Hacker News Reader

Comment by chasing | Hacker News Reader

That's a good point to bring up.

I don't think those people were silenced.

They went to a public protest in a public place to make a statement. That statement was broadcast across the country and the world. The opposite of being silenced.

Now, they faced consequences for what they said. But that's what happens when you say things. Words have meaning and you can say words which will cause people to no longer want to associate with you.

View on HN

It is not just those people being silenced though. It is people who stayed home, maybe their views are not quite as radical as someone who would protest, or maybe they tend to be more politically apathetic (ie most people).

When those people watch Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/14/twitter-users-identif...) and see what is happening to those people for their speech and actions, they are being silenced.

These are also probably the people more amenable to changing their views. It's got be pretty hard to swing someone with a tiki torch marching down the street, but someone who feels sympathetic to their views could maybe be reasoned with if they would talk about it.

When they are watching Fox they are not being silenced, they are being programmed. They start to believe they are being silenced, but their views are just being opposed and offended and that they are (at long last) being told that other people think their positions are discriminatory. And without the visible and palpable sense that their views are not mainstream any longer, what is their incentive to change?

Predictably, I've offended you and you've downvoted. I win.

No, that wasn't me. I think you are incorrect, though. Fox was only an example, this story was carried by most national outlets. And I've never met anyone who changes their mind because the majority is against them and is silencing them. It just brews resentments and causes people to dig in.

If people changed their minds just because everyone else disagrees with them loudly and violently, how would any previous social change have come about? New thoughts and perspectives always start as minority views. So majority consensus must not be enough to change someone's mind.

Also, this really isn't about winning. We're all losing right now.

Sorry I wasn't talking to, but the people not commenting, I should have made that clear.

I don't mean angry disagreement and antifa, I mean social disapproval.

Would you please not post unsubstantive or flamebaity comments to HN?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Some of those that do not want to associate with the unpopular kid genuinely dislike him, or the way she acts or thinks. But most ostracise the bullied in fear of being bullied themselves. I have not learned much in highschool, but I do remember that.

> Now, they faced consequences for what they said.

And what of those who were incorrectly identified by the vigilantes? Do their fates not matter?

"Of course we shouldn't say people said things they never actually said. But that's not what we're talking about." - Abraham Lincoln

[cite needed]

By that standard Saudi Arabia has freedom of speech. There's just consequences - sometimes beheading.

Getting fired is only marginally better.

But glad you support repression when it supports you.

Except there's a huge difference between being punished by the government for your opinions and being judged by your peers and coworkers for your opinions.

If I were a huge proponent of NAMBLA I'd recognize that being a public advocate of such would negatively effect my social status as well as potentially attract negative attention to any brand I associate myself with. That doesn't mean I'm being silenced or censored.

Let me ask it very directly then. If I report your comment to your employer, and convince them to fire you, would you consider that just ?

I think we both know the answer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com