Internal thought police - a very bad idea.
After watching how people in the street would immediately tense up, after being asked a simple question of 'what is a woman?' and tried to give a 'politically correct' answer, you are getting a feeling that they very well know the answer, yet are scared sh*tless of saying it or, probably, even thinking it.
In my opinion such internal blocking of engaging with certain thoughts is a very bad idea, as it noticeably hinders one's ability to think clearly.
What do you think?
In my opinion such internal blocking of engaging with certain thoughts is a very bad idea, as it noticeably hinders one's ability to think clearly.
What do you think?
Comments (289)
I would highly suggest watching some interviews with Mattias Desmet, a Belgian psychology professor, who explores this same phenomenon (closely related to the concept of mass formation) in the context of the covid-19 epidemic.
Here's a link (changed it because I think this one is more interesting):
Socrates had a similar experience when he went round asking people 'What is good?'
[quote=Plato, Apology]Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him. After this I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked,....[/quote] http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
But than they would answer with "it's that thing that you brush your teeth with", instead of "eee... it can be whatever you want to be, who am I to judge?"
People knew who Socrates was, AND they posed as people with "the" answers, that's why his situation is so different.
Another thing: one can say a woman is a fine mind (whic h doesn't conflict that I knew boys and men who were that as well).
If a female is dumb as a door-nail isn't she still a woman?
I'm suggesting my own fallback for when my imagination hasn't caught up / I'm in a hurry, and that it might be of use to some others sometimes too. I certainly wouldn't know who would want to interview me or for what purpose.
Thank you Tzeentch for the video link. Marshall McLuhan dealt with these things as well. As long as one doesn't think the things on your screen are figments of your own mind or vice versa, you can stop the intensity taking away your personality. Bad religion seizing the media and posing as "resurgence" has devastated the world.
Re. anaesthesia I was gassed to have too many teeth taken out (I did need a few out). After that what was meant to be our private light hearted tittle tattle about "sex" was supplanted by creeps in authority (and that wasn't the "sex lesson"), just when Savile was on our parents' screens.
If an M777 isn't witty, has he still got his wits about him? I didn't watch the experiment but what's to preclude wit? Why would you so heavily imply respondents are "wrong to walk on eggshells" when you are doing so yourself?
M777, this is exactly the point I started by making. In protesting how different you are, you would surely allow for them to be their authentic selves and react honestly to their own insight? Have you internalised some dishonesty of your own from around you?
They are not internally blocking or hindering their own thought. They are reacting in a socially appropriate way to a situation that that might lead to conflict and trying to decide the best way to handle it. They have been asked a question that is polarizing and divisive and they don't know who their audience is or how their answer might be used for or against them. Their views on "what is a woman" might be very well formed and thought out, but they refrain from responding simply because they don't care to have that debate or advertise their position.
My comment was that refraining from discussing one's position isn't equivalent to internally suppressing one's position. Whether that behavior is cowardly or prudent has no bearing on my comment.
Not so fast. We've established that you are the street interviewer, himself. Now you try to claim that you are "petty"?
In this example the person being interviewed, instead of refusing to answer, was siding with the bullies, while presumably knowing that their position is delusional.
Is there an intent in this piece of yours? Can you explain it? Would you want to explain it?
:lol:
You took the time to write that comment. Lol
You never cease to amuse me you self important douche bag.
:lol: :lol:
I'd say I am amazed by how easily seemingly grown up people would bend over backwards to cater to some hypothetical bullies.
Stephen King couldn't write a more fragile ego if he tried.
"People can't immediately answer my inane question without giving it any thought society is crumbling reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"
They're not bullies. They're just annoying, so they go ignored. If you stick a microphone in my face and ask me my views of abortion, I doubt I'd respond. If you made a comment trying to provoke a response, I'd probably give a "sure, whatever you say" sort of response. It's not a sign of courage to stand up to every petty battle.
Quoting Streetlight
Like clockwork.
When did conservatives become these giant, wet, crybabies? I blame The Algorithm.
Someone is sour that others are talking about things he doesnât like.
That is you, in pretty much every thread I find you.
Quoting Streetlight
The irony.
Yes, truly so. That's ( their captive mind ) is what fascinates me so much.
I will never not find infinite joy in people getting mad at trivialities as excuses to be bigots.
They are not âhypotheticalâ, it is a very real social concern. There are, right now, people waiting, searching, for anyone to âspeak their mindâ in the wrong way so they can met out social justice. You answer someone in the street today, maybe you end up jobless tomorrow cuz some self important douche appointed themselves the arbiter of opinions. Then they will say something along the lines â freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from consequencesâ or something equally as blind and dumb.
You are right though, it is an act of cowardice.
But you want to silence me, and you want to silence @Streetlight.
I made the allusion to the book The Captive Mind by Cezlaw Milosz, which described the intellectual cowardice of writers and artists in communist Poland. There are parallels worth noting.
I do believe in speaking truth to power, but I see no value in speaking truth to every guy trying to make a TikTok video. If you think yourself heroic in defending your views to every passerby, have at it.
In any event, my views on "what is a woman" are probably close enough to the current politically correct position that I'm not worried about being bullied, yet I still wouldn't answer. When did the idea that people are obligated to discuss religion and politics to every troll become the rule.
Sees so, but on the other hand how did it happen that, at least in the US, the most fragile delusional lunatic deems that is ok to say and what is not, while virtually all sane people cater to their demands.
Than again it is understandable, as a normal person would not spend his time trying to get those lunatics fired, while the lunatics might try doing it to the sane person.
It depends on the person, I see myself strong enough to speak freely and, most important, to entertains ANY ideas freely. For everybody, of course, it is different.
---
A thought that's always crossed my mind is that these sorts of conversations are always motivated by the fear of having affection to someone of the 'wrong' gender, which means the boundaries must be policed very tightly so these people don't go sticking their willy in the wrong hole by accident.
I wouldnt agree that its ââfragile delusional lunaticâ, at least not just on one side of this debate. Sadly most people on both sides of any given debate in the US operate in this fragile deluded state. There are two opinions for most people stateside these days, your opinion and the opinion of your sworn enemies.
