ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags censorship , free speech

Reply
Old 27th March 2019, 12:19 PM   #41
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,310
I’ll throw in this quote from a former Supreme Court justice:

“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:25 PM   #42
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Metaphors aside, social media and online discussion are powerful recruiting tools for violent extremists. And normalizing their core ideas in slightly less extreme spaces are part of that process.

The recent New Zealand shooter got a lot of his talking points on 8chan. (EDIT: I believe. It may have been another chan or chan related site)

If by turning on the lights, you mean to make the distinction between allowing public discussion and disallowing it, I think a strong argument can be made that turning on the lights CAN make the monsters bigger.
Seems the fear is that freedom of SPEECH will lead down a slippery slope to freedom to ACT.

In fact, they're two different things, unless the speech itself is harmful, such as causing mass panic or inciting a riot.

Personally, I'd prefer to see ALL speech be "free speech" rather than see more limits on what can or can't be said in just about any circumstances.

Better allowing people to yell "fire" in the theatre than take away the power to say "hell no" when they believe they're in danger of losing more rights.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:27 PM   #43
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,383
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Yes and?
You went with a point strictly about government regulation in your own thread that is purposely distanced from the subject of government regulation.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:34 PM   #44
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Seems the fear is that freedom of SPEECH will lead down a slippery slope to freedom to ACT.
That's not an abstract fear, it's an observation we can make. It isn't a slippery slope in the fallacious sense because the path between speech and action is clear and observable rather than theoretical.


Quote:
In fact, they're two different things, unless the speech itself is harmful, such as causing mass panic or inciting a riot.

Personally, I'd prefer to see ALL speech be "free speech" rather than see more limits on what can or can't be said in just about any circumstances.

Better allowing people to yell "fire" in the theatre than take away the power to say "hell no" when they believe they're in danger of losing more rights.
I'm curious about your foundations with this. Are you a deontologist? A consequentialist?

Imagine you could look through a crystal ball. In one future America, white supremacy has spread. They've taken over the government, people of color are being deported and murdered (Note, I'm not arguing this is a real probable future, I'm just trying to get a feel of where you value outcome vs. principle).

In another future America, things continue much as they are today. The only difference that creates these alternate futures is whether facebook bans white supremacist pages. Would you be in favor of that ban, or would you think the principle of freedom was more important than the outcome?
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:38 PM   #45
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You went with a point strictly about government regulation in your own thread that is purposely distanced from the subject of government regulation.
I responded to a poster with a particular point about government regulation.

And I'm not sure what you mean by this thread being purposefully distanced. I'm open to discussing all levels and types of limits on speech from governments to company policies to social trends. I'm not necessarily advocating for governmental censorship but by all means let's discuss what that would look like.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:40 PM   #46
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,473
We KNOW that marketplaces don't work without a regulatory framework and ways to enforce them.
And we know they still go off the rails from time to time. And we know that some things have to stay off the market for the sake of society as a whole.
So I see zero problem with making it really hard for some opinions to enter the marketplace, if they are dangerous for the day-to-day operation of the place.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:42 PM   #47
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,656
Other than nazis, and I'm sure we're all sick of nazis, what suggestions do you have for ideas that need to be removed ?

Last edited by Stout; 27th March 2019 at 12:43 PM. Reason: just had to put that comma in there
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:44 PM   #48
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,063
The "Marketplace of Ideas" doesn't mean every idea has to be debated forever until every party is satisfied.

"Is Nazism good or bad?" is not a debate anymore. We had a war about it. The whole world was involved. It was kind of a big deal. The jury is in on "Nazis."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:45 PM   #49
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
I’ll throw in this quote from a former Supreme Court justice:

“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”
Stirring words, but I think the actual argument, when stripped of its poetry is not entirely convincing to me. And I think "freedom" and "liberty" writ large are fetishized and often misleading concepts. That's how you get libertarians.

