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 3rd April 2019, 12:21 PM   #281
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,291
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Ideas are not harmful. A good person has never been ruined by a bad book, or a bad thought.

Wow. There is a great deal of history to demonstrate the untruth of that. Fascism, racism, conspiracy theories, anti-vax, totalitarianism, religion, all of these are Ideas. It's precisely these ideas that cause people to do harmful things. Want to take a guess how many people were inspired to commit violence by the idea that Jewish people eat Christian babies and control the world's economy? By the idea that black people are subhuman violent animals?

Or are you insisting that actions exist in a vacuum, uninfluenced by any mental processes?
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog 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 3rd April 2019, 01:42 PM   #282
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 80,618
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Wow. There is a great deal of history to demonstrate the untruth of that. Fascism, racism, conspiracy theories, anti-vax, totalitarianism, religion, all of these are Ideas. It's precisely these ideas that cause people to do harmful things.
I think both positions can be argued. On the one hand, people can be exposed to the most vile ideas without turning into monsters, while others can take something entirely innocuous and bring it to violent extremes or be inspired by it to do terrible things. In this argument, the problem is with the person, not the idea. And yeah, the idea itself is not dangerous; it's the actions taken in line with that idea.

On the other hand, taking the obvious example of Nazism, it's clear that you have a bunch of otherwise decent people doing insane, monstrous things because they were driven by a terrible idea. I will note, however, that this idea had to be repeated and amplified for years before it came to maturity in that way.

So, still hard to decide whether banning certain ideas is a good... idea. But one way or another, it opens a rather dangerous door, as who determines what's a banned idea can change really quickly, and those who find themselves on the wrong side of the law may not be able to stop it.
__________________
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 3rd April 2019, 03:07 PM   #283
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,291
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I think both positions can be argued. On the one hand, people can be exposed to the most vile ideas without turning into monsters, while others can take something entirely innocuous and bring it to violent extremes or be inspired by it to do terrible things. In this argument, the problem is with the person, not the idea. And yeah, the idea itself is not dangerous; it's the actions taken in line with that idea.

Ideas are dangerous, since they incite and inform the actions. Actions have to be triggered by something, they do not happen in a vacuum. Without the ideas, there is no action.

Dangerous ideas work best when they are claiming to solve a problem, and absolve people of personal responsibility in the process. Your life isn't what you want it to be? It's not your fault, it's the fault of Jews, Immigrants, Liberals, Atheists, Clowns, Islam, Black people, etc. Get rid of them, and your life will be better. People tend to prefer simple, easy answers to problems which are very complex and difficult; which is why scapegoating and demagoguery work so very well. And if you can tap into existing prejudices and preconceptions, even better. Religion excels at this, but it's far from the only ideology that does.

People who are able to see the problem for what it is, who are not looking for easy answers, and are not pre-disposed to abdicating responsibility for their own lives and circumstances, are less prone to accepting such ideas unquestioningly.

As for turning into monsters, well, that depends on how you define monsters. The Schutzstaffel were definitely monsters, as were the Nazi leadership. But the rank and file Nazi party members? The general German populace? How monstrous were they? Even the ones who didn't approve of what was going on very rarely took any action to oppose it.

And that, I think, is the true monstrosity. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

And that is what is being advocated by the free speech extremists, for good men to do nothing while evil men promote and recruit and inflame and incite.

Quote:
On the other hand, taking the obvious example of Nazism, it's clear that you have a bunch of otherwise decent people doing insane, monstrous things because they were driven by a terrible idea. I will note, however, that this idea had to be repeated and amplified for years before it came to maturity in that way.

Nazi-ism/fascist wasn't really around all that long; but it touched on existing prejudices and anger, and provided a pat, simple solution to what was a complex problem. And again, it was relatively few people acting as monsters, and a whole lot of people doing nothing to effectively oppose them.

And we see that today with all of the "fine people" wanna-be fascists going out and committing violence, the bulk of the population sitting back and doing nothing, and those who do fight back against the neo-Nazis and other white nationalists being demonized as "just as bad" as the people who want to exterminate entire ethnicities.

Quote:
So, still hard to decide whether banning certain ideas is a good... idea. But one way or another, it opens a rather dangerous door, as who determines what's a banned idea can change really quickly, and those who find themselves on the wrong side of the law may not be able to stop it.

Except, as has been pointed out, ideas are not being banned. What is being proposed is restricting the ability for people to promote certain ideas -- which have repeatedly been proven harmful -- in the public sphere. We already do that for some dangerous ideas, and other countries have done so for Nazi-ism and other forms of white supremacism without sliding into totalitarianism, so why would that be the start of a "slippery slope" here? As others have pointed out, the slope isn't really all that slippery when you look at the actual history, and what is being proposed.

