Respectfully, it is my opinion that arresting anyone who says something, in real life, on a blog or whispering to themselves, that is not a direct threat or inciting physical violence is wrong.
Right, so someone could be justly "arrested for a tweet" in your eyes, if that tweet contains a direct threat or inciting physical violence. If someone was arrested for tweeting something which is clearly not arrest-worthy, say someone was arrested for tweeting that the UK monarchy is bad, I would probably write that someone was "arrested for being critical of the monarchy", not that someone was "arrested for a tweet".
It depends on if you are writing a click bait headline to get higher engagement or not. So, someone paid to write those headlines would absolutely say arrest due to tweet and ignore the content of the tweet.
>I would probably write
suggests that you are not a click bait headline writer.
That makes a lot of sense if you think that only direct calls for violence result in violence. There's a slow burning genocide afoot that's taking place though "reasoned debates," that serves as a counterexample. It's, however, a lot easier to relabel it as something else than accept that speech falling outside "inciting physical violence" could be the cause.
I think that the perpetrators of violence carry the responsibility for it, not the people who may have inspired them. Since perpetrators are agents, the cause of violence terminates at the decision making process of the perpetrator. The best way to address violence is to arrest and imprison perpetrators.
Attempting to control second-order factors that may influence behaviour is a very short road to tyranny. How do we decide which factors to control for? Who gets to make this decision? How do we know in retrospect that such a decision was mistaken? The only justice lies in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers.
Also, how "slow burning" does a "genocide" have to be before it's indistinguishable from a normal process of cultural shift and assimilation? (honest question)
I think this makes sense if we're ok with the number of perpetrators going up due to being convinced it's ok to perpetrate.
> Attempting to control second-order factors that may influence behaviour is a very short road to tyranny. How do we decide which factors to control for? Who gets to make this decision? How do we know in retrospect that such a decision was mistaken? The only justice lies in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers.
It is very hard to read this as not sealioning. Is there a way you could rephrase it so that it doesn't come across that way?
> the number of perpetrators going up due to being convinced it's ok to perpetrate
It's an inevitable consequence of power (read: to do harm) being distributed rather than concentrated. With distributed power you're at the mercy of group dynamics and trends. However the risks of concentrated power have borne out to be much more severe.
> rephrase it so that it doesn't come across [as sealioning]
I'm genuinely mystified as to what distinguishes "well-intentioned" use of authority to control people from what we see as obviously tyrannical. What principle would you use to distinguish between the kind of control over speech exercised by the UK and what is commonplace in China? Or are you willing to concede that these are different degrees of the same thing? I'm simply arguing that this "thing" (the use of authority to limit speech) should be avoided at all costs in a free society.
That would make sense if we were talking about centralized vs decentralized power to do harm, but we're not having that conversation. We're having a conversation about the freedom of speech that has the power to convince people to do harm in ways that aren't direct calls to violence. Please stay on topic, or find someone else to engage with.
Again, please refrain from sealioning. Simply rephrasing your arguments in ways that don't appear indistinguishable from it. If you keep doing it, I will have to assume you're doing it on purpose an in bad faith. It's not a good debate tactic in a conversation about "rational debate" and its effects on violence. Sealioning is exactly one of the tactics used in the topic we're discussing. You must appreciate the irony.
To have a conversation about freedom of speech you have to have a conversation about "freedom", it's meaning, and it's value. Freedom of speech does indeed have the power to convince people to do harm. However the only alternative to "freedom of speech" are constraints on speech enforced by authority. In order to oppose freedom of speech you have to support the use of authority to constrain speech. You therefore must argue that such a use of authority does less harm than the freedom it is curtailing (and as a policy is resistant to corruption).
In addition to all of this, we have to agree that "reduction of harm" is a valid guiding principle to hold above all others. This is fundamentally consequentialist (and valid as such). My thesis though is that "freedom" itself has deontological value, even if it causes harm. Deontologists and consequentialists have a notoriously hard time seeing eye to eye.
I'm not at all trying to derail the conversation, but it just doesn't seem all that clear-cut to me.
There is always a lot of debate about how you define a word like genocide. The UN definition outlines several actions that qualify as genocide but specifically limits it to attacks on a community of people based on race, religion, ethnicity, or nationality. Actions like preventing medical care and removing kids from their parents would qualify as genocide according to that UN definition.
The US is guilty of both those things (and more) when it comes to our treatment of trans people. However, trans people clearly aren't a singular racial, religious, ethnic, or national group. That means they can't technically be the victims of a genocide according to that UN definition, but that is an awfully uncomfortable technically we need to not be guilty of genocide.
You could be right. Was that really kelseyfrog's point, though? Or was it Israel's treatment of Palestinians? Or Russia's treatment of Ukraine? Or China's treatment of the Uighurs? Or the police treatment of blacks? Or the Great Replacement theory? I honestly can't tell.
And, once we know what was actually being claimed, then we can debate whether it meets the definition of genocide.