In reality, we balance our "freedoms to" with our "freedoms from" and we do it in all aspects of our lives. You could say similar stirring things about the freedom of movement and commerce. But we regulate the heck out of both and our edifice hasn't come crashing down. (See my earlier comment on in this thread)

I think poetic words need to lead to practical arguments that incorporate nuance. If you're going to talk about the lofty ideals of those who won our independence. They wrote that all men are created equal with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They wrote that while many of them owned other people. So I take high praise for the value of liberty with a major grain of salt until we get to the brass tacks of what that liberty is meant to entail.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:48 PM   #50
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
Other than nazis, and I'm sure we're all sick of nazis, what suggestions do you have for ideas that need to be removed ?
Lets start with the Nazis and see how that works out. Don't want to plunge down the slippery slope too quickly!

However, given that a major measles outbreak has just happened near me, with hundreds infected, I'm open to talking about antivaxxers.

(Although, I suspect that being driven underground will have more of a multiplying effect on antivaxxers than it would on Nazis. Their recruiting patterns are different)
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:51 PM   #51
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,666
What about the teaching of Evolution? Are we going to allow that crackpot idea?
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:57 PM   #52
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
What about the teaching of Evolution? Are we going to allow that crackpot idea?
Some schools didn't and we survived it.

Which shows that even the abuse of limits on speech is not so dire as some would suggest.

Again, as I said above, risks exist. We balance risk in every regulation or lack of regulation we decide.

"There is a risk!" or "There are differences of opinion!" is not a barrier to regulations of speech anymore than it's a barrier to all other kinds of regulation.

I posted about it in more detail earlier in the thread.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:02 PM   #53
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,310
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Stirring words, but I think the actual argument, when stripped of its poetry is not entirely convincing to me. And I think "freedom" and "liberty" writ large are fetishized and often misleading concepts. That's how you get libertarians.

In reality, we balance our "freedoms to" with our "freedoms from" and we do it in all aspects of our lives. You could say similar stirring things about the freedom of movement and commerce. But we regulate the heck out of both and our edifice hasn't come crashing down. (See my earlier comment on in this thread)

I think poetic words need to lead to practical arguments that incorporate nuance. If you're going to talk about the lofty ideals of those who won our independence. They wrote that all men are created equal with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They wrote that while many of them owned other people. So I take high praise for the value of liberty with a major grain of salt until we get to the brass tacks of what that liberty is meant to entail.
I think that where we are going awry is the bit where as the quote had it “courage is the secret of liberty”. There is a bit of a crisis of confidence in our civilization, leaving many afraid that our values can not withstand a rough and tumble debate.

Also... it’s sad that a skeptic forum has so many members who are eager to abandon the principle of free inquiry and debate. Couldn’t they find an inquisition and censorship forum to join?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:06 PM   #54
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Quote:
Imagine you could look through a crystal ball. In one future America, white supremacy has spread. They've taken over the government, people of color are being deported and murdered (Note, I'm not arguing this is a real probable future, I'm just trying to get a feel of where you value outcome vs. principle).
If in the future people are being deported, it's probably because they're not citizens. Maybe it will be necessary to reconsider who is allowed to enter in the first place.

If people are being murdered, it's because the laws against murdering them aren't adequate or aren't being enforced adequately.

Neither issue is going to be solved by preventing people from discussing it over coffee.

If we believe we can truthfully say "the wrong" speech causes "the wrong" acts, then it follows "the wrong" thought leads to "the wrong" speech.* Are we going to make it a crime to THINK about murder next**?

Also, if we do make discussion of anything illegal how in hell do we pass our values on to future generations?

While I'm on the subject, how would this impact historical study? Should we ban books so no one can start to think about a world without ______? Should we ban references in entertainment, too?

If we're going to ban discussions of white nationalism, should we also ban discussions of other cultures? Should we close down blacks-only schools? Turn the native Americans out of their reservations and raze Chinatown?


*If so..."the right" speech should lead to "the right" acts; thus we've achieved balance and no changes are needed.

**AFAIK we're currently lacking the technology, but I'm sure with the right applications of money, political pressure and power we can make it a priority for R&D companies to find a way. Who needs a cure for cancer when we can start raking in tax dollars to incarcerate those who dare believe the WASP culture is worth keeping?
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One

Last edited by DragonLady; 27th March 2019 at 01:09 PM.
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:07 PM   #55
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Also... it’s sad that a skeptic forum has so many members who are eager to abandon the principle of free inquiry and debate. Couldn’t they find an inquisition and censorship forum to join?
Go back to the post in the Jussie thread that I originally responded to.