I'm not really comfortable with the idea of government censorship, however, I am comfortable with holding social medial platforms accountable for their actions regarding harmful content. Facebook and Youtube and others have long indirectly promoted white nationalist content, while suppressing criticism of it (Facebook in particular), because sensationalism drives views, and views drive advertising dollars, and that is how they make their money. And not just white nationalism, but any extreme sensational content that is not outright illegal -- child abuse, animal abuse, and so on. They're quite happy to have it as long as it makes them money, and damn the social consequences.

That's why Facebook and Twitter drug their feet for so long regarding the Russian troll and bots. The trolls drove viewership up, which looked good to advertisers, and they're not going to turn their backs on that kind of money without a very compelling reason. As long as the neo-Nazis are allowed a platform, they will exploit it, and Facebook and Twitter and Youtube will continue to make money off it.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog 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 3rd April 2019, 05:16 PM   #284
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 80,618
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Ideas are dangerous
I'm sure you didn't mean to word it that way, because it sounds like you're calling all ideas dangerous.

Quote:
since they incite and inform the actions. Actions have to be triggered by something, they do not happen in a vacuum. Without the ideas, there is no action.
Well that's not in contradiction to what I said. What I said was that people can be exposed to ideas without necessarily taking them into action. You know how they do that? By either disagreeing with the idea, or believing that it's unwise or not worth the effort or risk of acting upon the idea. That's where education, social pressures and incentives come in.

Sure, ideas can be dangerous. But you know what? I'm very much aware of what the Nazis thought. I've read about their ideology. I've read about the Elders of Zion nonsense. I've discussed 9/11 conspiracy theories and other such theories extensively. I've been exposed to Christian belief all my life. And yet, somehow, I'm not a born-again paranoid antisemite fascist. The issue is not being exposed to an idea, but being unable to evaluate ideas against reality and morality.

Quote:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
That's an idea, and in a way, it's actually dangerous.

Also: I say, always be wary of people who quote others rather than put things into their own words.

Quote:
And that is what is being advocated by the free speech extremists, for good men to do nothing while evil men promote and recruit and inflame and incite.
Well, on the other hand you have their direct opponents inciting violence against those who hold these ideas. I hope I don't have to explain the slippery slope there.

Quote:
Nazi-ism/fascist wasn't really around all that long; but it touched on existing prejudices and anger, and provided a pat, simple solution to what was a complex problem. And again, it was relatively few people acting as monsters, and a whole lot of people doing nothing to effectively oppose them.
Yes, but regardless of all that, it was millions of people acting like or supporting monsters, knowingly, because of years or decades of being exposed to increasingly extreme ideas. People who were otherwise decent and loving. My point is that the relationship between idea and action and morality and decency and so on is complex.

Quote:
Except, as has been pointed out, ideas are not being banned. What is being proposed is restricting the ability for people to promote certain ideas -- which have repeatedly been proven harmful -- in the public sphere.
That's a distinction without a difference. If you're not allowed to express a thought, it's the same thing as banning that thought.

And harmful is subjective. Right-wingers find harmful things that left-wingers hold dear and vice-versa. Democracy is harmful under certain circumstances; so is capitalism, and yet both are the cornerstones of modern civilisation.

Quote:
We already do that for some dangerous ideas, and other countries have done so for Nazi-ism and other forms of white supremacism without sliding into totalitarianism, so why would that be the start of a "slippery slope" here? As others have pointed out, the slope isn't really all that slippery when you look at the actual history, and what is being proposed.
I understand what you're saying. All I'm saying is, it's all fine as long as the "right" people hold the big stick.

Quote:
I'm not really comfortable with the idea of government censorship, however, I am comfortable with holding social medial platforms accountable for their actions regarding harmful content.
Sure, no issue 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 4th April 2019, 08:16 AM   #285
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Quote:
Nice evasion. It's artwork, which has been ruled to qualify as speech, since it doesn't involve real people in any way. Why is it valid to censor one type of speech, but not another? If we can censor one type of speech -- virtual child porn -- for the protection of society, why is it not valid to censor another type of speech -- white supremacist propaganda -- to protect society?
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Wow. There is a great deal of history to demonstrate the untruth of that. Fascism, racism, conspiracy theories, anti-vax, totalitarianism, religion, all of these are Ideas. It's precisely these ideas that cause people to do harmful things. Want to take a guess how many people were inspired to commit violence by the idea that Jewish people eat Christian babies and control the world's economy? By the idea that black people are subhuman violent animals?

Or are you insisting that actions exist in a vacuum, uninfluenced by any mental processes?
First, how are you able to hold both of these ideas, simultaneously? Seems to me you're saying "MY pet idea is just an idea, and can't harm anyone; but YOUR pet idea is potentially harmful to everyone".


There's been a great deal of book burning and censorship throughout history based on the concept that ideas are bad. Entire libraries were sacked, and we don't even know how much information, knowledge and human experience we've lost forever because of it.

I'm boggled that in this day and age, knowing what we know about the harm of censorship, that anyone still wants to argue that ideas should be treated as evil.