There is a complex answer to how that happened, but its the way it is.
Quoting M777
Well one of those people is an activist whose hobby it is to go after people and the other a person trying to navigate the treacherous waters the activist has created.
Actually yes, looking from the European perspective, the American's gun and abortion debate seems to be pretty much artificially constructed.
Naive maybe.
Quoting M777
Clearly not, you feel like folks are trolling you, and you're trying to ignore them. And then you complain that the man in the street treats you the same way.
Political issues are guided by narratives, and narratives are subjective - containing some forms of truth, and some opinions / untruths.
In a healthy society, proponents of different narratives are in constant communication with each other, so as to find out which parts of each narrative are truths and which parts are not. The result is usually that the sides find each other somewhere in the middle, shedding those parts which are most subjective and/or wrong.
In societies where for some reason or another healthy discourse is not possible (for example, because the political establishment greatly favors one side of the debate), this balancing act cannot take place.
There's nothing that can pull the favored narrative back into reality.
And that's sadly not where it ends. Lies and untruths must grow to keep themselves alive (for every time reality is witnessed to be discordant with the lie, another lie must be constructed to keep the narrative afloat), thus we see the extreme ends of the spectrum growing more and more extreme.
This is why self-censorship is so dangerous - people who genuinely disagree with the narrative are the only ones that can attempt to pull it back towards reality.
It is no surprise then, that the worst political ideologies committed their atrocities only after the opposition was silenced - there was no one left who could pull the ideologically possessed masses back into reality.
I probably did a poor job at conveying the full message of Desmet. I'd recommend watching the video I linked eariler to get a better explanation.
Well yes, guess it's easy for me to say, as I live in a relatively sane society ( Latvia, Europe )...
not even sure what Americans could do to fix their society, as having similar crazy activists on the other side, might not be a good solution. Probably the society would need to reevaluate itself and learn to ignore the activists.
What do you think might happen to the west? would it be able to return to its senses or would it crumble, freeing up space for something new?
Some believe a new world power might arise from Poland & Ukraine. We'll see...
Who knows?
Another thing Desmet describes is that this phenomenon of mass formation and totalitarianism (other than classical dictatorships, for example) come from inside the population itself, in other words, we're on a path towards radicalism because people have become more radical, and not only are they fully aware of the dangers, they wish for them, for example censorship, because it protects their radical views. We're in this situation because people want to be in this situation.
Desmet links this to the coldly mechanistic / scientific world view that believes in absolute answers to everything, and that everything, including human interaction, can be understood in simple x + y = z terms - something that in itself sums up the totalitarian way of looking at things. After all, if one believes to have the absolute answer to everything, it is a small step to believe one should allow themselves priviledges over others in order to bend them to this "truth".
Obviously, nothing good can come of this. However, as long as there are people willing and able to speak out this constant pull towards more extremism can be disrupted and hopefully in time some form of balance will be restored.
I might argue that such desires for totalitarianism might come out of one's weakness. A person subconsciously believes he is too fragile to take care of himself, so we wants an all-mighty state to do it for him. Which in turn points to the education system that has turned into a 'safe-space' and it very much against kids solving their own issues, instead of telling an adult.
Well, extreme views are false almost by their definition, so this desire for the use of force to uphold radical ideas is due to the weakness of it - reality itself won't uphold the idea. In fact, reality makes it crumble. The only way such ideas stay afloat is through human ignorance, foolhardiness and brutality - qualities of which there is no shortage within mankind.
Oh, good. Now I don't have to respond. Thanks.
I watched 20 minutes of the video and what struck me is that âmass formationâ was occurring in the pandemic with antivaxers and the like, people who literally died from groupthink. If we canât escape ideology at least we can try to go along with the least stupid ideology.
Bear in mind that antivaxers died for their views, in many cases. Thatâs commitment, or perhaps paranoia. I recall Desmet mentioning paranoia, donât you?
Sounds FOX fake news.
I'd say it depends on the severity of the case. For example, "aaa! Bill Gates will chip us all via vaxing and control us through 5G!!!! AAA!!!" of course is crazy. While looking at the data and seeing that vaxed and unvaxed people were getting Omicron at pretty much the same rate and being not at risk for any complications choosing to not to vaccinate, might be a reasonable decision.
Good. bye bye
Are you saying this as a hypothetical or do you actually believe that the vaccines don't work?
So my policy suggestion would be to inform risk people and provide them with a vaccine if they decide to, yet nothing mandatory, no lockdowns, etc.
Seems like a rather dark place to be in. :(
You got all of that from a single question asked by a hypothetical stranger?
A genius psychologist or...
He is pretty much projecting his dark inner world, yet completely unwilling to understand it. sad story. ;)
:lol: Hilarious. Can't answer a simple question of whether or not you believe the vaccines work.
yet if you are talking about a particular covid vaccine which was developed against delta, its effect against omicron seems rather limited.
"Rather limited" is a bit vague. Could you be more specific and/or say how you've arrived at this conclusion?
Don't let your internal thought police stop you from being specific.
Yet about 10 died, roughly 8 of whom were unvaccinated, 2 vaccinated. So some effect here.
Also me and all my family had Omicron and all of us, ranging from radical vaxxers to radical antivaxxers, had it exactly the same way - like a very mild cold that lasted for about 20 days.
Roughly an 80% death rate for the unvaccinated compared to 20% for the vaccinated. Hmm, that isn't rather limited in effectiveness.
Quoting M777
I'm afraid to ask what that is.
The data is inconsistent with your recollections:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages
Radical vaxxer is someone who makes new booster shots once such are available.
Is your inner thought police making you understate the facts? Internal blockages of this nature are not healthy.
Could you be more specific here?
Wait til we get to climate change. :rofl:
How is this radical intolerance expressed? I haven't heard of any vax riots. I've heard of anti-vax protests.
You should've seen the reactions I got when on this forum I dared to imply that human beings have a right to bodily autonomy, and therefore should be allowed to choose whether to be vaccinated or not.
In a nutshell, an inability to accept anything other than their exact version of the truth.
Just as long as you never have contact with other humans.
That's not very unusual for any discussion around here, actually.
Quoting Tzeentch
With freedom comes responsibility. I'm fond of saying that.