There was no inquiry and no room for debate. There is zero possibility of changed minds or expanded ideas in that particular case.

Again, free inquiry and debate is a beautiful poetic idea, but it doesn't apply to any string of characters an individual might fling into the cosmos.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:23 PM   #56
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,104
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Ok so here's my question again: how do you ensure that limits on unwanted speech don't come back to bite you in the ass?

Like, now you get to decide which speech is allowed, but what happens when your neighbor gets the stick?
Most of us live in democracies where no single person gets to decide what the limits of free speech should be. Preventing people from openly arguing against the basic freedoms that i hold dare, and the well-being and prosperity that follows from them, is nothing less than self-preservation.

Or should i just passively let fascists, islamists, reactionaries and far-left extremists undermine the source of my own well-being, even though they don't even bother to hide the fact that would oppress and even outright kill me? Even when their public support becomes large enough that they might be able to implement their will? Just blissfully walk up to the chopping block with a smile on my face, content with the fact that i died because of freedom?

Liberal democracy shouldn't be passive or accommodative towards those who seek to subvert and ultimately dismantle it, even if they choose to use democratic means to do so.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner

Last edited by Arcade22; 27th March 2019 at 01:28 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:31 PM   #57
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
If in the future people are being deported, it's probably because they're not citizens. Maybe it will be necessary to reconsider who is allowed to enter in the first place.

If people are being murdered, it's because the laws against murdering them aren't adequate or aren't being enforced adequately.

Neither issue is going to be solved by preventing people from discussing it over coffee.

If we believe we can truthfully say "the wrong" speech causes "the wrong" acts, then it follows "the wrong" thought leads to "the wrong" speech.* Are we going to make it a crime to THINK about murder next**?
I think I made the wrong decision in trying a thought experiment. They're how I often break things down for myself but sometimes they decrease clarity when used with others and this looks like one of those cases.

I swear it wasn't meant a "gotcha" I'm really trying to find out what the roots of your position are.

Let me try asking more directly.

To what extent is your concern about the value of the principle and to what extent is it concern about what you see as the plausible consequences of relaxing the principle?

Quote:


Also, if we do make discussion of anything illegal how in hell do we pass our values on to future generations?
I think you're making a use/mention error here. Germany has strict laws about how people talk about Nazis but that doesn't mean you can't mention Nazis. You can make a law, or a rule for a social media platform, or a social principle which addresses advocacy for a position without prohibiting any discussion of values around those issues.

Quote:
While I'm on the subject, how would this impact historical study? Should we ban books so no one can start to think about a world without ______? Should we ban references in entertainment, too?
Again, that use/mention distinction. People in Germany can study the history of the Holocaust.

Quote:
If we're going to ban discussions of white nationalism, should we also ban discussions of other cultures? Should we close down blacks-only schools? Turn the native Americans out of their reservations and raze Chinatown?
This seems to be a slippery slope argument. If we let gays marry, what then, cousins, pets? If there is a strong argument in favor of something and strong arguments against other things, why would the first thing lead to the others?

Quote:
*If so..."the right" speech should lead to "the right" acts; thus we've achieved balance and no changes are needed.

**AFAIK we're currently lacking the technology, but I'm sure with the right applications of money, political pressure and power we can make it a priority for R&D companies to find a way. Who needs a cure for cancer when we can start raking in tax dollars to incarcerate those who dare believe the WASP culture is worth keeping?
That's just a much bigger slippery slope argument. There is nothing about being open to regulating speech that necessitates that and you could make a similar argument for any regulation. Jaywalking laws, what to keep people from walking out into traffic? Anywhere people walk could potentially be unsafe. We need to gut all programs to strap people into padded chairs 24/7!!
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:35 PM   #58
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Quote:
Liberal democracy shouldn't be passive or accommodative towards those who seek to subvert and ultimately dismantle it, even if they choose to use democratic means to do so.

Agreed. But, conservative republicans shouldn't be passive or accommodative toward those who seek to subvert and ultimately dismantle their world, either.