Books, websites, movies, music, newspapers, historical records and people of all ages will always be an endless fount of ideas, good and bad.

Everyone has bad ideas and intrusive thoughts. We all occasionally consider committing some heinous crime or harming someone -even someone we love- because it's the nature of being human.

The only humans who never entertain a bad idea or say something that could, in the right light on the right night, cause someone else to act badly, are corpses.

The key is developing a robust sense of right and wrong (which is relevant to the larger society one lives in), and self-control. At the end of the day, a mature individual should be able to entertain ideas from every end of the spectrum, but also be held 100% responsible for his or her own ACTIONS.
__________________
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 4th April 2019, 08:56 AM   #286
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 80,618
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I'm boggled that in this day and age, knowing what we know about the harm of censorship, that anyone still wants to argue that ideas should be treated as evil.
Well, it's not all ideas. It's their ideas, not ours.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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



Last edited by Belz...; 4th April 2019 at 09:17 AM.
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 4th April 2019, 09:04 AM   #287
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,055
There's a huge grey area between "We have to accept and embrace all ideas" and "Government jackbooted thugs will drag you away in the middle of the night to be reprogrammed if you don't follow the government line."

It's called "Being wrong" and it used to be a thing I thought we all agreed was a thing that could happen.

2+2=5 is not outlawed. It's not hate speech. It's not illegal to think. But it's still not an open and accepted idea because it's wrong. We don't have a bunch of try-hards demanding we have the "What does 2+2 equal?" talk again so we don't "get too comfortable and it's important to challenge our ideas."
__________________
- "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 online now   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 4th April 2019, 07:41 PM   #288
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,076
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
There's a huge grey area between "We have to accept and embrace all ideas" and "Government jackbooted thugs will drag you away in the middle of the night to be reprogrammed if you don't follow the government line."

It's called "Being wrong" and it used to be a thing I thought we all agreed was a thing that could happen.

2+2=5 is not outlawed. It's not hate speech. It's not illegal to think. But it's still not an open and accepted idea because it's wrong. We don't have a bunch of try-hards demanding we have the "What does 2+2 equal?" talk again so we don't "get too comfortable and it's important to challenge our ideas."
Sure, we don't need to keep revisiting that conversation because it's an easy one to have. If someone says that 2+2=5 you get four oranges, arrange them into groups of 2, ask the person to count each group individually, then ask them to count them all together. It turns out that one group of 2 plus another group of 2 gives you 4 oranges. If they don't think that generalises to other things ask them to repeat the experiment.

We don't need to censor the idea that 2+2=5, we just need to let the idea that 2+2=4 have exposure.

This is the process that got us to where we are today. It didn't require the censorship of bad ideas, it only required letting those bad ideas interact with good ones in the wild.

It's sort of analogous to me with the rise of Mixed Martial Arts. In the past different martial arts didn't compete with each other and it wasn't clear which were effective and in what ways. When you let martial artists from different traditions fight it becomes clear which techniques and approaches are effective. But it's a messy process that takes time to really make things clear and that evolution and discovery is still happening, 25 years after the first UFC.

The same is true of ideas.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 8th April 2019, 05:52 AM   #289
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 45,694
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Sure, we don't need to keep revisiting that conversation because it's an easy one to have. If someone says that 2+2=5 you get four oranges, arrange them into groups of 2, ask the person to count each group individually, then ask them to count them all together. It turns out that one group of 2 plus another group of 2 gives you 4 oranges. If they don't think that generalises to other things ask them to repeat the experiment.

We don't need to censor the idea that 2+2=5, we just need to let the idea that 2+2=4 have exposure.

This is the process that got us to where we are today. It didn't require the censorship of bad ideas, it only required letting those bad ideas interact with good ones in the wild.
Yep so we get outbreaks of previously cured diseases, that is of course a win it thins out the gullible and the weak. And the terrorist attacks of those radicalized by such movements are a happy price to pay.

We should look at incel attacks not as petty attacks of those radicalized by a few, but rather as the triumph of free speech they are.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   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 8th April 2019, 06:08 AM   #290
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,076
It was also settled for a very long time that homosexuality was a sin, but we didn't give up on that conversation.

Can you guys explain how we are going to go about deciding which facts are settled and can't be discussed anymore and which ones are open for debate?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 8th April 2019, 06:14 AM   #291
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,055
In any question which can be mathematically framed as "Which is greater? X or Y+HandWringing" the answer is always X.

Again the fact that we don't have an exact line in the sane, that the question of what is still a valid question while still just all having a tacit understanding that certain questions have just answered for all practical purposes is one of those things that's out there for debate is a feature, not a bug.

Again unless you want to be a try-hard demanding we reprove 2+2=4 lest we become too comfortable in our beliefs, what's even being discussed.
__________________
- "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 online now   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 8th April 2019, 06:21 AM   #292
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,354
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
It was also settled for a very long time that homosexuality was a sin, but we didn't give up on that conversation.

