Horses? Stable doors?

DiscussieHappy Heathens

Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.

Horses? Stable doors?

Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.

1SpikeSix
okt 25, 2015, 7:36 am

The article that says it all:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34613855

2Meredy
okt 25, 2015, 4:29 pm

>1 SpikeSix: Good article. Thank you.

3Noisy
okt 26, 2015, 12:21 pm

Audio from BBC - possibly only available for UK? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06j6byb

4BruceCoulson
okt 30, 2015, 2:00 pm

Those who defend such repression never seem to realize how such laws can so easily be turned against them.

5southernbooklady
Bewerkt: okt 30, 2015, 2:45 pm

So, that article gives a lot of good food for thought, and in general I agree with the author, but it also raised some flags in my mind -- like the idea that "Islamophobia" or "Homophobia" are "invented" -- meaning, I think he is implying, that they aren't based in reality, rather than that they were words created to describe a reality.

But the most problematic statement in the article (to my mind) is this:

What, then, should be the role of the law in policing the forum of public debate? It seems to me that it should not criminalise opinions that give offence, but protect those who express them.


And I have to ask, why? Is not the security that giving offense will not be criminalized all we can really ask of a government? Do we really want a government in the business of "protecting" speech? Does that not imply that we want the government to protect us from the consequences of what we say? Which in turn implies it will be in the business of repressing other speech?

His example of Tim Hunt is a great case in point: a great scientist says something abysmally stupid. He's not thrown in jail. His work is not suddenly discredited. But his social standing suffers accordingly. Why shouldn't it? Wouldn't this be an example of truth being "a dagger in Mr. Hunt's soul"?

Personally, I think things would be better if, for example, corporations did not have the right to fire people who say stupid offensive things on their own time. But I'm not sure "right" is really the word I want here. Maybe "did not feel the need to" would be better. I'd like there to be an assumption that when we speak, we do not speak for anyone but ourselves. That the people who employ us, work with us, are not tarnished by association for our more rabid or outrageous views. I know that's not the world we live in, but I wonder how much we want the government protecting us from the consequences of what we say.

6BruceCoulson
nov 1, 2015, 12:17 am

By 'protect', I think he meant, 'protect from actions intended to suppress or silence offensive speech', since there isn't any way the Law can protect one from social consequences.

As for Hunt, are the consequences for his speech 'fitting the crime'? i.e. should someone lose their job for opening their mouth and inserting both feet? Whether or not he's made fun of, soundly criticized, or suffer other social opprobrium is beyond the Law's reach. Perhaps more to the point, did his opinions affect the quality or validity of his work?

Does anyone actually care about what opinions a craftsman holds, as long as his/her work is sufficient for the task? Do you routinely ask your plumber or car mechanic how they feel about the political and social issues, or are your queries more to the point of 'how much is this going to cost' and 'how long will these repairs last'?

Corporations, and governments, are beginning to feel the need to meddle in the private affairs of everyone connected to them, whether such meddling has any purpose other than to exert control.

7.Monkey.
nov 1, 2015, 4:29 am

Does anyone actually care about what opinions a craftsman holds, as long as his/her work is sufficient for the task? Do you routinely ask your plumber or car mechanic how they feel about the political and social issues, or are your queries more to the point of 'how much is this going to cost' and 'how long will these repairs last'?

People don't generally seek out this information, but if they happen to come upon it, yes, it tends to influence them. Do I want to keep giving my money to that mechanic if I overhear him make some bigoted remark? Not hardly. Do I want to keep flying an airline where a flight attendant can treat a Muslim woman like a terrorist? Low odds. Do I keep patronizing the chain business whose owner gives tons of money to the suppression of equality? Not if I can help it. It may not matter to their work but why do we want to support people who do awful things? If we find out it happens, yes, many of us boycott. We aren't the 1%, our money is hard earned, where it goes is important.

8MarthaJeanne
nov 1, 2015, 4:41 am

>6 BruceCoulson: His comments do not invalidate his research results. They do however raise the question as to whether he should be in a supervisory position. If his job involves chosing people for jobs in a lab then they do affect the quality of that part of his work.

They certainly call his general intelligence into question.

9BruceCoulson
nov 2, 2015, 11:32 pm

Everyone is stupid/ignorant about quite a few matters in modern society, so no one truly has 'general intelligence'. And research results are peer-reviewed, so if someone picks assistants on any basis other than competence in that research, the penalties are poor papers that don't survive.