Quoting M777
So yet another thread motivated by gender hysterics. Got it. :yawn:
Sadly true. Where it differs is when the very same insecurity that moves individuals to behave that way manifests in crowds - mass formation.
Quoting praxis
I'm not looking for a discussion on that.
My point is that making a case for individual rights is by no means an extreme position. So why does it elicit an extreme response?
Because it deviates just slightly from the narrative. Enough to imply that the desired carte blanche on the use of power has moral borders.
And the individuals in the mass are subconsciously aware how their moral borders are fading.
Which they are, as evidenced by reactions like these:
Quoting Jackson
I know that's probably a joke, but such reactions weren't uncommon in the discussions I mentioned earlier. Some people genuinely think things like this.
The subconscious knows; the conscious mind doesn't want to know. An internal bomb that's potentially set off by even the slightest deviation of the narrative. No wonder such people become so volatile.
Not a joke. A virus can spread by being near people.
What message?
Again, I've only heard of anti-vax protests. I haven't heard of vax protests or riots.
Quoting Tzeentch
It concerns the spread of serious diseases like polio, smallpox, and the like, and you don't expect people to be up in arms about it???
Anyway, getting back to Desmet's totalitarianism, if the country is divided over something like COVID then how can the state be considered to be in complete control, or even directing the narrative?
Maybe its because the state immediately jumped onto vaxxing bandwagon, so the vaxxers didn't have stuff to protest about. On the other hand, you could have seen lots of BLM, LGBT, anti-gun or pro-abortion riots going on.
The Algorithm exacerbated - inflamed - a pre-existing condition.
Governments are already flirting with forced vaccination. What do they have left to protest for? Gas chambers and concentration camps? Then again, nothing would surprise me at this point.
Quoting praxis
Covid does not belong in the same category as polio or smallpox. And even if it did, I would expect people to take fundamental human rights into account no matter what the subject matter is - not for talking of human rights to become taboo. That's already the writing on the wall.
Quoting praxis
People may be divided, but governments (unsurprisingly) have largely chosen the side of force, ergo lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc.
And it directs the narrative accordingly. News stations which are largely government-controlled provide one-sided information. Unwelcome information is simply suppressed. Perhaps not to the point where it cannot be heard at all, at least not yet, but that's not needed to foster this process of mass formation.
Though, the state is not in complete control. Perhaps the term "totalitarian" suggests as much, but what Desmet is describing is a tendency towards, and not a state of totalitarianism.
It's cute when Lauren Boebert (American Republican representative) says that no one's gonna make her get the Fauci Ouchie, and there's plently more like her in office.
Quoting M777
Where do you get your news???
It's only a simple question if you have no concern at all for persons with gender dysphoria (et al) trying to make sense of their complicated feelings.
In short, if you're a fucking asshole - it's a simple question.
Trump was againts lockdowns, as I recall. Granted he wasn't much of a leader.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's a scary term though, you have to admit, and fear motivates. He said so himself in the video, if I'm not mistaken.
Bears repeating.
It sounds like you've never turned on Fox News. Alt-Right reality is now a caricature of itself. Turn on Fox and see - the simulacrum.
The most popular cable news channel on Earth. Millions and millions and millions of sympathetic viewers tuning out and tuning in.
Certainly.
And whatever impressions about it may linger in our minds, they likely pale in comparison to the horror of the historical reality of it.
What I found particularly interesting about Desmet's theory, is how totalitarianism distinguishes itself from classical dictatorships in that a dictatorship is instated from the top down, by a more or less rational ruler.
Totalitarianism on the other hand springs from the population itself. The population willingly cedes control, willingly gives up its freedom and willingly follows its ideas down into the abyss.
And it's this willingness that I observe in public discourse, and even on this forum. Willingness to ignore human rights, to stigmatize and dehumanize dissenting voices, a desire to see people who think differently suffer, or worse.
It's all very sobering.
It's interesting how a philosophy forum can sometimes nourish low-brow, Right wing populism.
Slavoj ŽiŞek seems to have a better grasp of it, in my inexpert opinion. Desmet seemed almost comically biased.
There's a rash of right-wing hysteria about the woman definition thing going on. I was reading an unrelated news piece today and underneath it was a comment claiming you could be imprisoned in Britain for denying that a woman can have testicles (!). More of the scary totalitarian narrative. The government may try to kill you, so you need a gun, and they will imprison you for speaking 'common sense', so you need to fight political correctness.
Seems to me the banal reality is that the person on the street might hesistate when asked to define a woman because there's no longer a very simplistic definition. Society has injected some nuance into it. And not everyone agrees on the answer. Scary, if you want one simple answer to be true and no one to be allowed to consider the actual complexity of the topic. Speaking of totalitarianism...
Well, no, actually, like most 'politically correct' ideas reactionaries are scared of, it's called progress.
The tie designs are at least sufficiently abominable to accurately reflect the minds behind the marketing idea. :smile:
Fact Check-No evidence of pandemic âmass formation psychosisâ, say experts speaking to Reuters
Quoting Reuters Fact Check
...but of course that's what they would say, isn't it?
:lol:
Well, then, what is a woman according to you?
Those damned leftist radicals over at Reuters.
"Mass formation psychosis" is not an appropriate psychiatric term or a clinical diagnosis to describe "groupthink."
Terms like "mass delusion" and "mass psychosis" are being used inappropriately as pejoratives to denigrate our ideological opponents.
Psychiatric terminology should not be used to advance political agendas.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202201/does-mass-formation-psychosis-really-exist
Exactly.
As for the hypothetical of asking someone on the streetâ Iâm very surprised to find anyone taking that seriously. I see a lot of âif you ask a person anything youâll get hesitation,â and things of that nature. I think thatâs the wrong approach. The right approach is that the question itself, and the hypothetical scenario, is stupid â as is every outgrowth of media-driven right-wing hysteria. The transgender stuff is just one more distractionâ an easy topic that petty minds can agree on and act superior about.
Just for the record, Boebert, MTG, Gaetz, Rand Paul are very reprehensible people for trying to derail lendlease to Ukraine. On the other hand, why should she get the fauci ouchie if she doesn't want to?
