> Correct move. Holding an opinion that is unethical, immoral and destructive to society is unacceptable. And nobody wants to be associated with that. I wish this was not up for debate, but unfortunately, we seem to want to debate the same things repeatedly no matter how many times we know that certain things are problematic.
Who gets to decide what opinions are correct and therefore allowed? Sounds very thought-police to me. There are many viewpoints that are commonly held by practitioners of the "woke" religion that I find to be unethical, immoral, and destructive, but I would never want to silence them. A debate enriches us all. If an idea holds no merit or substance it will fall apart in a fair debate, particularly if it can be supported by evidence. I am deeply suspicious of those who would silence debate and suspect their opinions lack substance.
> For what it's worth for the HN crowd: A lot of us are in various points of our careers. Some starting, some in the middle, some at the end. You can spend decades establishing yourself. But it only takes 1 second to destroy it all. Think before you speak, think before you act.
Is this right though? Should a decades long career be destroyed completely by 1 second of indiscretion? I personally find this viewpoint unethical, immoral, and destructive to society.
> Should a decades long career be destroyed completely by 1 second of indiscretion?
It really depends on what happened during that 1 second. The answer could certainly be "yes" depending on how heinous it was. Your rhetorical question bears an unfortunate resemblance to the father of rapist Brock Turner arguing his son shouldn't go to prison for "20 minutes of action".
In Stallman's case, his crime appears to have been white knighting for his dead friend on a mailing list, and during the ongoing discussion, Stallman was his usual Socratic self. He wasn't entirely "cancelled", but there was a huge fallout because he didn't consider his audience properly.
There's nothing wrong with having a debate on the age of consent, it's clearly an arbitrary dividing line that varies between jurisdictions and cultures, there is no right answer other than "at some point near the end of adolescence" but the absolutely worst place you could have that debate is during a discussion of whether a 80-something man had sex with a 16-year old girl being coerced by a child sex trafficker.
Like I said, there's no reason to debate certain things anymore. You mentioned the exact point that I preemptively stated. We don't debate that racism is bad, there's no debate to be had about it. We don't debate climate change, it's a fact. We don't debate women's rights, its been decided a thousand times over and the effects have been proven several million times over.
Asking to debate these things is unproductive and doesn't serve any other purpose than a dishonest discussion of ideas and topics that have already been concluded as problematic.
That's how it gets decided. We decided as a collective that murder, rape, abortion, climate change, evolution, gender pronouns, and all the other stuff was the right direction. It's about as ridiculous as wanting to debate that 2+2 = 4.
People always did, especially the smart ones like Stallman. His blog literally consists of his provocative takes on various issues. Thinking results in having an argumentation for one's actions. That argumentation might be wrong, and the person could change their views when presented with evidence. If you never overlook blunders and allow to self-correct, you are discouraging original thinking.
Incorrect move. Having an opinion is not destructive to society. On the contrary, interrogating our beliefs clarifies them and allows the truth to come through and controversial opinions are a vehicle for that. Wanting to ban and silence people who say controversial things is a sign of weakness and fear, that should itself be examined.
No, it doesn't only take a few stupid utterances. The moral crusaders only have power with those who have none. Donald Trump still isn't in prison for doing and saying far, far worse over several decades.
> Donald Trump still isn't in prison for doing and saying far, far worse over several decades.
Donald Trump isn't in prison because he hasn't been convicted of any crimes. Well except for in the court of public opinion, but fortunately for us, they hold no power within the American justice system.
lockhouse|2 years ago
Who gets to decide what opinions are correct and therefore allowed? Sounds very thought-police to me. There are many viewpoints that are commonly held by practitioners of the "woke" religion that I find to be unethical, immoral, and destructive, but I would never want to silence them. A debate enriches us all. If an idea holds no merit or substance it will fall apart in a fair debate, particularly if it can be supported by evidence. I am deeply suspicious of those who would silence debate and suspect their opinions lack substance.
> For what it's worth for the HN crowd: A lot of us are in various points of our careers. Some starting, some in the middle, some at the end. You can spend decades establishing yourself. But it only takes 1 second to destroy it all. Think before you speak, think before you act.
Is this right though? Should a decades long career be destroyed completely by 1 second of indiscretion? I personally find this viewpoint unethical, immoral, and destructive to society.
amiga386|2 years ago
It really depends on what happened during that 1 second. The answer could certainly be "yes" depending on how heinous it was. Your rhetorical question bears an unfortunate resemblance to the father of rapist Brock Turner arguing his son shouldn't go to prison for "20 minutes of action".
In Stallman's case, his crime appears to have been white knighting for his dead friend on a mailing list, and during the ongoing discussion, Stallman was his usual Socratic self. He wasn't entirely "cancelled", but there was a huge fallout because he didn't consider his audience properly.
There's nothing wrong with having a debate on the age of consent, it's clearly an arbitrary dividing line that varies between jurisdictions and cultures, there is no right answer other than "at some point near the end of adolescence" but the absolutely worst place you could have that debate is during a discussion of whether a 80-something man had sex with a 16-year old girl being coerced by a child sex trafficker.
Pathos is as important as logos.
thraway3837|2 years ago
Asking to debate these things is unproductive and doesn't serve any other purpose than a dishonest discussion of ideas and topics that have already been concluded as problematic.
That's how it gets decided. We decided as a collective that murder, rape, abortion, climate change, evolution, gender pronouns, and all the other stuff was the right direction. It's about as ridiculous as wanting to debate that 2+2 = 4.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
nearmuse|2 years ago
People always did, especially the smart ones like Stallman. His blog literally consists of his provocative takes on various issues. Thinking results in having an argumentation for one's actions. That argumentation might be wrong, and the person could change their views when presented with evidence. If you never overlook blunders and allow to self-correct, you are discouraging original thinking.
alienicecream|2 years ago
say_it_as_it_is|2 years ago
lockhouse|2 years ago
Donald Trump isn't in prison because he hasn't been convicted of any crimes. Well except for in the court of public opinion, but fortunately for us, they hold no power within the American justice system.