I really hate vague-posting like kelseyfrog's post. Don't hint. If you have a claim to make, make it. (Just to be clear, this last paragraph is not aimed at the parent.)
I obviously can't know for sure without them chiming in. However, the context made me immediately think of trans people. It was in a conversation about issues specific to the US, UK, and Australia so I doubt they are talking about China's treatment of Uyghurs. They mentioned "reasoned debates" and the anti-trans contingent often defends themselves by saying they are "just asking questions" or are looking for reasoned debates about high school girls volleyball. OP also called out the speech that leads to violence even if it isn't a direct call to violence. That seems to be a reference to the way that numerous conservative figures have started using "pedo groomers" as a slur to describe people who participate in drag shows, are trans, or even just generally LGBT+ people. Someone just recently heard all that rhetoric, walked into an LGBT+ bar that does drag shows, murdered 5 people, and injured over a dozen more.
One of the reasons people are vague on HN about these issues is because a simple "The US is committing genocide against trans people" comment is more likely to be downvoted and flagged as being political. We often can only talk about these things here by hinting at them. Ironic considering how pro free speech this community claims to be.
A direct comment that the US is committing genocide against trans people I would downvote, not for being political, but for being BS. At least one thing more is needed to be genocide - some level of being systematic.
Yes, trans people get beaten to death in numbers that are appallingly high. That's a tragedy and a disgrace on our society. Does it rise to the level of genocide? Blacks get shot in numbers that are appallingly high, too. Is that a genocide?
Preventing medical care? Are trans people being denied medical care for, say, cancer or heart disease? Or are they only being denied medical care for transitioning? Or are they only being denied medical care at public expense for transitioning?
If trans people are being denied medical care for regular medical issues, in large numbers, yes, I could call that genocide. If they're being denied care at public expense for transitioning, no, I probably would not call that genocide.
The problem with lowering the bar to calling things genocide in order to highlight a particular issue is that it lowers the bar for everybody else, too. And if everything's a genocide, then nothing is.
The problem with just hinting at things is it leaves the rest of us unclear on what, exactly, is being claimed. One of the things that most people on HN ought to agree on is that the details matter. If you're making vague claims, all we can do is talk in platitudes, which is unlikely to be effective.
> There's a slow burning genocide afoot that's taking place though "reasoned debates," that serves as a counterexample.
I don't know if this is the right place to share a feeling, but I'm going to try to express it anyway.
I'm not sure whether you're right about this or not, but I think you might be, and it makes me sad almost more than you could believe. It genuinely depresses me.
The claim seems to be nothing short of saying that at the end of the day, all human intelligence sums to a net negative, at least in this area. That we're not collectively capable of rational discourse. That ultimately, we're so blinded by hate for the Other that debating our differences might actually lead to worse outcomes than if we just pulled guns to solve our problems. We're all ultimately just stumbling around in the dark. Maybe, one day, the light of humanity is doomed to go out.
I suspect that one reason liberals, rationalists, civil libertarians, and their allies are so insistent on free speech and an open public square is that they can't really bring themselves to take this possibility seriously. Or, to the extent they do, they think we have to ignore the possibility, because in the event this turns out to be true, who cares about humanity anyway?
Maybe the American attitude toward free speech is just a reflection of optimism about human nature?
Do you realize what you just did? You equate pointing out the existence of a genocide with a "call to violent action". In a conversation where a "call to violent action" is used to mean something which is worthy of arrest. Your comment, in the context of this conversation, argues in favour of arresting anyone who points out that a genocide is taking place. That is extremely dangerous.
>You equate pointing out the existence of a genocide with a "call to violent action"
I take it you favor a more passive approach.
>Your comment, in the context of this conversation, argues in favour of arresting anyone who points out that a genocide is taking place. That is extremely dangerous.
This is exactly what my comment was arguing. I wrote that comment not as a reflection of my personal views, but to highlight the consequences of prosecuting individuals for statements which aren't direct threats.
I don't believe arresting and prosecuting individuals for making such statements is justified. I agree that the context of this conversation argues in favor of arresting anyone who points out that genocide is taking place, and I agree that accepting it as a precedent is extremely dangerous. You've elucidated my reasoning on the subject perfectly.
Just as typical as it is for people who live in democratic countries to support democratic laws. I'm not quite sure what you expect us to conclude here.
Democracy isn't the opposite of authoritarianism...
Imagine you're a gay person, and marrying the person you love is illegal in your country. The authoritarianism of that isn't contingent on whether that law was put into place by a man in a scary suit or your fellow citizens voting.
The point is that one shouldn't expect people to stand up and say "that's an authoritarian law"! It doesn't work that way. Authoritarian laws get passed because people want them.
> Authoritarian laws get passed because people want them.
I don't think I agree. Almost by definition authorianism doesn't acknowledge what people want. A law passed because people want it would be either democratic or populist, depending on whom you ask.
I think that the issue here is that all laws are authoritarian at some level, since the principle of a law is to impose. And indeed most citizens would probably support most laws. That doesn't really make the law "bad" or "good" per se, though.