Why do you assume one's feelings should trump reality? And a person disagreeing to engage in a falsehood is automatically an asshole?
I think we have CNN/MSNBC for the left wing simulacrum and FOX for the right. Again, I'm not into simulacrums, but so far the left seems to be going further into the abyss, than the right.
How's about a left-wing extremism/populism?
Checkmark.
I am somewhat sympathetic to your concerns. As I see it, influential people are successfully changing the meaning --the 'proper' use -- of some basic words. This annoys a certain type of personality that doesn't like the rules changed without their permission. Very quickly it became a career-ending 'sin' to stubbornly use an old word in the old way. Outsiders happily conforming to the new use are maybe too quick to misunderstand all resistance as some kind of sexual fear. A person can really not mind radical transformations in gender expression...or even puberty blockers...while nevertheless resenting a stifling of critical thought on this issue. I think it's because of polarization that there's little room for nuance. I consider it risky to make even this point. I don't want to be assimilated by either complacent side of the issue that thinks everything is stupidly simple.
The problem here is that normal, sane people just want to live their lives. While people with nothing else to do become activists and try to validate themselves by bullying others. So normal people would rather cave in an inch to the activists, rather than try to oppose them on every stupidity they come up with. That way inch by inch and one day the whole society can't understand how it got bullied a mile by a tiny minority of blue haired nutjobs.
I think a person not minding kids being put on puberty blockers is already deep into the crazy narrative.
For me, the rule of thumb would be "live as you like, but don't force it on others", such as if you want to wear a dress, that's up to you, but don't force others to pretend you are a woman, and, moreover, don't try grooming children into such nonsense.
How would you summarize Zizek's views on totalitarianism, and how does it relate to Desmet's ideas?
What makes you think I don't consider them cunts too?
It's a euphemism designed to protect the fragile views of those who enforce it.
That is the purpose of censorship: not to protect a society from dangerous ideas, but rather to protect dangerous ideas from being scrutinized.
After all, if one is convinced their views are so true and those of the other are so silly, then why fear debate?
Related to this, there is no difference between an 'internal thought police' and censorship. When individuals are stopped from expressing their genuinely held beliefs out of fear of punishment that's successful censorship.
Earlier in this thread this was posted:
Quoting Hanover
This describes the climate for open debate in western society today.
The fact that people are afraid to discuss ideas is precisely the problem. It doesn't matter if topics are polarizing and divisive - such topics are actually the most important to discuss, so that people with different views do not move ever away from each other, but remain in dialogue.
And nowadays people have come to fear dialogue. They either fear that it may test their world views, or they fear the reprisals that come from testing someone else's.
That's not a normal state of being. It implies our world views have become too detached from nuance and reality, and we are subconsciously aware of it.
Most of the normal, sane people I know sympathize with trans people who on the whole suffer far more serious bullying than anything 'a minority of blue haired nutjobs' ever inflicted on anyone. In fact, I don't see much evidence of this PC bullying of the 'man on the street'. And I don't see why it's stupid to, e.g. acknowledge the existence of trans women in recognition that being a woman has a psychological as well as a biological element to it. Seems to me most people either don't care about the issue, are willing to see the nuance there, or, at worst, just don't know what to say about it, and the real minority are those who find it scary, totalitarian, threatening etc. Again, I say there's nothing to be afraid of and people (generally) aren't afraid. But if you contend there is and they are, at least present some solid evidence of the 'bullying' you are talking about, e.g. in the form of surveys or other data. Something that at least might raise the OP beyond pure conjecture.
I would just respond with. âA human being,â I donât think I would feel tense.
One thing is to feel compassion towards a schizophrenic, who believes aliens are hiding under his bed, quite another is to 'affirm' is delusions or, more over, try to force others to 'affirm' them.
So again, most people don't have a problem if a dude walks around in a dress, problems start when they are forced to perceive him as a woman.
Ah, so you are a transphobe.
OP explained then.
Maybe you are veritaphobic - afraid of reality? Or you might be just bigoted towards people with traditional believes, so you try to smear them so that your bigotry would feel justified?
"Transphobia is a collection of ideas and phenomena that encompass a range of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general. Transphobia can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence, anger, or discomfort felt or expressed towards people who do not conform to social gender expectations."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia
I stated a fact, that's all.
These stupid people just going around... existing. Ugh, activism is out of hand.
Isn't a healthy state of affairs if people are afraid to be racist, for example, or do you envision the ideal state where you can go up to someone, spout your racism, and expect appreciation for your openness?
I initially read this OP in the abstract, as if the lament was that people weren't more open in airing their views to random passersbys, but now it seems people just wish they could offend in peace without repercussion.
Yeah, that's not how the world ever worked
I'm not going to get into an argument about it. You've laid your cards on the table and they are there for everyone to make their own judgement about. The OP was already on shaky ground due to a lack of evidence to support its contentions. Now, the discussion has veered into transphobia there's nothing else to say from my point of view.
Originally I was talking about being open to thinking.
As for calling other people names, sane people seem to be very reserved here, yet lefties have totally no problem spewing their bigotry and labeling everybody they disagree with as a Nazi.
I'd add that it is very amusing to watch people being unable to think outside of the concepts that have been installed into their heads.
don't like kids chemically castrated = transophobic = bad = * run in circles, yelling: Nazi! Nazi! *
and than those lefties wonder why people call them NPCs. :D
I don't see where anyone referred to you as a 'Nazi'. I'm leaving the conversation is all as there's nothing else to say. There's no thesis left to debate.
We're all guilty of thought crime, the vast majority of hate speech, and only a minority of crime crime.
I said in a different thread, philosophy is full of ledgers who's writing we do not instantly understand- charity is therefore a good moral standard.
Rather than claiming 'nonsense' or admitting you do not understand, it's perhaps wiser to be lenient and allow what is going to emerge naturally to emerge.
It does not mean be independant of critique, just have a good amount of charity- do not jump to critique.
Instilling petty fear ought be relinquished, to a side, rather than to the front, where it, as you say, blocks.
That's not a healthy state of affairs.
The way to get rid of problematic ideas is to discuss them openly. Thereby its flaws will become apparent. That's the whole point of freedom of speech.
