free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. popular speech, by definition, needs no protection unless of course you manage to convince yourself that you're in the minority and that your speech is unpopular
I am not going to sit by and tolerate racist fuckwittery here just because there are less racists on this site than non-racists, nor am I going to tolerate misogynist bullshit because there are more feminists on this site than non-feminist. If you think I am because you go waving "free speech" around you are so very very wrong. This ain't Reddit.
Free speech is a right and is protected. But the ability to say whatever you want does not obligate me to listen to you. It does not obligate me to give you a platform to use to spout off your nonsense from. It does not mean that what you say cannot be dangerous. It does not mean I cannot point out danger when I see it. It doesn't mean I can't point out something for being wrong or stupid. It doesn't even mean your employer can't fire you for something you say. Or that you can't be prosecuted for your words (libel, slander, etc). Just because something has not been heard (before, often, much, in full, whatever) does not mean it is worth being heard.
Free speech is meant to prevent government limitations on speech. Free speech is not meant to limit judging the speaker as morally, ethically or socially bankrupt. I feel like there's a conversation or interaction I'm missing here. I agree it's important to remember others disagree with us. That doesn't add legitimacy to a hateful position, of course. Remembering there are different, opposing views can help us hone our own discussion, shape our own opinions and, in some cases, reassert the ludicrousness and hatefulness of racism, misogyny or other stereotypes.
Neither (lack of) popularity of one's opinion nor views opposing one's own have anything to do with the hatred one's message holds. Those ought to be judged upon separately. It doesn't matter if 10 or 1000 people follow me, nor does it matter if I don't agree with someone over a topic: if I spit hateful remarks, I'm an asshole, even if some portion of what I say is correct or meaningful.
This is SUCH a dangerous point of view. If a community begins to accept 'keep an open mind,' 'everyone's entitled to their opinion,' 'there's always someone who will disagree with you,' or, God forbid, 'freeze peach' as justifications for allowing certain points of view or sentiments, that community has lost ALL critical potential or faculty, because it has no ground to weigh the value (or lack thereof) of any given idea.
I'm struggling to understand your point of view. Surely the ground on which to weigh the 'value' of an idea is the argument you use to back it up? You seem to be claiming that one idea is inherently more valuable than another idea, without even taking the 'framework' into account. It just seems like saying "you are wrong because I said so" rather than saying "you are wrong because of x,y,z" and building an argument from there. Note: I've just gotten back from taking time off of Hubski, and it seems that some more drama occurred which I wasn't aware of. Maybe in that context this statement would make more sense. In any case, I'm just addressing your statement as I see it.
Ehh, it's probably that I didn't express myself well. My point is that if arguments around free speech or keeping an open mind start to be in and of themselves justifications for certain views to be expressed on a platform, that platform then has to accept literally EVERYTHING that isn't active harassment, because everyone can whine equally about how other people aren't being open minded when they are told how toxic their views are. As such, I think it's important to be ruthlessly opposed to such arguments, because they're the quickest way for a community or platform to lose all control over content.
Thanks for the clarification! I now see that I agree with you for the most part. It's definitely an awkward situation for Hubski as a platform. I mean, at the end of the day, Hubski should be able to do as it likes. It's hosting the content, and if the powers that be don't like certain things they should be able to remove them. That's life. I think we're on the same page this far anyway. Hubski-ers interacting with other Hubski-ers is a really difficult situation and I guess it really depends on the user. One thing I really don't agree with though is outright name calling. I've seen it happen a handful of times here where people jump straight to accusations without even addressing the actual idea, or even trying to back up their accusation. I mean, there's a big difference between "you're racist because x", and just "you're racist". I don't know if I articulated myself very well, but I guess the TL;DR is: don't hate, discuss.
