| ▲ | cbeach 2 days ago |
| All illegal speech should be hidden from public discussion. However, it would be disconcerting if stating biological facts led to censorship on a forum that focusses on science and technology. The definition of "hate" has been stretched a lot over the last few years, and if that restricts discussion of facts and ideas, then it is harmful. |
|
| ▲ | kstrauser 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| One major problem is when people presume that their simplistic understanding of a subject is factual, and that everyone else is going off emotion. For example, some people will erroneously claim that the 2 genetic human options are "XX = woman, XY = man". Those seem to be the most likely combinations, partly because we don't collect DNA from 100% of the population and compare it to the observed anatomy, but they're clearly and documentedly not the only options. Even without considering trans people, it's factually untrue that "XX = woman, XY = man, and those are the only possibilities." And yet, people who stopped at high school biology will argue until they're blue in the teeth that anyone with a more nuanced take is anti-science. |
| |
| ▲ | biddlybop 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes and some people will also make scientifically inaccurate claims like "sex is a spectrum" and "there are more than two sexes" and "it is possible for humans to change sex". There's a great deal of misunderstanding around this topic. Having open-minded, interesting and reflective discussion about topics like this should however lead to greater understanding. But that is not possible if it gets flagged and censored. |
|
|
| ▲ | Zak 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "Stating biological facts" is code for an opinion about how society should view trans people, which is off-topic for HN. |
| |
| ▲ | cbeach 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If stating certain facts is made illegal (by our democratically-elected representatives) then by all means HN will need to censor those facts for the sake of its own self-preservation. But until then, we should be free to state facts. > The old adage “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it” was once a touchstone of liberal society. Having been involved for most of my adult life in areas of social debate, it was a phrase I once commonly heard. Not any more. > Instead, public discourse is marked by efforts to find offence, destroy the character of opponents or ensure reason is smothered by emotional manipulation. > -- John Deighan https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/banning-those-w... | | |
| ▲ | fwip 2 days ago | parent [-] | | "Stating facts" does not mean you are following the other rules of the site. For example, if you irrelevantly post "My software is on sale now for 10% off and here is the link!" on every story, everything in it is factual, but it's spam regardless. I'm sure your specific facts that you want to post are in service of a particular social or political viewpoint you are trying to push, one that the people flagging find either off-topic or odious. And, given that you refuse to elaborate on what specific facts you think are banned, reveals that you think you only can convince people by being vague about what specifically you mean. | | |
| ▲ | cbeach 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'd love to be clearer about my common-sense, scientifically-backed viewpoints, but if I did so it might result in hostile action being taken against me. So I choose not to. Not because I'm insincere about my views, or because I believe they are harmful - but because the activists pushing the ideological views I oppose have been demonstrably violent and destructive. | | |
|
|
|