I have no fear that racist ideas will find any traction in open debate. It's in a climate of censorship and polarization where problematic ideas find traction, precisely because the balancing act of open debate is cut off.
Open debate fosters reason and truth, whereas (self-)censorship fosters resentment, further division and hides the problematic ideas manifesting in society.
Seems that the concept of 'racist' is something the left appropriated and slaps onto anybody they don't like, same as transphobe, bigot, nazi, etc.
After thinking about it, I couldn't come to a conclusion - should bad ideas ( like socialism, etc. ) also have free speech? Libertarians would say sure, people would filter out bad ideas. I would say - why do we assume people would be able to do so, instead of being taken over by the emotional appeal of such ideas and ignoring that they don't work in reality.
I like it when you make the dividing lines so clear.
To me, your words âbad ideas (like socialism),â makes you easy to deal with.
Us lefties can see you clearly as a nefarious righty!
I think that the meaning of a word is often more complicated than the simplistic account many try to give it. What is a game? Read some Wittgenstein.
Bad ideas that have emotional appeal may hold some sway, but they won't hold up to scrutiny and open discourse will prevent these ideas from ever becoming too extreme.
The idea that people are too stupid to handle free discourse is a dark world view that is pretty much incompatible with free, open society. I would avoid such ideas.
ok... well yes, in my opinion socialism is a very bad idea. it has been tried multiple times, failed miserably, often forcing the government to use force to sustain it. what's wrong in such understanding?
What a surprise.
I guess this discussion about totalitarianism cut a little too close to home for the folks that run the show on this forum.
No, I haven't got that deep into philosophy as to read Wittgenstein. :) so far reading more public philosopher.
I'm surprised it isn't banned yet. :)
Well, but current leftist ideas somehow got hold by exploiting the 'marketplace of ideas'. Same way Nazis came to power, etc.
It's in such a climate that liberal ideas could be hijacked and perverted into something that's essentially the opposite of liberalism. Things went off the deep end, because no pushback was allowed vis ĂĄ vis 'political correctness.'
How so?
Many use the word âsocialist,â in their political doctrine even though, that doctrine fails the basic tenets involved.
Even the fascist nazis used it.
Autocratic totalitarian/fascist/cults of narcissistic personality systems are not socialism.
True socialists are normally the first to die when popular revolutions are usurped by nefarious individuals and groups. Many who start out as socialist/humanist/democrats get corrupted by money and power along the way. That does not negate principles such as:
From each according to their ability to each according to their needs.
And
To secure for the workers, the full fruits of their industry and control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.
Socialists are not against small business or personal freedom or entrepreneurs.
We are against multimillionaires and billionaires and systems which create and maintain nefarious b*******, who want a âpoor,â majority to use as they please.
And it caved in. So at least it needs some way of strengthening to come back to the mainstream and stay there.
Then maybe there is something wrong, if in real world "good" socialist start a revolution, but immediately are overthrown and killed by nefarious individuals. Such as all Lenin's 'old guard' was pretty much wiped out by Stalin.
Quoting universeness
The only question is who determines what are your abilities and your needs. Pretty soon you might find out that you are able to survive on a few rotten potatoes and can dig the Belamor channel for 16 hours a day.
Lenin was as much of a nefarious narcissist as Stalin.
Lenin had hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed as well. He was no socialist!
Well socialism don't seem to work without killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
All kinds of communes were tried in late 1800s, all failed and got dissolved within a few month. So when done on the country-wide scale the government would have to either admit its failures and return to capitalism or use force against the unhappy people.
I'm generalizing here, but liberal today is starting to become synonymous with authoritarian collectivism, characterized by a disregard for individual rights and fundamentals such as freedom of speech. For strong governments that are given mandates to decide what is truth and what is "disinformation", etc.
A complete perversion of what liberalism is and the principles it is built upon.
True democratic socialism is of, for and by the people.
Very strong checks and balances must be in place. All authority must be removable by a majority of those it represents at any time the majority so chooses to remove them. Your âpretty soonâ scenario cannot be possible under socialism. The possibility of such circumstances are reduced in the UK in comparison with Russia today but neither of those two systems are socialist or humanist, if you prefer as the term âsocialist,â has been so misrepresented to you and is so misunderstood by you.
Perhaps. But censorship would only facilitate a movement to the opposite extreme.
If you believe that a black and white person ought be allowed to marry then you're obviously going to be intolerant of views that oppose interracial marriage and condemn those who voice such a racist ideology.
If such happens and the system involved used the word socialism as itâs intent, then it did fail miserably but that was not down to socialism. The failures happened in the humans involved who tried to set up a successful socialist/humanist system which is fair to as big a majority of those it represents, as it possibly can be.
I agree that all attempts at a global socialist/humanist system have failed but If at first you donât succeed you try try again. You donât surrender to vile systems that maintain inequality and leave main power in the hands of the very few.
I don't think that's necessary to be a liberal just as I don't think it's necessary that a conservative be opposed to an open debate.
And I don't think conservative and liberal are opposites in the way you suggest. An authoritarian would be opposed to open debate, and that's what modern "liberalism" seems to be turning into.
And how is it supposed to work in real life? Why do we assume that the all-powerful government would be ok with being removed by the people, instead of just shooting a few unhappy ones and intimidating the rest?
The best I could come up with is that the censorship should be covert, pretty much like social media algorithms are censoring the people on the right. Of course, it takes a powerful politician, who could ask those companies to reverse their algorithms, which might of course lead to other problems. )
If each attempts costs the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people than maybe you should not try and try again. ;)
Well, that's how attempts to install socialism always end up.
I suggest we base our views on ideas that do not need protection from criticism.
There's no "everything" that liberalism stands for. As I mentioned before, words are often more complicated than the overly simplistic attempts at a definition.
I might believe that interracial and same-sex marriage should be allowed, that transgender people should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, that some drugs like marijuana should be legal to buy, and that we should lobby companies to fire their employees for being neo-Nazis. Am I anti-authoritarian because of the first few views, or am I authoritarian because of the last view?
Or maybe trying to label me as being any one thing is futile. Better to just address the individual views I hold rather than fit me into a specific box.