This planet is home to all of us. We should ALL have an equal right to discuss what we want, state our positions, defend the freedoms we hold dear, and enjoy well-being and prosperity.

Liberals and democrats do not hold a monopoly, nor should they ever.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:35 PM   #59
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,063
"Free speech" doesn't have to be a suicide pact where we're so Bobishly ideologically pure to it we have to let it self destruct to prove we're loyal to it.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:40 PM   #60
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 80,659
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
I’ll throw in this quote from a former Supreme Court justice:

“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”
Unless you were a woman, indian or black, that is.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:41 PM   #61
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Agreed. But, conservative republicans shouldn't be passive or accommodative toward those who seek to subvert and ultimately dismantle their world, either.

This planet is home to all of us. We should ALL have an equal right to discuss what we want, state our positions, defend the freedoms we hold dear, and enjoy well-being and prosperity.

Liberals and democrats do not hold a monopoly, nor should they ever.
I believe he meant Liberal Democracy in this sense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Not as an identifier of the left side of the current US political spectrum.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:42 PM   #62
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 80,659
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Most of us live in democracies where no single person gets to decide what the limits of free speech should be. Preventing people from openly arguing against the basic freedoms that i hold dare, and the well-being and prosperity that follows from them, is nothing less than self-preservation.
But what you find to be essential might be different from what I find to be essential. Do I get the same treatment as the Nazi or Grand Wizard?

Quote:
Or should i just passively let fascists, islamists, reactionaries and far-left extremists undermine the source of my own well-being, even though they don't even bother to hide the fact that would oppress and even outright kill me?
I'm pretty sure there's a middle option somewhere in there.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:44 PM   #63
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,656
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Lets start with the Nazis and see how that works out. Don't want to plunge down the slippery slope too quickly!

However, given that a major measles outbreak has just happened near me, with hundreds infected, I'm open to talking about antivaxxers.

(Although, I suspect that being driven underground will have more of a multiplying effect on antivaxxers than it would on Nazis. Their recruiting patterns are different)
Might as well plunge right down that slope, it's just an idea after all.

So anitvaxxers then. Do they actually recruit. Legit question, I only know one and her reason for being an antivaxxer is so stupid I'd be embarrassed to repeat it.

then there's the religious antivaxxers, a far different breed than my neighbour and unless we're "allowed" to determine where and when these people came to their conclusions then there's no hope of correcting their errors by pointing out things like the research you read was falsified.

They'll just go underground and consider themselves persecuted should they be banned from wherever and continue to rest assured that they possess the secret knowledge that entities like big pharma are trying to keep away from them.

Better approach, IMO to take steps like requiring vaccination certificates for all children attending public schools then disallowing them to talk about their beliefs on a platform like Faceplant.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:45 PM   #64
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,158
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
They are normally harmed by the bullets fired by Nazis, and not the radicalization itself.
In case anyone needed reminding that not every response to this thread will be a good-faith argument.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:46 PM   #65
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I think I made the wrong decision in trying a thought experiment. They're how I often break things down for myself but sometimes they decrease clarity when used with others and this looks like one of those cases.

I swear it wasn't meant a "gotcha" I'm really trying to find out what the roots of your position are.
I'm sorry if I've misunderstood.

I'm off for a while now, but will reread both of your posts later to try to make sure we're on the same page.

For now, I'll just address this:

Quote:
This seems to be a slippery slope argument. If we let gays marry, what then, cousins, pets? If there is a strong argument in favor of something and strong arguments against other things, why would the first thing lead to the others?
I didn't intend a slippery slope argument with that comment. Rather, I firmly believe what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

If it's good for the world to destroy the concept of white nationalism, then it's also good for the world to destroy black nationalism, and Asian nationalism, and every other type.

If it's good to allow gays to marry, then why not cousins, too? I might be able to make a pretty good argument why that should be allowed, but I think it would just be a derail here.