Can you guys explain how we are going to go about deciding which facts are settled and can't be discussed anymore and which ones are open for debate?
I think in the context of this thread that's a bit of a straw man. No one in this thread is arguing that any topic should be illegal to discuss. Personally I've argued that particular private spaces like facebook are not unreasonable in deciding not to provide a space for white supremacists, and that those same ideas shouldn't necessarily be given every public soapbox and protection.

In terms of giving society the ability to change our mind there's still plenty of places to discuss white supremacism. And the only issues that could apply to are those particular issues. So your worry is only relevant if you're worried that we need to give white supremacist a chance to thrive.

The slippery slope argument has been addressed multiple times, so we're really only looking at the effects on these particular ideas.
__________________
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 8th April 2019, 06:24 AM   #293
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,076
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
In any question which can be mathematically framed as "Which is greater? X or Y+HandWringing" the answer is always X.
I honestly don't know what this means. I'm probably being thick, it's happened before.

Quote:
Again the fact that we don't have an exact line in the sane, that the question of what is still a valid question while still just all having a tacit understanding that certain questions have just answered for all practical purposes is one of those things that's out there for debate is a feature, not a bug.
I don't need a line in the sand. I just need to know how we're making this determination. It doesn't even need to be completely clear about every question. Is it just "Those things that JoeMorgue thinks are obvious"? Or what?

Quote:
Again unless you want to be a try-hard demanding we reprove 2+2=4 lest we become too comfortable in our beliefs, what's even being discussed.
I don't think it's actually a problem that when someone questions 2+2=4 we let them question it.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 8th April 2019, 06:29 AM   #294
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,055
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I don't think it's actually a problem that when someone questions 2+2=4 we let them question it.
Well then there's the problem. "The Marketplace of Ideas" only works if accept that time and energy spent there is a finite resource and we can't waste it on crap that's been answered.

You're on the internet. You've been on the JFEF/ISF for a minute. You've been around the block, you know the "I'm winning because I'm still arguing" mentality.
__________________
- "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

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 8th April 2019 at 06:31 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   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 8th April 2019, 09:08 PM   #295
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,295
I guess you guys from the UK won't be able to participate in the Woo portions of the ISF now.

UK to unleash internet safety czar on Google, Facebook, Twitter

https://www.cnet.com/news/uk-to-keep...ety-regulator/

Quote:
The regulator will be tasked with ensuring social media companies tackle a range of online problems, including:

- Incitement of violence and the spread of violent (including terrorist) content
- Encouragement of self-harm or suicide
- The spread of disinformation and fake news
- Cyberbullying
- Children's access to inappropriate material
- Child exploitation and abuse content

As well as applying to the major social networks, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, the requirements will also have to be met by file-hosting sites, online forums, messaging services and search engines.

How far will the war on "disinformation" go?

Quote:
disinformation
[disənfərˈmāSH(ə)n]
NOUN
false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.

Giving that kind of power to your government? Groovy!
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 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 8th April 2019, 10:58 PM   #296
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,076
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
You're on the internet. You've been on the JFEF/ISF for a minute. You've been around the block, you know the "I'm winning because I'm still arguing" mentality.
Yeah. I guess it just doesn't bother me as much as it does others. I think you've participated in those Jabba threads, whereas I skimmed them, maybe posted once or twice (don't remember), and then just thought "okay, well, this isn't very interesting". It doesn't really bother me that Jabba thinks he's right or winning or whatever when it's obvious to everyone that he's not.

That same is true of a lot of the crackpots. I actually find it interesting when someone comes along and says the earth is flat or whatever and we have to think of how exactly we know and can demonstrate that it's not. But after that's been done and obviously the guy just keeps up with his ridiculous nonsense, well, okay, you keep being you dude. I usually just stop paying attention at that point.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 8th April 2019, 11:05 PM   #297
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,076
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I think in the context of this thread that's a bit of a straw man.
Having read the thread a few days ago, I may be a little confused, and the little exchange with Joe perhaps ended up on a tangent that led to me misattribute some of the ideas being presented here. If so my bad. I'm in a bit of a rush right now, so I'll have to go back and look through the thread later.

It just seems to me that while it seems obvious that we should censor white supremacists, it's not clear what attribute of white supremacism allows us to make that decision and doesn't apply to other things. I'm open to the idea that there is a reasonable criteria that includes that but won't include ideas that will turn out to be true but are just unpopular now.

For instance we all probably disagree with violent animal rights activists. But when it comes down to it it's not so clear to me that they are wrong. I am not sure what to think about that issue, and think that at any case it's better to try to affect change peacefully than violently, but perhaps in the future when looked at through hindsight things will seem different. That's just a random example to suggest that maybe while it seems easy to decide what to censor I think it's good to have a clear criteria.