You demonstrate your misunderstanding of socialism.
Under socialism you cannot get an all powerful government. They would need control over the military and the checks and balances established under true socialism would make that as impossible as possible,
You'd be neither. You'd be applying the principles your views are based on inconsistently, you'd be cherry-picking essentially. It'd be confused and hypocritcal.
How are my views inconsistent/hypocritical/cherry-picking?
I had read lots of materials on how people can be brainwashed. And if one has certain control over the mass media he can make people believe in complete lunacies, like that there are Nazis in Ukraine or that the world will end if it becomes 1 degree hotter. So how do we account for that if not by censorship? For example in my country all Russian tv channels and social media are blocked, which I certainly perceive as a good thing.
In not an all-powerful government, who will ensure the oligarchs don't get to power? I mean socialism without such government would fall apart in a month, with such government it would turn into a gulag. So, nice idea in theory, but won't work in real life.
"... and freedom for all, but only if I agree with you."
Such is not freedom, and such is not liberalism.
Wanting to prosecute people for thoughts in their head is about as far from liberalism as one can get.
No choice as many many more die due to the whims of the nefarious rich and powerful few. This has been true since we left the wilds and became infected by the abuses of such systems as the divine rule of Kings or the demands and whims of those who claimed to represent or speak for the divine.
The existence of the rich few and poor majority is a residue from our âsurvival of the fittest,â Darwinian beginnings. We only acted like that, while we were trying to make a transition from uncivilised to civilised behaviour.
Socialists keep insisting that we can become civilised.
Nefarious capitalistâs seem to prefer the jungle rules.
Time for the human race to unite globally and drag the rich into a civilised socialist/humanist future.
No, I want acceptable things to be allowed and unacceptable things to be disallowed. That principle likely drives every political position: liberal, conservative, authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, etc. The difference lies in which things are deemed to be acceptable and which are unacceptable. I think that interracial and same-sex marriage are acceptable, and that neo-Nazism isn't.
I don't believe in unlimited/unrestricted individual freedom and expression, and I don't think many do.
It will succeed or the human race is doomed.
I think the human race is not doomed.
I think nefarious, narcissists are doomed.
A rather misanthropic, defeatist viewpoint imo.
You can surrender to the dictates of the oligarchs if you want to. Meantime, we socialists will try to save you from your despondent hellish vision of âreal life.â
Sounds nice in theory, but assuming it would work in practice, or at least not end in a disaster, is way too optimistic.
I think the west is pretty much doomed in the long run. A new civilization might come out of Poland/Ukraine. Of course it won't be socialist, yet very hard to imagine how exactly would it be formed.
The thread is progressing, yet your rubbish is still being ignored. :cry:
Again, the problem is that when socialism is tried in real life, the 'good' socialists are used as pawns and than eliminated by very nasty people. So you believe that you will bring good to humanity, but in reality you just pave the way for the likes of Stalin, who will immediately kill you, once you have done your job.
I completely agree. You cannot have the freedom to incite violence nor can you have the freedom to compromise the freedom of others!
How can an individual have total individual freedom when they share space with others?
https://bezmenov.net/
Unlike in the present United States, there will be no place for dissent in future MarxistâLeninist America. Here you can you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being dissident, for criticizing your Pentagon. In the future, these people will be simply squashed like cockroaches. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality. This they donât understand and it will be a great shock for them, of course.
That's OK! I'm having fun shitting on bigots and that's what's important.
That's not a principle that drives liberalism.
The principle that drives liberalism is the idea that individuals and governments are inherently unfit to be arbiters of what is acceptable and what isn't on the behalf of others. (One needs only a brief glance at human history to see where this idea came from.)
They should therefore be kept from interfering in each other's affairs as much as possible.
In an imperfect world inferference obviously is inevitable sometimes, but if your first instinct is to want to interfere, then you're not a liberal.
If you fancy yourself the chosen arbiter of right and wrong, you're not a liberal.
You mean itâs too optimistic for YOU!
Quoting M777
Is that because you live there or nearby?
Quoting M777
Socialists can learn and are born into each new generation. We will learn the lessons of history.
The methodologies employed by the nefarious are becoming more and more familiar over the eraâs.
They can and will be stopped or be diluted towards mere itches.
Ok, can you explain how you see it in practice?
Quoting universeness
I live nearby, in Latvia, so of course I have a steak in the game. :) I think people in both Poland and Ukraine are very tough and self-reliant, so once the west crumbles, they might pick up the torch.
The opposition donât intimidate me with such bleatings from their favourite sheep, financed for public consumption. They do infect and cow some but socialists can combat their propaganda very well.
Fringe right wing freaks have always been around.
Look what happened to the more extreme examples such as Lord Haw Haw or Joseph Gobbels.
Quoting Tzeentch
Which is why I said "[o]r maybe trying to label me as being any one thing is futile. Better to just address the individual views I hold rather than fit me into a specific box."
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, and trying to prevent things like the resurgence of Nazism is an inevitable interference.
Quoting Tzeentch
I think a better account is offered here:
If a liberal believes that there is a good reason for a company to fire its neo-Nazi employees then lobbying a company to fire its neo-Nazi employees is consistent with with their liberal views.
Yes I can but not on this thread. I would reserve that for a PM exchange between us if you wish.
Unless you want to start a new thread on the doctrine of true socialism. There is a political category on TPF but I think the idea is to discuss the philosophical aspects of politics. A PM exchange would probably be preferred by those here who prefer âphilosophic discourse,â to be the mainstay on TPF.
Especially when they can call anybody they want a neonazi. :D
I think this thread went off-topic a long time ago, so adding some discussion of socialism here won't be a problem.
From my point of view, you seem as a good person, who wants the best for people, unfortunately you are so blinded by this wish that you completely ignore any limitations imposed by reality.
So again, I have no doubt that you can describe socialism in a very attractive way in philosophical terms on paper, problem start when one tries to implement it in reality. ;)
There are tough resilient humans everywhere, itâs got very little to do with nationality.
Quoting M777
Really? Thatâs your projection of what I typed. Such projection borders on the irrational!