If we think it's fine to have a "black culture week" then we need a "white culture week" too. Or, we need to shun both as just being sides of the same coin.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:52 PM   #66
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,158
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
then there's the religious antivaxxers, a far different breed than my neighbour and unless we're "allowed" to determine where and when these people came to their conclusions then there's no hope of correcting their errors by pointing out things like the research you read was falsified.
There are extremely few genuine religious antivaxxers. By genuine, I mean people who belong to a cohesive sect that explicitly prohibits vaccinations. And none of these groups prohibit vaccinations specifically, but only as part of a prohibition on medical intervention at large.

Most people today who claim religious exemption don't belong to any such sect; other members and the leadership of their very same churches or worship-groups are fine with vaccination. They are simple invoking religious exemption because such a claim is popularly considered to be unassailable, a get-out-of-having-to-justify-yourself-free card.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:53 PM   #67
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
Might as well plunge right down that slope, it's just an idea after all.

So anitvaxxers then. Do they actually recruit. Legit question, I only know one and her reason for being an antivaxxer is so stupid I'd be embarrassed to repeat it.
I mean, they aren't born that way, so they recruit in at least some sense through the spread of information. A public health expert could probably track anti-vax positions like an infectious disease with social media being a major transmission pathway.


Quote:
then there's the religious antivaxxers, a far different breed than my neighbour and unless we're "allowed" to determine where and when these people came to their conclusions then there's no hope of correcting their errors by pointing out things like the research you read was falsified.

You seem to be making the use/mention error that Dragonlady was earlier. You can take actions against advocacy for a position without banning all discussions around it.

Quote:
They'll just go underground and consider themselves persecuted should they be banned from wherever and continue to rest assured that they possess the secret knowledge that entities like big pharma are trying to keep away from them.
I generally agree with this (check out my parenthetical in the post you quoted) Persecution would empower antivaxxers in a way I wouldn't apply exactly in the same way to white nationalists, but that's a lengthier discussion.

Quote:
Better approach, IMO to take steps like requiring vaccination certificates for all children attending public schools then disallowing them to talk about their beliefs on a platform like Faceplant.
Both have downsides. I think not letting their kids into school has a much larger impact than keeping certain posts off social media. And keeping kids out of school can have a chilling effect. Still in general I agree with you that censorship is probably not the most effective option to counter anti-vax issues.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:57 PM   #68
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,383
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
In case anyone needed reminding that not every response to this thread will be a good-faith argument.
I'm not in favor of making life more difficult for a group of people (potentially radicalized Nazis) just because a portion of them will go on to hurt others. I'm fine with focusing on the ones that hurt and kill innocent people.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 02:07 PM   #69
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,158
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
If we think it's fine to have a "black culture week" then we need a "white culture week" too.
No.

A "black culture week" is only necessary in places where the other 51 weeks of the year are already "white culture week" as a practical matter if not by name; and such special weeks dedicated to minority culture only exist in those kinds of places. Sudan doesn't have a "black culture week" because it doesn't need one for the same reason that the US doesn't need a "white culture week".

"Black culture weeks" are designed to address an inequality that exists as the default state when there are no "culture weeks". Much like responding to "black lives matter" with "ALL lives matter", the idea that "it's only fair" to have white-focused cultural days and events too if blacks get to have them, is an attempt to shame and silence African-Americans for objecting to the unequal status quo by pretending that the inequality they perceive is phony, and therefore any steps taken to address or compensate for that imaginary inequality only creates real inequality in which white people become the "real victims".
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 02:20 PM   #70
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,383
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post

If it's good for the world to destroy the concept of white nationalism, then it's also good for the world to destroy black nationalism, and Asian nationalism, and every other type.

If it's good to allow gays to marry, then why not cousins, too? I might be able to make a pretty good argument why that should be allowed, but I think it would just be a derail here.

If we think it's fine to have a "black culture week" then we need a "white culture week" too. Or, we need to shun both as just being sides of the same coin.
I think most people oppose nationalism.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 02:47 PM   #71
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,656
So if censoring antivaxxers isn't,maybe, such a good idea, could we have some more examples of ideas that should be kept out of the marketplace ?
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 02:57 PM   #72
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,158
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
So if censoring antivaxxers isn't,maybe, such a good idea, could we have some more examples of ideas that should be kept out of the marketplace ?
Censorship isn't the way to go in any case. Governments should be remaining neutral.

