Posts by Sacha
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Russell Brown,
virtually no one re-uses seed now anyway
Except farmers in poorer countries.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Russell Brown,
Sacha, about half your answers to Bart boil down to but you can't prove it doesn't!
I was seeking a level of reassurance equivalent to the level of enthusiasm and certainty about benefits. I fully understand that the reality is more nuanced, but the precautionary principle does tangle with science's basic "can't prove a negative" premise.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
David, your beliefs are clear enough from previous discussions here (and I remember you're not a neoliberal, don't worry). I've made political points and you've chosen to take them as psychological ones. Your choice and I have no interest in engaging with you about them either.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
cod-psychology
If you want to read the word "issues" as psychological rather than political, there's little I can do about that.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Opposition to the regulation of free speech does not an ACT party supporter make.
My statement "If you don't like that.." refers to the preceding paragraph and its final sentence:
When there is sustained 'othering' of groups of fellow humans, it tends to lead to us and our institutions acting to disadvantage members of that group, causing harm to us as well as them. This is hardly a novel observation, hence well-established laws and processes around it.
Not a novel linguistic linkage. And I'm treating Act support as a proxy for individualism. Wouldn't think I'd need to spell out the connection with Maggie Thatcher's famous utterance here.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
on an ad hoc case-by-case basis according to the political climate of the time
That's misleadingly narrow. The body of law and process on this has been developed over many decades by courts, parliament and other social institutions, in conjunction with broader public discourse through various forms including media. Campaigns, case law and political changes adjust the boundaries over time. But each 'case' is not judged in an ad-hoc vacuum.
I like what Lew has re-posted about hate speech in the comments section of his Breivik thread.
‘Hate speech’ is tricky to define, so for this purpose I’ll crib part of the definition from s131 of the Human Rights Act 1993; speech “with intent to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any group of persons in New Zealand”. This is broader than the definition in that act, which applies only to racial disharmony, whereas I intend it to cover other forms of hate speech (such as that against religious groups, people of a given sexual orientation, or whatever) as well.
First of all, let us dispense with the canard that speech is not action. The ‘”fire” in a crowded theatre’ argument already put forward in the other thread is enough to invalidate this, but even so, let’s look at it more closely.
Speech (more technically, discourse) is the stuff of which civil society is constructed. Law, policy, norms of interaction and all other such things are fundamentally made up of words.
The laws formulated by governments to give force to society’s commonly-held norms are constructed in just such a way, and if the discourse of a society contains significant prejudice, the laws and policies constructed from within that discourse will be likewise prejudicial. Moreover, a prejudicial discourse legitimates other forms of social conduct which are themselves prejudicial.
There is no legitimacy to the ‘sticks and stones’ argument that people have no right to not be offended, and must therefore tolerate anything which is not strictly violence. Many aspects of civil society are not strictly codified, but operate on mutual trust, goodwill and expectations of reasonable conduct. Where there is prejudice, that trust, goodwill, and expectation of reasonable conduct cannot be entirely mutual.
This [is] fundamentally the problem. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that rights be accorded all people ‘without distinction of any kind’. The problem with hate speech or a society founded on prejudicial discourse is that it harmfully distinguishes between people. Speech is action inasmuch as it begets action, and the worst cases of hate speech must be circumscribed lest they beget similar action.
When there is sustained 'othering' of groups of fellow humans, it tends to lead to us and our institutions acting to disadvantage members of that group, causing harm to us as well as them. This is hardly a novel observation, hence well-established laws and processes around it.
If you don't like that, I'd suggest you probably have deeper issues with the whole notion of collective rights, civil society, or even society at all. I find it reassuring that 49 out of 50 New Zealanders do not vote for the Act party.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Danielle,
one can but hope
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Interesting take on John Key's pal
little Timmy GeithnerFascinating.
Worse, [ex Australian Treasurer and PM] Keating argued, Geithner's misjudgment had done terminal damage to the credibility of the IMF, with seismic geoeconomic consequences: "The IMF is the gun that can't shoot straight. They've been making a mess of things for the last 20-odd years, and the greatest mess they made was in east Asia in 1997-98, so much so that no east Asian state will put its head in the IMF noose."
China, in particular, drew hard conclusions from the IMF's mishandling of the Asian crisis. It decided that it would never allow itself to be dependent on the IMF, or the US, or the West generally, for its international solvency. Instead, it would build the biggest war chest the world had ever seen.
...
Keating went on to argue that, by frightening the Chinese into building their vast $US2 trillion foreign reserves, Geithner was responsible for the build-up of tremendous imbalance in the world financial system. This imbalance, in turn, according to Keating, contributed to the global financial crisis which has since devastated the world economy.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Thanks for that. I like her straightforwardness.
In the meantime can someone from NZ Police please just admit there’s been a bit of a cock up, give Arie diversion, apologise, and find a real looter to be the (preferably unbeaten) face of looting? You’d do us all proud.
And good to hear in the same story that RDU is back in action. I hadn't thought about the Student Union building still being their studio.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Steve Barnes,
A line drawn in sand can be obliterated by passing wind.
Beans are bad for boundaries.