Probably just another exhibition of the victim complex which drives these people to imagine they are being bullied by imaginary scenarios they made up in their heads.
These poor people would have no identity without their their self-sanctifying persecution complex.
It has to do with culture and experience. So a 20 year old kid attending gender studies in UCLA has a slightly different experience from his Ukrainian counterpart, firing Javelins into Russian tanks.
Quoting universeness
Not every understandable what you mean.
For what itâs worth, I agree with many of the words you type and I understand why you use angry words at times but you donât really need them as you often make very good points without the angry words.
I use angry words myself sometimes.
They're mad because they're not allowed to have their pity-party in peace.
That is kind of you to say. I donât think I am the naive neophyte you suggest. I have been politically active since my teenage years. I am also 58 and I consider learning about and contributing to, the struggle for a âbetter life,â for all humans and improved stewardship of Earth, to be the most honourable goal there is. If I die or I am killed in pursuit of such then others will easily replace me.
Be part of the solutions not part of the problems.
Places like TPF at least allow us to debate about what the solutions are and I (and I hope you to) enjoy doing that.
:smile: Your streetlight offers illumination for all those walking around in the darkness of the night time streets.
I am Scottish, we have a bloody history just like most nations. I would fight against any invader of my country just like the Ukrainians are doing.
What??
Yes, Scots certainly are brave people. As I remember Uberboyo is also Scottish, his interpretation of Jung and Nietzche seem very beneficial. https://youtu.be/0Vb2wPkuX_A
Many of us do not want your help. A moral busybody is never a welcome addition to politics, and one who believes he can solve the worldâs problems through political tinkering and is mad.
Pretty much sums it up. Nobody likes oligarchs, bet replacing Soros with Stalin certainly won't be a step in the right direction. :)
You will not be surprised to read that I tend to gravitate towards those who welcome help.
If itâs not wanted then I will withdraw it from such individuals. Perhaps they will be honourable enough to show gratitude if they benefit from the work that socialists do.
Watched some of the link you offered. The narrator sounded Irish to me not Scottish and his rhetoric was a bit too evangelical, in style for me. How many times can one narrator say âsoul,â during a 35 min clip?
I'm skeptical about such blockers myself, but that's beside the point.
Quoting M777
In general I sympathize with that principle. Let's test it. Imagine a progressive professor who starts referring to all of her students as 'she.' Would you have a right to complain?
Thatâs fair. But as far as I can tell charity and helping isnât common to the domain of socialism. Itâs more about economics.
Btw, nice papal garb in your icon!
Is that you favourite weekend costume?
I would prefer to stick with the language the way it is. So men as addressed as a "he", women as "she".
Thatâs not my experience. I find humanists and socialists share many goals.
If you replace with an identical then you will get the same result. I see little difference between a western billionaire or an eastern one who also happens to be a Russian dictator. I am sure Putin and Elon Musk would find they had a lot in common if they chatted for long enough.
SORRY! I clicked on your icon and saw it was a jesters garb! A good reminder for me to check carefully before commenting. I thought it was a cardinal sitting in a chair!
Made me assume you were a devoted theist.
Even if you are, I apologise anyway!
:blush:
Hmm... not sure how did you come to such conclusion. :D
Again, it's not that people don't detest Gates or Soros, but people just understand that any attempts to install socialism would end up with Stalin/Chavez/PolPot/Mao/kimjonun, etc. so of course they prefer to stick with the devils they know.
Of course, any excuses of "no, no, this time we are smarter, we won't let it happen again, this time I promise we would bring in the utopia!" are just delusional.
That doesn't address the point being made. If your rule of thumb is "live as you like, but don't force it on others," surely that means that I'm free to use words how I like and you shouldn't force the way you use words on me? If I want to use the word "she" to refer to everyone then I have the right to do so?
Yes. Free speech goes both ways. But one should never seek to censor her.
I think that's a common enough preference. But should that personal preference trump the professor's right to express their view of the world (which is perhaps that all humans are essentially female in some non-biological sense) ? Forcing others to conform to your pronoun preference (which you have not suggested, I should add) would seem to be hypocritical. It's not clear that tradition alone could give your traditional preference any more weight in such a situation, though one might argue that it's the innovator's burden to justify changes in linguistic norms.
As I see it, words primarily have their meanings as proprieties of use. Such meanings can and do change. We can decide as a group that 'male' and 'female' no longer refer to things like XY and XX, and of course many of us already have, so that dissenters are not welcome. It's not insane to suggest such a change, even if you can find some careless types on either side who really haven't sorted out the various issues here.
I appreciate the consistency.
I think that if my name is Michael but my professor insists on calling me Mary despite knowing my name then the university has the right to discipline her.
Both rich and control massive powerful organisations.
Both influence the lives of millions.
Both have access to very powerful tech.
Both can influence global politics
Both are narcissistic b*******
Quoting M777
I personally would not have included Chavez in your group of villains but all the others are totalitarians and always were. They are NOT or EVER were socialist.
The Russian and Chinese revolutions did have socialist beginnings but there was no serious attempt in either example to set up a socialist system.
These are not âattempts at a socialist system,â itâs just mostly western propaganda to suggest they were.
Itâs a similar claim to the theistic claim that such systems are also âwhat happens when the atheists are in charge.â
Total BS.
As a teacher, this is my solution to all the pronoun angst. Just use proper names, especially those chosen by the students. No one is (yet) objecting to that, even if a Derridean jester reminds us that names are unripe toetags.
(I did not go to Shore, for the record for any Australians here).
SO oppressed.
I think you are joking, but this is maybe a tricky issue. It's hard if not impossible to get by without linguistic norms (like those gendered terms of respect you mentioned). But it's also hard to make everyone happy. I think it'd be fair for a student to want to be called 'Mr' or 'Ms' in any context where they can't call me by my first name. But that might indicate a shift in the status of teachers.
Yes, I was joking. Mocking those who believe in unrestricted free speech. As if students having to call their teachers "sir" or MPs in the UK having to refer to their colleagues as "the Right Honourable" or people having to wait their turn to speak at a town hall is some tyrannical attack on human rights.
I'm not trying to fit you in a box. We are discussing what liberalism is.