So, I'm sure this post is commentary on, if not a specific user or set of users, some of the interactions that have gone on around here recently. _ Now that I've said that, since some people are confused, I'd like to make it clear that the rest of this post, while it will discuss things like racism and inflammatory dialogue, is in no way a direct or indirect reference or attempt to "throw shade" or "blame" any user or set of users. From here on out we are having a discussion about the text in Q's post, which suggests that unpopular opinions are more valid than popular ones. Yes, I will use racism as my first example because it seems relevant. No, I do not have little mental labels for you assholes in my head: "racist," "not racist." No, I actually do not really care about you or calling you out or continuing an ugly discussion. So stop being self-obsessed and let it go. _ The thing that strikes me about your post, Q, is that it's completely unclear which opinion is perceived as the popular opinion, and which is not. I feel an argument could be made that racism is the popular opinion (look at the incidence of racism that occurs across America in the present day). I feel like an argument could be made that equality is the popular opinion because we are human beings and we are optimists and we like to believe we are better than that. I think it is truly optimistic to believe that equal rights are the popular opinion. There are far too many discussions about "Well but I'm just not naturally attracted to an entire race of people, that's just my preference, and it's perfectly okay for me to say that I will never find anyone attractive because they happen to have a certain skin tone," and "What about male-on-male violence though? No one ever talks about that" and so on. If equal rights were the popular opinion in America I would really think we would stop arguing so much about birth control. Or affirmative action, or...well, yeah, I can go on. I would absolutely echo tla's sentiment that this post reminds me of Reddit's original approach to content. "We aren't responsible for the hate speech that sprouts around our website because it's free speech and everyone has the right to that." The thing is Reddit has clearly capitulated on that point and I don't think that anyone really misses the unpopular dialogues of places like /fatpeoplehate or thinks that the loss of such subtracts any value from the website. Sure - everyone has a right to say whatever they want and that's a great thing about America, that no one will get killed by the government for a news article or what-have-you. That doesn't mean that anyone has a responsibility to subject themselves to the unpopular ramblings of others - the right to speak does not translate to some sort of inherent value in what is said. The unpopularity of an opinion does not relate in any way to whether it is a good one, a poisonous one, or other. On hubski, anti-vax opinions would be unpopular speech. But they aren't in some parts of the greater U.S. clearly. This is an opinion that can actually cause harm not only to one's own children but others. Anti-vaxxers can cause health crises. A person is allowed to say this opinion; the right to do so is the extent of free speech, and the extent of any protection thereof. Should these anti-vax statements not be rebutted because the rebuttal is popularly accepted as factual and grounded? So we should allow blatantly false and potentially harmful information to go not only said, but unchallenged? What of the lurker who reads the opinion, doesn't have much knowledge about the subject, doesn't see any rebuttal, and accepts this opinion as gospel because they do not know better? What is popular speech, really? What prevents one day's popular speech from becoming the next day's unpopular speech - certainly, saying that because it is popular it needs no defense or much discussion would not do that. I am just thinking about propaganda and campaigns and how political changes can suddenly make previously accepted topics more controversial or forbidden. Of course, I am imagining a slightly more aggressive political state than I like to think America has in practice. But really I am also thinking about kids and kids interacting with what they see online. How if no one ever protected the popular opinion by stating it and reinforcing it, while unpopular opinions went free of scrutiny or moderation because they somehow deserved more "protection," it'd be very easy for kids to glom on to the shitty shit and take it all in. I think there is not only no obligation to tolerate hateful opinions but yes, an obligation to speak against them. I guess that makes me an activist. But to me, especially in a small community like Hubski which is supposed to be a "real community" where we all know each other and have relationships and shit, my silence is not "allowing unpopular opinions their due," it is "condonement," and there are things I will not condone. I would speak up if my friends said these things and I would stop being friends with them if they held truly virulent opinions. I guess virulent opinions probably quality as "unpopular." Aren't we supposed to be friends, Hubski? Isn't that what makes this website special? Or am I just supposed to give you an audience - not only free speech but heard speech - but because you can say whatever you want? Why do you have to say it here and what right is it that protects that? It is unpopular to me to suggest some free speech is more valid than others. States like "popular" and "unpopular" are easily changeable and dependent upon context. I do not think it is the best measure of kinds of speech. What about "speech that is harmful to others" vs "speech that is not"? I mean, no matter what i propose we are going to realize that these are nebulous decisions and people will argue what they mean and where the boundaries lie. Maybe it's silly to differentiate like this. To "put up and shut up" - to tolerate - is to say the behavior exhibited is okay. I won't say that about hate speech.
Unless there's some big thing that happened that I totally missed, I think you're typifying my interaction with eightbit last night as "racist" or "hate speech" or at least "speech that is harmful to others". If challenging your narrative is hate speech you really ought to step back and check your personal bias.
So like, maybe you should take a discussion that is really and only about whether or not unpopular decisions deserve to be heard more than popular ones for what it is, instead of for veiled commentary about you, brah. I literally didn't think about you once while I was writing this post. Yes, I was considering the threads of last night but to be frank, the only person I thought Q might be commenting on was me. You can cool your heels now. EDIT here are my edits because of course I have more to say. a) A discussion that got so nasty a beloved and long term member of the community deleted his account almost immediately afterwards, and then a second one did shortly afterwards, seems to me like it could be considered "harmful" speech. Clearly it so upset multiple people that they were driven away from a place they once loved, and where they were loved and appreciated. I would consider harm done. I absolutely think that there were detrimental impacts on this community. Now, do you want to take responsibility for that whole thread? Seems like you do. I wasn't gonna bother, you know, it takes two to tango and whatever, but since you're volunteering, sure. You can be the alpha and omega of the drama and altercations last night. b) Really brah? You wanna have an argument with me about whether or not I felt that the discussion last night was racist? First, we already did that once. During that discussion. Second, clearly, that didn't go well for either party. It seems unwise to try to reinitiate. Are you just trying to see how many users that do more than pick fights you can force to leave? (Note: I'm using "you" here because, apparently, you're the only person responsible for what went down last night; see point a. If you had realized that you weren't the only person in that thread, I wouldn't suggest you were on a personal vendetta. But because it's all about you brah, it's all about you.)
