mooseburger

The chilling effect is entirely about the speech suppression. One of the side effects of speech suppression is that one no longer knows what people really think, and there isn't good evidence that silencing someone changes their mind, which is the really important thing. There were vigorous efforts to silence the Nazis for example, and none of it mattered, because all speech control efforts target symptoms and not causes.

About right-wing terrorism, pretty sure that's independent, as it has always been there.

Nice idea. Basically the opposite of this excellent short story: http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/

Nothing wrong with voter ID, nearly all developed countries do it.

Pity this isn't gaining traction, better than anything in the front page right now.

Still don't think it's wise to adopt a burying one's head in the sand approach. It just leaves the participants unprepared when confronting this "bigotry" in the real world, as inevitably they will.

Hate speech laws, deplatforming, or political bans don't actually accomplish any of their stated goals. In the Weimar Republic, there were hate speech laws (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...). Relevant quote:

"Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."

Nothing gets stopped by merely refusing to extend some small measure of legitimacy to whatever is deemed "bigoted". These policies and norms do not change minds, which is the skill these wannabe social engineers need to master.

Aside from the "this chills speech/does not" discussion, I just want to point out that hate speech laws or deplatforming don't actually accomplish any of their stated goals. Timothy McVeigh did not need any online echo chambers to perpetrate the Oklahoma City Bombing. In the Weimar Republic, there were hate speech laws (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...). Relevant quote:

"Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."

Hell, Hitler himself was convicted of high treason, but only got a slap on the wrist because the judge and jury were basically on his side.

The only thing strong or soft speech policing contributes to is the further erosion of our civil liberties.

Wait, people in SA are still blaming everything on the CIA? Here in Puerto Rico we have long accepted latin culture sucks, I thought blaming everything on the CIA was a far-left thing by now.

> in the United States, a lack of public accountability already results in outsized impacts and over-policing of communities of color, immigrants, and people exercising their First Amendment rights.

... in the United States, a lack of public accountability already results in outsized impacts and over-policing of [progressive ingroup], [progressive ingroup], and [progressive ingroup].

> We follow in the steps of the Googlers who spoke out against the Maven contract and Microsoft employees who are speaking out against the JEDI contract. Regardless of our views on the military, no one should be profiting from “increasing the lethality” of the military. We will not silently build technology to oppress and kill people, whether in our country or in others.

Mentions the Maven contract but not Dragonfly, at least not directly.

The worst part is that I don't even disagree with the letter, but I doubt the author has principles as much as he has tribal allegiances. I suspect he would be all-in on this tech if it came with some sort of guarantee it would only be used on "Nazis".

He wasn't talking about the field of the women, but of the harassers. Yes it does changes things if the harassers are primarily non-STEM, given this is Hacker News. What are we supposed to do about the culture outside our field?

Wait, how long does it take to 'heal'? Didn't see that in the article, and it's pretty crucial with regards as to how useful this can be.

Alternatively, it helps one see to what extent the tech-industry is a culture battleground, given the ongoing clashes of different moral systems.

Which are the other places in the world that have done this?

Sorry! I genuinely didn't see that one.

It doesn't take a large team. Look at latest indie hotness Hollow Knight (https://youtu.be/UAO2urG23S4), which was made by 3 dudes, who were artists and animators (http://hollowknight.com/our-team/). I agree that with game engines, making a successful indie game is primarily about artistic prowess, but you probably don't need that many artists. Just 1 or 2 really good ones.

Who are these people in open-source that have been getting away with bigotry and harassment? No, Linus chewing someone out isn't harassment.

There were no 19th century communist states.

> severe damage could be done to Russia's ability to constantly be a force for irritation in world politics.

How? We can't actually invade Russia. There also doesn't seem to be much interest from anyone in heavily sanctioning Russia.

> Seriously? Do you have a source on that documentation? It's in the Jay report (http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_...):

By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.

> So if "nobody" even tried, why is the left at fault? Wouldn't be "everybody" at fault?

Nobody in the left tried is what I mean, not nobody in general. Parts of the right did try, but they get dismissed as far-right loonies (apparently the rational thing to do about this is to not care, and memory-hole it?).

> the justice system deals with such things. Not politics or the media or twitter.

This would be ideal, but the justice system dealt with it only after decades, thousands of victims, and even some murders. This was a massive government failure that has been memory-holed, and you seem to believe it's some kind of non-event.

Left politics was a big part of the issue of why Rotherham even happened to begin with. It was documented that police and city councils were afraid to go after perpetrators for fear of being seen as racist.

