You can make your points without being so inflammatory and combative. Clearly that person has some fears or has had some troubling experiences, and it's not helpful or kind to be provocative.
I too support free speech and worry about the current enthusiasm for stifling it. But I don't like how many people use it to justify indecency and cruelty in their speech. If nothing else, it gives ammunition to those who seek to restrict speech.
Clearly that person has some fears or has had some troubling experiences, and it's not helpful or kind to be provocative.
And how do you know throawaysea isn't speaking from the same or similar position? minikites made an unfair assumption about their character and presumably their life status, I'd say that's probably more inflammatory and infinitely less helpful to this discussion than making direct, if dissenting statements about the validity or physical violence in response to speech, or vice versa-as topics being presently discussed in the thread, and it is CERTAINLY not helpful or kind to make speculative suggestions about someone's personal physical appearance which has no place in on this message board.
I understand and appreciate that passion can emerge in this discussion, and the sub-thread we're having between us right now, but I don't find it any more helpful to respond the way minikites did to throwawaysea if we're going to warn people about helpful, kind, or conversely provocative responses.
Why do you feel I am the one being combative? The commenter you are referring to said I was speaking from “the ultimate pedestal of privilege”, which seems explicitly combative.
Am I not allowed to push back on that? Or to push back on the rhetorical tactic of devaluing free speech by highlighting speech involving direct violence (the most egregious example potentially), especially when I accounted for it?
In both my comments (my original reply to that person and my later one to you) I defended/supported the substance of your point of view, while seeking to de-escalate the conflict.
I don't think the accusations/presumptions they made about you were fair or reasonably expressed, but again, I chose my words in an effort to de-escalate things. The heated, ideological nature of the discussion began with your root comment.
The HN guidelines explicitly ask that "Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive", and this discussion shows just why that's so important.
I personally care a lot about free speech and want it to be something we can have constructive discussions about on HN. They can't happen when people throw ideologically-charged bombs around.
I too support free speech and worry about the current enthusiasm for stifling it. But I don't like how many people use it to justify indecency and cruelty in their speech. If nothing else, it gives ammunition to those who seek to restrict speech.