Having said all this you've probably already spelled out such a criteria and I just missed it, in which case just ignore the lazy dude who needs to go back over the thread.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 9th April 2019, 12:31 AM   #298
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,652
The 'marketplace of ideas' is as much of a con-trick as any other unfettered market. It's almost amusing, but actually scary, how much Americans fetishize their imagined freedoms in preference to their own actual well-being.

In any unfettered market who is successful? Those with enough resources to dominate and those who are willing to act dishonestly. Why would an unfettered market of ideas be any different?

Oh look at who is your President.... it isn't any different it turns out!
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal 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 9th April 2019, 01:08 AM   #299
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,476
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
I guess you guys from the UK won't be able to participate in the Woo portions of the ISF now.

UK to unleash internet safety czar on Google, Facebook, Twitter

https://www.cnet.com/news/uk-to-keep...ety-regulator/




How far will the war on "disinformation" go?




Giving that kind of power to your government? Groovy!

Good for the UK. A bit late, but still...
__________________
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 9th April 2019, 01:20 AM   #300
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The 'marketplace of ideas' is as much of a con-trick as any other unfettered market. It's almost amusing, but actually scary, how much Americans fetishize their imagined freedoms in preference to their own actual well-being.

In any unfettered market who is successful? Those with enough resources to dominate and those who are willing to act dishonestly. Why would an unfettered market of ideas be any different?

Oh look at who is your President.... it isn't any different it turns out!

By that reasoning the people of North Korea are genuinely living the Paradise on Earth their leaders say they're living.
__________________
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 9th April 2019, 01:58 AM   #301
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,381
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Having read the thread a few days ago, I may be a little confused, and the little exchange with Joe perhaps ended up on a tangent that led to me misattribute some of the ideas being presented here. If so my bad. I'm in a bit of a rush right now, so I'll have to go back and look through the thread later.



It just seems to me that while it seems obvious that we should censor white supremacists, it's not clear what attribute of white supremacism allows us to make that decision and doesn't apply to other things. I'm open to the idea that there is a reasonable criteria that includes that but won't include ideas that will turn out to be true but are just unpopular now.



For instance we all probably disagree with violent animal rights activists. But when it comes down to it it's not so clear to me that they are wrong. I am not sure what to think about that issue, and think that at any case it's better to try to affect change peacefully than violently, but perhaps in the future when looked at through hindsight things will seem different. That's just a random example to suggest that maybe while it seems easy to decide what to censor I think it's good to have a clear criteria.



Having said all this you've probably already spelled out such a criteria and I just missed it, in which case just ignore the lazy dude who needs to go back over the thread.
For me a useful rule-of-thumb is when a group is advocating the removal of rights from fellow citizens, especially when advocating force to do so.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 9th April 2019, 05:06 AM   #302
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,354
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
By that reasoning the people of North Korea are genuinely living the Paradise on Earth their leaders say they're living.
You make the mistake of thinking "X is bad" implies that "Any system without X is great". Whatever the X under discussion, it obviously isn't the only source of negativity in the world.

I think fast food is crappy and causes health problems. That doesn't mean that places that lack fast food lack health problems or that they're necessarily paradoxes in any way. Rural Somalia probably has no McDonald's but they certainly have serious health and diet issues. That doesn't mean I'm wrong about McDonald's being unhealthy food.
__________________
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 9th April 2019, 06:01 AM   #303
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,650
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
I guess you guys from the UK won't be able to participate in the Woo portions of the ISF now.
UK to unleash internet safety czar on Google, Facebook, Twitter

https://www.cnet.com/news/uk-to-keep...ety-regulator/

How far will the war on "disinformation" go?

Giving that kind of power to your government? Groovy!
It'll be interesting to see what happens with this.

What would happen to complaints against someone like Richard Dawkins ? Would he be considered "disinformation" if enough religious conservatives complained ?

I sure wouldn't want to be a social media executive with my liability ( possible prison sentence in Australia ) hinging on some underpaid content moderator in the Philippines.

IIRC the UK was also considering some sot of porn license, where you were required to enter some sort of government ID in order to view adult content.

Time to buy some stock in a VPN company.
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 9th April 2019, 07:47 AM   #304
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,354
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Having read the thread a few days ago, I may be a little confused, and the little exchange with Joe perhaps ended up on a tangent that led to me misattribute some of the ideas being presented here. If so my bad. I'm in a bit of a rush right now, so I'll have to go back and look through the thread later.

It just seems to me that while it seems obvious that we should censor white supremacists, it's not clear what attribute of white supremacism allows us to make that decision and doesn't apply to other things. I'm open to the idea that there is a reasonable criteria that includes that but won't include ideas that will turn out to be true but are just unpopular now.

