of doing so for the at least somewhat-well-specified group of people adopting the measure required for "intentionalism".

(I think both forms of originalism are useful and important interpretive lenses, but I think taking either as universally decisive or even mistaking either for a decidable objective standard is deeply problematic.)

Only for the purpose of giving additional political representation to southern white men. Otherwise, they weren't people at all.

So if I tell my EM drive to leave and come back in six months, that's a relativistic bomb, right?

“I have nothing to hide” why even say that on a hacker-site? Of course everyone has, the rules and behaviours that make one oneself. If those behaviours and the bugs within them can be replicated, one becomes a easily manipulated puppet, a zombie going were ones master wants one to go, without any reason and lots of emotions, maybe occasionally wondering why ones actions result consistently in outcomes against ones own interest.

Maybe you don’t have any out of the box ideas that goes against the ideals of corporate America, but I’m certainly glad that other people do.

Imagine if current Twitter was around in Galileo’s time.

* Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed the consensus that the Earth is the center of the Universe, just as God willed it.

Or what if George Washington was relying on social media during the formation of our country?

* Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed that paying taxes to Britain is good and beneficial to the Colonies.

Many good ideas shatter the existing “consensus” dramatically. I’m glad that boundaries can and do get pushed because that’s how we come up with better ideas and systems.

That's an immature picture you are drawing there. You pretty much always trust some authority with what's a fact and what's not and twitter isn't taking that away from you. Have you verified every evidence yourself, for the things you take as premises?! I doubt it.

So let's not get all trolly problem here, alright.

(1) What's something specific you get moderated for? What's the thing you wish to express but can't in today's social media landscape? Can those things be falsified and the condition for accepting evidence?

(2) I say, there _are social networks for _every niche and kink; the only reason you would feel limited in expression and participation would be you trying to expose people to your ideas not likeminded. You have no right to be heard in every community, all the time, no right win people over everywhere, with everything. People can chose against you and your words. That's their right. A community implicitly or explicitly choosing a moderator or moderation guideline, isn't that a very democratic dynamic, too?

(3) We all know the internet changed the assumptions on independent thinking, and ignorant opinions can triumph over facts easily, if they are simpler, more convenient, more stimulating, more viral. Do you really want to be heard or do you want to win?

(4) Do you speak up, when a comment here gets downvoted to void, because the boys took offense? Have you ever fought for visibility of an argument or opinion totally against your world view, in the name of unconditional free speech?

Try to point out something correct but moderately controversial.

I think I've been modded for:

- trying to get people to hate less on Russians

- on the other hand, in the same forum: trying to tell some over eager people that no, Russians aren't saints and it isn't all NATOs fault.

- pointing out (as an insider that was supposedly one of the victims in a major news story recently) that the "facts" didn't check out at all.

I fully agree, we shouldn't hate Russians, they only wish to expand their lebensraum as it is their birthright. We shouldn't blame them for doing the right thing.

I stand for what I wrote: We shouldn't hate Russian citizens.

On the other hand we should be extremely careful when their military are "helpfully" supporting "oppressed" Russian minorities in Ukraine etc etc.

Russian civilians can be asked a few easy questions, like - what happened in February 2014, or what happened in August 2008, or what is administrative status of Crimea. And this answer will help you understand should they be hated or not. Most of them, even highly educated citizens living in a capital, even those who hate their so called "president" and asking for reform, they still approve russian invasions and occupation of territories. Basically the "Empire" part is just fine, they only wish to be left alone personally.

where did you read this, I wonder

I was recently moderated for the first time in my (fairly long) life by a social media site. I complained, and they restored it, but it was jarring. My general impression is that times they are a'changin' WRT moderation on the interwebs.

The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory holds up very strongly under observation:

https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

Small communities can sometimes survive without too much moderation, where the consequences of being shunned are enough to keep people who want to participate mostly civil to each other. But "success" in terms of rapid user base growth inevitably leads to enough members who are prepared to be uncivil to each other, at which stage the members who desire a civil discourse to either demand moderation or to leave it to become a youtube-comments style cesspit.

It's not a technical problem, it's a people problem. Technology just amplifies the problem enormously, it doesn't _cause_ it. Jerks don't last long at small local bars, because the locals set the tone and shun people who don't behave according to local norms. Large beer barns, concert venues, or festivals largely cannot rely on local norms and custom, or for regulars to guide newcomers to understanding and appropriate behaviour. And there will _always_ be some people who are jerks, or who's personal understanding of acceptable behaviour differs from the group norm. In the real world they hopefully find "their people" and their places. People who want to behave like outlaw bikers hang out in biker bars, not piano jazz clubs. If you want to build a social media site, you need to realise that eventually someone from 4chan who's idea of fun is trolling normies is gonna show up, and if the place looks "fun" to him, he can put out a call to hundreds of his friends to come show up too. You need to have a plan to deal with that before it happens, if you have a vision for your site that isn't /b/ To some people, that's gonna look like "overly heavy moderation" even if you do it right.

Not an SJW here, actually a political minority here ... i see a moderate amount of moderation and banning pf groups where i hang. Sure its not china but we are not using that asa standard ..

and mate thats a ton of shaming in your tone .. please consider showing some compassion. I fail to see how his comment provoked yours ..

> SJW

Hah people still use this term unironically?

Theres a bit of lag In non english speaking spheres =}

More often than ever

t. SJW

You may just have Orthodoxy privilege:

http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html

or in other words, if you've never had and issues with moderation, you might not ever take risks or challenges with your opinions.

Your assumption is that the moderator is fair. This is often not the case.

You're probably being downvoted for your comment. Does that make you the problem?

Can anyone understand this sheep's baas?