Well maybe I would if there hadn't just been a thread full of people acting like my not supporting protests means I'm a racist bastard. If you're not referencing that, though, fair enough. I guess I'm not privvy to whatever subject it is you are referencing, as I've yet to see any of the sort of interactions you describe on Hubski and I'm only aware of one user who spouts that kind of shit.
So yes: congratulations, you read the first part of my comment where I said I thought Q was responding to stuff that happened last night. That doesn't mean that my discussion of the actual point Q was making is meant as direct reference to or commentary upon what you said. Like seriously, I had already mostly forgotten about you. Like, yes, asshole users, deleted thread, blah blah blah. That would be a thing that is now over. There were multiple speakers in that thread I didn't like and frankly, I wasn't planning on remembering any of you. Congratulations, you had a chance to let things kind of simmer down and blow over, but because you couldn't help seeing a discussion about the validity of opinions and speech as an attack on you, you've stirred my pot again and you're back in the center of my attention. So far that has not been a very fun place for you to be. Am I right? It hasn't been fun for me, you, or anyone else. So maybe you should relax a little. Maybe you should step back a bit. Did I feel like the overall thread took on racist tones, yeah, sure. Is that why I used racism as my first example? Yup you bet. Had I remembered you as "the racist"? Nope. In fact I felt more of my beef was directed at that other guy who hopefully is smart enough not to interject here because I don't remember his name right now and that's for the better. Like it could've been for you. But no. Ya think this is the only argument about race we've ever had on Hubski? Ya think, based on the way that thread exploded last night, that maybe it happens a lot so maybe it's one of the easiest examples to turn to when we have discussions about this? Would you agree that, if you are an optimist, you would hope that racism was an unpopular opinion, but just because it is unpopular does not mean it deserves to be heard? Because that is what I am saying in my comment. __ You seem to feel very much on the defense right now and I can understand why that is. However, I don't think it's a wise tactic to antagonize and bring attention back to you, so soon after the incident that made you feel attacked. I don't feel the need to pretend I am discussing one topic in order to give veiled, snarky, cowardly commentary on other events. That should already be clear to you. I am referencing the subject of this thread. Passive aggression is for bullshitters who can't stand up. When I have a problem, I will actively and aggressively address it. As I did last night. Why don't you do everyone, but especially yourself, a favor and try to start repairing your relationships with community members you may care about, demonstrate that you are a level-headed, intelligent, and valuable member of this community, and show us that you are more than one part of the regrettable events of last night? That is what I would want to do. I would want to prove to people I am not what they think I am and that I am better than that. I certainly wouldn't go around trying to start an argument with how they may feel about last night. I would try to remember that you were far from the only person in that thread. In short: it's not all about you, but if you want to make it that way, I don't think you're going to find it fun and i don't think it's going to help you. Let's get some per aspera ad astra shit going on here dude. I'm trying to leave the mud behind and it seems you just want to throw it all over the future.
You: - only assumed I was referring to you specifically when I acknowledged generic events (let us note that during the course of those generic events, I only interacted with you once) - assumed the gist of my post in a thread about free speech was really a passive aggressive takedown of you, - assumed that comments I made that were clearly about hate speech on a completely different website were somehow, magically, directed towards your comments on Hubski ("hate speech") - then used your first two notably self-centric assumptions to conclude that I was also calling you, directly, racist in that comment - then tried to tell me that all these opinions you had given me were wrong - right after the night before there'd been a very incendiary discussion that DID revolve around such opinions and in which I HAD disagreed with you and which in no way yielded a fruitful or positive discussion for any parties involved. (Do you disagree?) In other words, to underline that last bullet, you got yourself offended and then you got all up in my business in the very same topic which had resulted in an very multi-person and very harmful argument the night before. If you weren't trying to start an argument then maybe I am giving your awareness too much benefit of the doubt.
Paper mold, by the way. There's no way to get rid of it once it's started growing on an object. You see it in possessions taken out of flooded houses. One LP sleeve with paper on it will spread to and rot away an entire collection. It's sad when you can't get a really nice record for $.50 because of paper mold.
I think this is something that people need to keep in mind in general, both on and off the internet. People have a tendency to assume that they're right rather than to check if they're wrong. This doesn't just apply to their opinions, but to their opinions about those who hold conflicting opinions. Adhering to a specific narrative not only clouds your judgement in regard to issues, but it can cloud your judgement in regard to people as well. If people aren't willing to have good faith conversations with those they disagree with there's never any opportunity for change. Humility goes a lot further than arrogance.
A recent post that's worth adding to this thread, I think: http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-updated-7611752