For instance we all probably disagree with violent animal rights activists. But when it comes down to it it's not so clear to me that they are wrong. I am not sure what to think about that issue, and think that at any case it's better to try to affect change peacefully than violently, but perhaps in the future when looked at through hindsight things will seem different. That's just a random example to suggest that maybe while it seems easy to decide what to censor I think it's good to have a clear criteria.

Having said all this you've probably already spelled out such a criteria and I just missed it, in which case just ignore the lazy dude who needs to go back over the thread.
I absolutely agree that "where is the line" is a legit question to ask.

I can't give you a single, immovable bright line that puts white supremacism on one side and anything that could possibly be benign or open to reexamination at some point in history on the other with logical absolute certainty.

But that's in the same way that I can't draw an absolute line between Loki's head and neck, but Loki's wager is still not sound logic.

A large number, maybe the majority of regulations, both government and private, involve drawing lines that are some degree of arbitrary or cultural common sense.

We draw the line at age for deciding when a person can consent to sex. Theoretically, you might argue that opens the door to eugenics because we can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt that a particular age is entirely different from other categories we might choose to stop people from having sex.

That's why I don't think of "logically arguable" as good evidence for a slippery slope, because the vast majority of the categories we create are technically logically open to arguments for arbitrary expansion. In the end, most of our regulatory systems rely on "reasonable person" standards of one kind or another. And yep, reasonable opinion sometimes isn't logical, and it sometimes becomes what we later think is wrong. But to abandon legal framework that relies on it would be to abandon vast chunks of law. Maybe all of it.

That's why I prefer a more empirical approach to whether a slope is indeed slippery. As I've said, most of the developed world has some kind of content based lack of protection for free speech. And while that can be abused, and it can lead to absurd situations, it does not appear to be tumbling down that slope in any of the many many countries with hate speech laws (which again, are much more extreme than what I'm proposing for the US).

I generally give more credence to empirical observation than technically true theory.
__________________
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 9th April 2019, 09:31 AM   #305
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,652
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
By that reasoning the people of North Korea are genuinely living the Paradise on Earth their leaders say they're living.
Only if you believe that if X is bad the opposite of X must be good.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal 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 9th April 2019, 09:47 AM   #306
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,503
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I've also often wondered when we have conversations about this issue do we have any evidence to support the cliches and claims made for freedom of speech, e.g.. expose to the daylight, marketplace of ideas and so on. They sound good but does the evidence stack up.
Show me a good number of societies that engage in heavy censorship but have less corruption, and a good standard of living.

To me is kind of obvious the more a society chooses to censor political views, the more corrupt said society tends to be.
sadhatter 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 9th April 2019, 10:04 AM   #307
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Only if you believe that if X is bad the opposite of X must be good.
Sometimes it is. But if we're going to limit the free exchange of ideas, how will we evaluate enough of them to be able to know the difference?

Sometimes, in some ways, North Korea really is a paradise. But other times it isn't. How can anyone tell the difference if they have no other concepts to compare with?

They can say "oh, nice weather" because they've seen storms.

But living in a political dome means they never have a chance to consider the real world they live in as it might be under other circumstances.
__________________
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 9th April 2019, 10:12 AM   #308
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,354
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Show me a good number of societies that engage in heavy censorship but have less corruption, and a good standard of living.

To me is kind of obvious the more a society chooses to censor political views, the more corrupt said society tends to be.
I suppose it depends what you mean by "heavy censorship". If you mean more government sanction of speech based on content than the US, and less practical protection than the US, then here are some examples.

If you mean something more draconian, then it's a bit off topic for the thread. No one here is arguing for censorship that's more extreme than the hate speech laws that are already common in most of the developed world.

Iceland
The Netherlands
The United Kingdom
New Zealand
Singapore
Switzerland
France
Canada
Germany

Those are just a few examples of countries with hate speech laws. I suppose we could argue about their levels of corruption and standard of living, but I think a standard that labelled all these countries unnacceptably corrupt or with an unnacceptably low standard of living would either have to rank the US as comparably corrupt unless it was some texas sharpshooter argument drawing an unnatural category around the US.
__________________
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 9th April 2019, 10:19 AM   #309
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 9,834
Ideas don't kill. Truth kills. Innocents are murdered in its name.

Truth also has friends, unsavory mythical characters like perfection and purity. Muses of deadly mayhem, they.

Opposing ideas or their expression isn't likely to help. When "being right" is all that one feels it takes to directly authorize judgment or action, you get a very dangerous world. Recognition of a critical factor involved in moving from facts and findings to operative determinations is yet needed: the role of consensus. Consensus regarding "what is the case", and consensus regarding what should be or not be done is the palliative measure that protects against subjective bias and error.

When respect for the need for consensus is undermined by absolutists of any stripe, in rush the foul ideas, such as the ones quoted in the OP, now free to pose as the way forward amid the confusion.