>Some leftist... Alyssa Milano

This isn't about some leftist trying and failing to popularize, it's about nobody even trying to, over the course of 4 years. Just imagine the outrage if the perpetrators had been the EDL, and the victims immigrants.

>Where is the right then? The only thing you get from them regarding those topics is: "burn them!". You may generate attention with that within some closed UKIP facebook group maybe.

This is not suprising, the right has practically no cultural power.

To summarize, the reason I'm mad about the left's, and by extension, the mainstreams, reaction to Rotherham, is that:

a) The left typically deals with this. There's tons of examples of activism in reaction to women being victimized, but for this one case, unlike any of the other ones it's crickets.

b) It would have been a massive deal no one forgot about if the perpetators had been someone in the leftists outgroup (say, the far-right, or the church). These sorts of groups after all, get worse reputations over lesser offenses.

c) If the left doesn't come up with an answer to these issues, then only the far-right does, which dramatically increases their grassroots power, since they're actually responding to reality.

This isn't really true. Child separations on the US border got a lot more play than Rotherham, any of the other towns affected, or the current scandal in Telford.

Sure, the victims in Rotherham can't actually amplify it themselves, but typically, it's the media, who amplify such causes, not the victims. Consider the pedophilia plague in the Catholic church, that absolutely did not become world famous due to Twitter. The left notably also justifiably kicks up a ruckus over less, but were oddly silent on the rape gangs, as documented by a leftist himself here:

https://medium.com/@TheWakeful/the-uk-street-grooming-scanda...

>A slightly off-topic insight I came upon recently was from the civil rights movement: don't call people racist, because it backs them into a corner they can't get out of. >It's better to debate them on their choices so they can find their own way towards a more enlightened and equitable worldview.

Whether this is possible is very dependent on what exactly is meant by the massively overloaded "racist"/"sexist"/"bigot" terms. These terms are sometimes apt, but quite often these days, they are deployed against facts, in which case it's not possible to reason someone out of the position.

>I've also come to realize that this may partially explain why conservatives I know have been reluctant to engage in political discussion in these times.

No, the main reason for this is that holding certain positions is dangerous in some bubbles. See: James Damore, Lindsay Shepherd, Eric Weinstein, or Charles Murray.

>engaging them in a more positive way. I'm still trying to figure out what that is, however.

Pinker has some thoughts on that:

https://youtu.be/fFohRupaXzc?t=972

Those statements boil down to "I think Chinese people are ugly". Do men have a moral obligation to find women of all races beautiful?

One sees this with some frequency in art. Consider Haruki Murakami:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruki_Murakami#Writing_career

"Murakami began to write fiction when he was 29.[19] "Before that", he said, "I didn't write anything. I was just one of those ordinary people. I was running a jazz club, and I didn't create anything at all."[20] He was inspired to write his first novel, Hear the Wind Sing (1979), while watching a baseball game."

Sure, Karsten Braasch seems like one such example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1...

"Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[51] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager".[52][51] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[53] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[54] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun".[55] Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[51]"

No, you don't need to read the whole book just to start. It divides the practice into ten stages, and you don't move on from a stage until you have mastered it. So you only need to read about the first stage to get started.

Mind Illuminated isn't really about mindfulness meditation though, but about getting to the threshold of Enlightenment (this does involve mindfulness).

The young aren't always right. Respect for due process, and freedom of speech, are absolutely not values that should be abandoned, even if it seems many of the young are in favor of that. I say this as one of the young.

What are the ideas and morals that you think will be abandoned?

One I wrote myself. Frustrated with some bizarre bug that I struggled to reproduce, I added two popups, to two separate conditionals that should have been exclusive (either one or the other executes, but never both). The first one said "What", and the second one "the fuck". I eventually managed to get both to show up, correctly forming the expletive, but it wasn't enough to help me solve the bug. There were more bugs though, had to get the ticket list down, so I dropped it and went after some lower-hanging fruit.

A week later, our dev team gets sent a chain email with two screenshots, and a brief comment from the lead saying "This should never happen." In the first screenshot, was my "What" popup. I didn't need to see the second one.

Turns out, when I moved on to other tickets, I completely forgot I had left that code just lying there, instead of discarding it, and had even pushed it with nary a thought. Nobody else on the dev team had seen either popup. No one in QA saw them either. And so, it made it all the way to production, where one of our users (mercifully, an in-house one), promptly caught it.

The dept head thought I was committing sabotage, given the very specific set of actions one had to take to see the effect, but thankfully everyone knew that it was too stupid to do something like that via commit into repo! At the least, my frustration at the bug proved justified.

> namely that teams are (or can be) greater than their sum of parts. The last point is a key one and an area where the likes of Damore go wrong.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Damore. Can you clarify?