You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on Open Thread, May 25 - May 31, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gondolinian 25 May 2015 12:00AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (301)

CC Licenced

Tags: open_thread

Comments (301)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 May 2015 01:22:19PM 5 points [-]

If that is too extreme a formulation, then a toned-down version of the idea just coincides with bog-standard "diversity politics" liberalism, doesn't it?

There days people who speak for "diversity" quite often advocate policies like hate speech laws that reduce diversity of voiced opinions.

Pluralism seems to me the better label.

Comment author: halcyon 27 May 2015 01:50:17PM -2 points [-]

Possibly, but how do you prevent extremist violence from breaking out if you do not promote some degree of toleration? Of course, that can be taken to extremes as well.

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 May 2015 02:13:13PM 4 points [-]

It used to be that it was okay for students in universities to hear ideas that challenge their beliefs and that make them uncomfortable. Today the idea of safe spaces, prevents discussion that makes people uncomfortable from happening.

The range of ideas that can be expressed doesn't increase but decrease.

Tolerating someone doesn't mean to avoid voicing opinions that make that person uncomfortable. But that's usually called for by "diversity advocates".

Comment author: halcyon 27 May 2015 02:30:50PM * -2 points [-]

Oh okay, but is the term "pluralism" compatible with curbing extremist rhetoric when it really is likely to lead to violence? I mean, what if they say they are not trying to completely eradicate the other side, (just, I don't know, teach them a lesson or something) so their speech does not technically violate pluralist principles?

(Or what if the objectionable consequence is not violence, but unfairly, and greatly, reduced opportunities?)

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 May 2015 03:03:50PM 2 points [-]

You have violence on all sides of the political spectrum. I don't think you can effectively prevent political violence by forbidding certain opinions from being voiced.

I think open discussion is better than driving views underground.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 02 June 2015 03:27:10AM 2 points [-]

Worse, you're likely to wind up driving the truth underground.

Comment author: halcyon comment score below threshold [+] (51 children)

Comment author: Lumifer 27 May 2015 06:15:50PM * 4 points [-]

forbidding specific kinds of public speech can under any circumstances prevent outcomes like that?

Police states are great at preventing outcomes like that.

The problem is that history provides a lot of empirical evidence about how "forbidding specific kinds of public speech" works and what it tends to lead to.

Comment author: halcyon 27 May 2015 07:02:44PM -2 points [-]

Do you claim the following proposition is true: Every state where hate speech has been forbidden has been a horrible police state.

Comment author: Lumifer 27 May 2015 07:06:10PM 4 points [-]

There is not much reason to fight strawmen.

"Hate speech" is not a term that characterizes the speech itself, it's a term that expresses the speaker's attitude towards that particular speech. May I recommend a blog post?

Comment author: halcyon 27 May 2015 07:10:22PM -1 points [-]

For the purposes of this argument, I define hate speech as X such that X is a member of set S. (see my other comment)

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 May 2015 04:28:28PM 2 points [-]

Making public policy because you are afraid of a single scenario is bad. It makes more sense to build public policy based on principles.

I don't think that forbidding speech is an efficient tool to prevent rioting. In many cases it's going to polarize. It makes much more sense to focus on the criminality of blackmailing store owners because you can get agreement on that not being okay.

The UK switched from speaking of fundamentalist Muslims to speaking about violent extremism precisely because making the argument that violent extremism is bad is much easier.

Comment author: halcyon comment score below threshold [+] (42 children)

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 May 2015 11:08:47PM 2 points [-]

I am only concerned about situations that you yourself would agree have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric that hardened bigots nevertheless continue to spread.

I honestly don't know what that means.

In some sense the question of whether the earth is older than 6000 thousand years is settled beyond dispute. At the same time there are young earth creationists. Allowing real diversity means being okay with their being young earth creationists who disagree with me on the subject.

The same goes for the question whether gay people cause earthquakes. Obviously they don't, but I still don't want to use government power to suppress that belief.

On LW I would downvote a person who expose either of those beliefs but I wouldn't make that ground for calling for deletion of his posts or him getting banned.

1) Principles should be chosen on the basis of doing the most good and prevent the most harm, right?

Yes, that means you look at actual real world cases. I'm not aware of any case in the US in the decades where "a bigot gives a great inflammatory speech that inspires bands of dissatisfied young men to prevent every store in town from selling groceries to some minority".

2) Do you agree that incidents of the kind I described are numerous, serious and compelling enough to be worth taking notice of?

At the moment I don't see any problem in the US from the inability to forbid inflammatory rhetoric due to Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Comment author: halcyon 28 May 2015 03:38:31AM * -1 points [-]

I'm a native Bengali speaker, so my syntax may be problematic. I later glossed that sensence as something like, "ChristianKl admits X is a case of inflammatory rhetoric being spread by bigots, etc."

I'm totally in favor of open public debate, even regarding positions that the liberal police would dub "bigoted". I'm not talking about real debates, I'm talking about cases that really are crazy propaganda. Would you say that under some circumstances, it is legitimate to curb the spread of such propaganda?

In particular, I'm in favor of all views being aired on LW. Hopefully, nobody is going to pick on homosexuals just because someone expresses anti-gay sentiments here, and it is not even possible to pose the more serious threats over the internet.

I'm an Indian, not an American. Communal riots are a real thing in India. Would you say that under some circumstances, curbing hateful propaganda has a real chance of minimizing violence? If so, are any such cases legitimate?

This is how I clarified my position farther down the thread: "I'm genuinely on the fence on this one. My only claim is that one legitimate argument to do it (censor inflammatory rhetoric) does exist. Depending on the specific case, that reason may be outweighed by more significant arguments."

continue this thread »

Comment author: Lumifer 27 May 2015 07:03:45PM 2 points [-]

have been settled beyond dispute

Clearly not.

Comment author: halcyon 27 May 2015 07:07:43PM -2 points [-]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

Imagine there is a society where all kinds of people are saying all kinds of things. S is a subset of all the things that are being said, such that if X is a member of set S, then X is a case "that you yourself would agree have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric that hardened bigots nevertheless continue to spread".

Now, I am only concerned cases X such that X is a member of set S.

continue this thread »

Comment author: g_pepper 27 May 2015 06:37:56PM 0 points [-]

If you have time, you should watch this video in which Jonathan Rauch puts forward a very intelligent moral defense of free speech. I don't think I can do it justice if I try to summarize it so I won't try. One point he makes though is that the most vulnerable of groups who are most likely to be targeted by hate speech are the least likely to be protected by laws constraining free speech.

Rauch is humorous in places and always thoughtful; he steelmans the case for restricting speech and his free speech defense holds up nicely against the steel man.

Comment author: halcyon 27 May 2015 07:54:26PM -2 points [-]

I'm trying, but my connection is too slow. Thanks for the link, I'll try again later.

Comment author: g_pepper 29 May 2015 03:01:24AM 0 points [-]

Sounds good. I hope you have time to watch it! One point the video makes is that the most effective antidote to bad/wrong ideas is good/correct ideas. An environment that allows unfettered free speech, it seems to me, is an environment that is likely to allow people to judge ideas on their merits and, hopefully, will allow the good ideas to dominate.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 02 June 2015 03:25:46AM 2 points [-]

What do you mean by "extreme"? Extreme relative to what? After all, even belief the singularity is an "extreme", relative to the current mainstream, position.

ChristianKl comments on Open Thread, May 25 - May 31, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (301)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (301)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login