The number one personal protection against any and all ideologies is to develop the skills and basic knowledge required to (1) correctly classify facts and opinions as such, and (b) argue from foundational postulates in formal systems, and from first principles in social and public policy. Then (iii) learn to use bullets and numbering, holy cow.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes 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 9th April 2019, 10:51 AM   #310
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Quote:
When "being right" is all that one feels it takes to directly authorize judgment or action,
I'm sorry, but I disagree. Throughout history, plenty of people were right, but didn't take action because their views were wildly unpopular. They couldn't possibly shout over the pervasive ideology of the time, and if they tried they were shunned or worse.

So they said nothing, and terrible mistakes were made, and continued being made.
__________________
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 9th April 2019, 01:43 PM   #311
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,652
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Sometimes it is. But if we're going to limit the free exchange of ideas, how will we evaluate enough of them to be able to know the difference?
The same way we limit absolutely everything else that we know is generally a good thing but can be taken to extremes. Using our best judgement of the harm the things cause and the societal benefit/harm of disallowing it.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal 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 9th April 2019, 02:45 PM   #312
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The same way we limit absolutely everything else that we know is generally a good thing but can be taken to extremes. Using our best judgement of the harm the things cause and the societal benefit/harm of disallowing it.
Right.

So no point whatsoever to disallowing almost anything.
__________________
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 10th April 2019, 03:00 AM   #313
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,652
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Right.

So no point whatsoever to disallowing almost anything.
You seem to have an issue with taking huge leaps of faith in reasoning. We limit and disallow a whole lot of things.

We put speed limits on roads - but we don't make people walk with flags in front of cars anymore. And the roads work.

We limit the things doctors can do - but we don't stop people practising medicine entirely. And medicine works.

We have financial regulation - but we don't resort to bartering goods in the market. And the financial system still gets by.

Because in all of these things we realise that while they are generally good things there are some forms of behaviour that can be detrimental and damaging and we want to impose restrictions on those.

This fetishizing and mythicising 'free speech' as if somehow these great thinkers are having their genius ideas limited is laughable. Scrawling 'Muslims are paedos' on a mosque (or posting it on Facebook) is not some great achievement of human reasoning and people need to stop pretending it is somehow meritorious to defend that kind of thing.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal 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 10th April 2019, 09:22 AM   #314
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
You seem to have an issue with taking huge leaps of faith in reasoning.
I believe it's important to apply the same logic to everything. If a "solution" doesn't work in almost every case, it really doesn't work.

Quote:
We limit and disallow a whole lot of things.
Yes; of course we do. After showing they have caused or are highly likely to cause direct harm.

Quote:
We put speed limits on roads - but we don't make people walk with flags in front of cars anymore. And the roads work.
Sure. But here, the subject is IDEAS and DISCUSSION. We don't stop people from talking about driving at breakneck speeds or even buying cars capable of same. We only apply limits to the ACT of driving above certain speeds.

Quote:
We limit the things doctors can do - but we don't stop people practising medicine entirely. And medicine works.
See above. We limit the ACTIONS a doctor can take. But we don't limit people's ability to spread information -good and bad- about healthcare, so people can make their own choices.

Quote:
We have financial regulation - but we don't resort to bartering goods in the market. And the financial system still gets by.
We don't HAVE to resort to bartering goods in the market, but we still can.

Quote:
Because in all of these things we realise that while they are generally good things there are some forms of behaviour that can be detrimental and damaging and we want to impose restrictions on those.
Right. Once again, my position is that IDEAS are not harmful and should not be limited. SPEECH is only harmful under very narrow circumstances (such as conspiring to commit a crime or inciting a riot), and should not be limited.

Quote:
This fetishizing and mythicising 'free speech' as if somehow these great thinkers are having their genius ideas limited is laughable.
There is nothing mythical about our Constitution, where the great thinkers who founded our wonderful country codified the genius of "free speech" into the highest law of our land.

Quote:
Scrawling 'Muslims are paedos' on a mosque (or posting it on Facebook) is not some great achievement of human reasoning and people need to stop pretending it is somehow meritorious to defend that kind of thing.
[/quote]

I have not defended any such act. If a person wanted to stand on the corner shouting "Muslims are paedos" I would argue that unless he's violating noise ordinances or other local laws, he should just be allowed to shout.
__________________
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 10th April 2019, 09:26 AM   #315
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,055
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I believe it's important to apply the same logic to everything. If a "solution" doesn't work in almost every case, it really doesn't work.
That's insane.
__________________
- "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 online now   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 10th April 2019, 09:43 AM   #316
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 80,618
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I believe it's important to apply the same logic to everything.
You should think about that one for a moment.
__________________
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 10th April 2019, 10:08 AM   #317
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's insane.
Quote:
You should think about that one for a moment.
Back atcha both. I've been thinking about it most of my life.

If we're going to limit anything in some areas, we eventually have to limit it in more and more and more areas because someone will always find a way to cross the imaginary line. That's why whenever we make one law that seems reasonable, we often have a million people in prison a few years later. The slippery slope isn't a fallacy when you can see it in action, sliding further down the hill every day.