It is society at large - "we the people" - who need to shun, de-platform, and deny space to toxic and terroristic ideologies.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 03:02 PM   #73
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,104
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
But what you find to be essential might be different from what I find to be essential. Do I get the same treatment as the Nazi or Grand Wizard?
It's not peoples opinions that are the problem. The problem is that they are actively agitating for them in an attempt to implement them. They hold public rallies, are out pamphleting or otherwise distributing propaganda. That's the point where it goes from just holding hostile opinions and where they start to undermine the foundations of liberal-democracy.

Coercive measures should be used proportionally against to them in an attempt to restrict the harm they can cause, as opposed to just passively tolerating them even if they start gaining public support.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner

Last edited by Arcade22; 27th March 2019 at 03:09 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 03:09 PM   #74
Pterodactyl
Graduate Poster
 
Pterodactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,102
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
One problem is who gets to decide which ideas are to be prohibited and not allowed into the 'marketplace' of ideas. Another is determining how these ideas will be prohibited. Sometimes, the solution is worse than the problem it was supposed to solve. I think this is one of those cases.

Let the nazis, white supremacists, flat earthers, truthers, and fans of the Chicago Bears express their opinions just like the rest of us.
Pack not gonna make the playoffs this year either bruh. So sorry.
Pterodactyl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 03:22 PM   #75
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,656
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Censorship isn't the way to go in any case. Governments should be remaining neutral.

It is society at large - "we the people" - who need to shun, de-platform, and deny space to toxic and terroristic ideologies.
I wasn't necessarily talking about governments, more in general, like as is outlined in the OP. If platforms was to disallow certain content, then that's their prerogative, it's their private platform.

Say for instance, Twitter doesn't wan anyone to make mention of Bronys on their platform, then fair enough, Bronys can go elsewhere to spread their Broniness.

But what other ideas should we-the-people be suggested to shun ? What other ideas should be considered toxic and kept out of the marketplace ?
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 03:24 PM   #76
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,306
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
But what other ideas should we-the-people be suggested to shun ? What other ideas should be considered toxic and kept out of the marketplace ?
The notion that it's acceptable to wear brown shoes with gray pants. Black shoes go with gray pants. Or gray shoes, if such a thing were possible. But brown? No. No, no, no. Burn the heretics!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 03:34 PM   #77
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,656
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The notion that it's acceptable to wear brown shoes with gray pants. Black shoes go with gray pants. Or gray shoes, if such a thing were possible. But brown? No. No, no, no. Burn the heretics!
What's wrong with wearing brown shoes with grey pants ? Next you'll be telling me there's something with my knee high white socks, baby blue bermuda shorts and pink flip flops outfit.

Fashion nazis...I tell ya.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 03:40 PM   #78
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,484
"Marketplace of ideas" sounds good until you realize that what you're talking about is a constant community meeting, carrying on 24/7, all year around with everyone talking at once. The way to get people to listen isn't to have better ideas than other people, but to be outrageous and say things people want to hear.

I don't think humanity is ready for social media. It ruins our ability to distinguish fiction from fact. The loud mouths end up running the place and everything falls apart.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 04:02 PM   #79
AnonyMoose
Critical Thinker
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 434
That fact that ya'll are now referring to these people as "white nationalists" instead of what they really are... (white supremecists, neo-nazi circus freaks, racist ballbags).... is proof in and of itself on just how much ground they actually have won with regards to their 'carte blanche free speech' indoctrinations among the masses on social media and elsewhere.
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips

Last edited by AnonyMoose; 27th March 2019 at 04:04 PM.
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 04:05 PM   #80
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,656
Social media is here to stay though, there's no turning back the clock. I personally don't use it save half a dozen Internet forums but it does have it's merits. One being that if you're planning a trip somewhere, it's way better to seek out and read the experiences of people who've actually done what you're thinking of doing rather than relying on the word of advertisers.

Granted, some people are to lazy to do their own research and if something dodgy comes across your feed it can always be challenged publicly. Well maybe, I don't actually know but if John Smith posted telling me that leaving a bowl of onions sitting beside an open window is a good way to reduce infection I'd look for a way to respond with information countering that idea.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.