Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

Just to follow up on this, Scott Alexander has a great essay more fully fleshing this out.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first...

A good response to an argument is one that addresses an idea; a bad argument is one that silences it. If you try to address an idea, your success depends on how good the idea is; if you try to silence it, your success depends on how powerful you are and how many pitchforks and torches you can provide on short notice.

For those who tend to believe free speech should not protect you from criticism/social opprobrium/etc, does the same apply to Communists in Hollywood? Remember, the blacklist was not an act of congress - it was nothing more than an article in the Hollywood Reporter.

A few years ago mainstream opinion was opposed to blacklists, I guess it's different now?

View on HN

"A good response to an argument is one that addresses an idea; a bad argument is one that silences it."

That doesn't make any sense. People with bad ideas frequently fall to silence when the discussion of countervailing good ideas makes them sound like idiots if they persist. Indeed, that's how good ideas (eventually) win.

What you're describing as "a bad argument" isn't really an argument at all. It's the abandonment of argument in favor of a personal threat.

[EDIT: "threat of violence" changed to "personal threat" to remove confusing specificity.]

This has not been my experience but either way, let's say someone pronounces that 2+2=7. You could respond with "it's actually 4" (address the idea) or "anyone who believes 2+2=7 should be fired" (attempt to silence it, without violence though). There's a pretty clear difference between the two approaches.

My guess is that people like getting riled up into a mob, and they don't think about the long term effects of their actions. And on the reporters' side, they seem to have gotten a lot more hand to mouth with regards to the money/clicks/furor their articles generate, so there's more stirring of the pot now from them. Just my theory, though. Might just be that the lower friction of the internet makes these events a lot more likely to bubble up, even with the same inputs.

You have a right to say what you want. You don't have a right to have people continue to like you when they don't like what you have to say.

Fair enough.

Although disliking a person for their ideas seems rather petty, don't you agree?

> Although disliking a person for their ideas seems rather petty, don't you agree?

No. I'd argue that ideas are pretty much the most relevant and least petty bases for (liking or) disliking a person.

I'd argue that its their reaction to new ideas (as one point), I've met plenty of people who've held opposing views but were open to discussing them. Eventually either they changed or I changed.

Nothing to dislike about them.

The idea that one should be respectfully open to discussing and entertaining differing ideas is, I would say, an important idea.

Certainly, more generally, there are certain ideas that I personally think are more important factors in liking or disliking than other ideas. But I can't think of much that isn't an idea that is more relevant to like/dislike than ideas.

The problem is then deciding which ideas are deserving of debate and which should label the thinker "dislikable"

What rule could I use that overcomes my biases and makes that decision?

You can debate ideas with those you dislike. Disliking someone does not require you to be uncivil.

Read the article - it is not about legal rights. No one disputes that blacklisting communists is legal.

I'm not talking about rights in the legal sense. Maybe expectation would be a better word.

"A good response to Sarkeesian [a woman that gamergate hates] is to point out that she's blatantly misrepresenting various games in her videos. A bad response is to publish caricatures of her engaged in sexual activity and talk about how the world would be better if she were dead."

In that context, would you say "You have a right to say what you want. You don't have a right to have people continue to like you..."? Is that a reasonable response?

Certainly Sarkessian cannot have an "expectation" that people won't criticize her (if "expectation" means "belief about the future").

Reply on news.ycombinator.com