I don't understand the attitudes of so many people the last ten years or so wanting to put limits and laws on things based on "feelings" and "morals" -two ideals which simply cannot be legislated.

In this case, if you take away free speech, you take away the voice of the people to object to taking away anything else. It's insanity to me, and it was to the founders who wrote Bill of Rights, too. They already knew the disastrous consequences of attempting to set limits, and just where that road always goes.
__________________
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 10th April 2019, 10:41 AM   #318
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 80,618
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Back atcha both. I've been thinking about it most of my life.
You know, once I found a website about the "Apollo Hoax" and the owner said he had been researching the topic for years... and the first piece of 'evidence' he mentioned was the lack of stars in the moon pictures. Sometimes spending a lot of time thinking about it from the exact same angle doesn't help.

If you apply the exact same logic to everything, you're ignoring that humans value different things differently, and therefore that context changes the logic we should use.

Quote:
I don't understand the attitudes of so many people the last ten years or so wanting to put limits and laws on things based on "feelings" and "morals" -two ideals which simply cannot be legislated.
...those are the ONLY sources of legislation.
__________________
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 10th April 2019, 11:50 PM   #319
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,476
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Back atcha both. I've been thinking about it most of my life.

If we're going to limit anything in some areas, we eventually have to limit it in more and more and more areas because someone will always find a way to cross the imaginary line. That's why whenever we make one law that seems reasonable, we often have a million people in prison a few years later. The slippery slope isn't a fallacy when you can see it in action, sliding further down the hill every day.

I don't understand the attitudes of so many people the last ten years or so wanting to put limits and laws on things based on "feelings" and "morals" -two ideals which simply cannot be legislated.

In this case, if you take away free speech, you take away the voice of the people to object to taking away anything else. It's insanity to me, and it was to the founders who wrote Bill of Rights, too. They already knew the disastrous consequences of attempting to set limits, and just where that road always goes.
I take it you are against laws against threats, laws against child pornography (the having and viewing parts anyway) and laws against lying to the FBI etc? I mean, all of those puts limits on the freedom of speech based on "feelings" and "morals".
__________________
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 11th April 2019, 02:38 AM   #320
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,652
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I believe it's important to apply the same logic to everything. If a "solution" doesn't work in almost every case, it really doesn't work.
Which has nothing at all to do with whether that solution means the same outcome in every case

Quote:
Yes; of course we do. After showing they have caused or are highly likely to cause direct harm.
Direct harm? No.

[quote]

Sure. But here, the subject is IDEAS and DISCUSSION. We don't stop people from talking about driving at breakneck speeds or even buying cars capable of same. We only apply limits to the ACT of driving above certain speeds.

[quote]

Actually we do apply limits to talking about driving at breakneck speeds too. We don't allow advertisers to show reckless dangerous driving in their ads for example. But even so, that doesn't change the argument that it is possible to limit things without doing away with them entirely.

And yes, speech is a behaviour.

Quote:
See above. We limit the ACTIONS a doctor can take. But we don't limit people's ability to spread information -good and bad- about healthcare, so people can make their own choices.
Again no. You can't claim that your magic beans cure cancer. And again it doesn't change the point that you can limit things without doing away with them entirely

Quote:
We don't HAVE to resort to bartering goods in the market, but we still can.
Indeed. But again. You can limit things without doing away with them entirely

Quote:

Right. Once again, my position is that IDEAS are not harmful and should not be limited. SPEECH is only harmful under very narrow circumstances (such as conspiring to commit a crime or inciting a riot), and should not be limited.
No, your position was that if we limit extreme speech then we end up like North Korea. And here you are already backtracking by pointing out that you actually agree on limits of speech.

Why should conspiring to commit a crime be different under your rules? After all they aren't ACTING on it. Only conspiring. It's only ideas right?

No, because we know that ideas lead to action.

Quote:
There is nothing mythical about our Constitution, where the great thinkers who founded our wonderful country codified the genius of "free speech" into the highest law of our land.
Correction - YOUR constitution. And yes it has been mythologised. What makes you think the founding fathers were great thinkers who codified genius in the constitution? Couldn't they have been wrong in some ways? Couldn't a couple of hundred years of social development have led to some new better ideas?

Quote:
I have not defended any such act. If a person wanted to stand on the corner shouting "Muslims are paedos" I would argue that unless he's violating noise ordinances or other local laws, he should just be allowed to shout.
Yes you have defended it. Because you are opposed to rules that would make it wrong.

Its also bizarre that you seem to think it more important not to break noise ordinances. We don't want to disturb the neighbours with a big of noise but its perfectly OK to disturb them by chanting for them not to exist, to be sent 'home', to accuse them of crimes, to brand them immoral, etc etc.

Seriously? You are going to have to walk me through the logic on that one
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal 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 11:43 AM.
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.