Quoting Michael
Imposing one's views on others under the guise of fighting nazis.
Come on.
Even if you genuinely believe that, your choice of censorship and ostracization are extremely poor ones, and haven't done anything to stop it over the course of nearly a century.
This is about accountability, and that certainly is a part of what liberalism considers legitimate governance.
This description leaves the philosophical fundation of liberalism unaddressed; why must power be kept in check and constantly demanded to account for its actions?
Because man and by extension the governments they control can only make decisions based on highly subejctive, flawed ideas of reality, making man and by extension governments extremely poor arbiters of reasonableness on behalf of others.
Within the ideas of liberalism, government is a necessary evil and not a means to an end.
A liberal understands that when people are free, they will sometimes use that freedom to do things we don't like. And that's the price of freedom. Freedom of speech means sometimes people will have reprehensible ideas. So what? As long as they're not infringing upon people's fundamental rights they can entertain all the ideas they want.
I was referring to the exchange where you referred to my views as being hypocritical.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, there hasn't been another Hitler so maybe it has stopped it. We might not have stamped out Nazi ideology entirely but by censoring and ostracising those who promote it we're making a good effort to push it mostly into the fringe, which is a good thing.
Quoting Tzeentch
Because as the article says, via Mill, "the a priori assumption is in favour of freedom." But such an assumption doesn't then mean that there's never a good reason to restrict freedom.
This is a better account of liberalism than your account that somehow entails that liberals must support unrestricted freedoms.
The idea that people should be free only if it suits one's opinions is certainly a hypocritical idea.
Quoting Michael
You give yourself too much credit. I think people looking at history and deciding for themselves that nazism is probably not the road we want to go down did a lot more to ensure nazism moved to the fringes. Ostracising and censorship probably did very little.
What it did do is create the type of climate in which extreme ideologies take root. Perhaps not nazi ideologies, but they weren't the only ones that were problematic.
Quoting Michael
True. Yet at the same time a liberal must recognize there are certain rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, that are fundamental, a human right and shouldn't be infringed upon. And that's for several good reasons, one of which being that a climate of ostracization and censorship breeds polarisation and extremism, instead of combatting it.
Quoting Michael
I never claimed as much.
Quoting Michael
Because as I argued before, the term "liberal" was hijacked by unsavory individuals who in fact aren't liberal at all - much the opposite. They behave like little tyrants that believe their view is best and that it should be imposed on every one else through government force. They're the antithesis to liberalism.
Well I never expressed that idea so I don't understand the relevance of this comment.
Quoting Tzeentch
They don't have to. A liberal can agree that perjury should be a crime, that an employee who tells trade secrets to a competitor should be fired, and that a parent who verbally abuses their child should be condemned and maybe even have their child taken away from them.
Quoting Tzeentch
Sorry, unrestricted freedom of speech.
Quoting Tzeentch
I don't know what you mean by "imposing a view on everyone else through government force" so I don't know how to address that.
You did.
Didn't you want to lobby against people who have neonazi thoughts in their head to get them fired from their jobs?
That's actually even worse, since it implies the law isn't enough to exact the type of revenge you're after.
Quoting Michael
Quoting Michael
If one is so afraid of words that one believes speech should be restricted according to one's fancies, one is, again, not a liberal.
And before you come with caricatures about yelling fire in a theatre: freedom of speech is about being able to express one's genuinely held beliefs in a civil manner, and I believe there should be no restriction on that, nor that any individual is able to impose reasonable restrictions on that.
Quoting Michael
Political opinions are opinions about what one believes governments should force other people to do.
When you say "I believe xyz" in relation to a political opinion, what you're saying is "I want my government to force people to act more in accordance to xyz".
It's good that we're discussing this, because apparently the nature of what government is is not clear.
There's a meaningful difference between "people who promote Nazi ideology should be fired" and "people who disagree with me should be fired". I asserted the former, not the latter.
Quoting Tzeentch
There's nothing civil about Nazism or racism or homophobia or transphobia. Expressing one's beliefs in a "civil manner" is about more than just tone but also about content. Telling my boss calmly and with a smile that I think he's a "fucking nigger" doesn't make me civil, and he'd be right to fire me.
Quoting Tzeentch
So what exact examples do you have in mind? Because boycotting some business and posting condemnations on Twitter because their CEO is a racist (which is the sort of thing that happens nowadays) isn't the same as wanting the government to force people to behave a certain way.
Quoting Tzeentch
Or I just think that saying that Jewish people should be killed doesn't warrant prison time but does warrant being fired from Starbucks. Not sure how that's worse...
What are nazis other than individuals whose views you strongly disagree with?
Assuming everyone in the example of moving within the bounds of the law I disagree there's a meaningful difference, if there's even a difference at all other than your subjective judgement about what are acceptable thoughts to have and views to hold.
Again, I disagree that individuals are able to make such distinctions to the extent that they should be given power over other people's fundamental rights.
Quoting Michael
I disagree.
Civil means in a non-disruptive way, so as a part of a normal discussion. And I believe in such a setting every idea should be able to be discussed, no matter how reprehensible I may find it.
Quoting Michael
Why would purposefully insulting someone be considered a civil way to express one's beliefs?
Quoting Michael
If one holds the political opinion that some views should not be able to be freely expressed, one desires for their government to enforce limitation on freedom of speech, which means it has to threaten people into not expressing those views. That's how governments function.
One expresses this desire by voting, activism, etc.
However much one may be convinced of the soundness of their views, it doesn't change the nature of how governments function and how one attempts to use it to impose those views on others.
Quoting Michael
No, in a sense it's way worse, because you're going out of your way to try and exact revenge and punishment upon people for behaviors that are perfectly legal, even enshrined as fundamental rights in the constitution and human rights legislation.
I think that's morally reprehensible.
If you were to try and enact your changes by means of the democratic process, at least it would have some semblance of legitimacy.
EDIT: Discrimination by this hypothetical CEO would be against the law, at which point one only needs to provide evidence for this crime for the system to do its job and uphold the law.
I don't understand your question.
If you say "we have the right to say what we like" should I interpret that as "we have the right to do whatever I believe we should be able to do"? If not then why are you interpreting me saying "we have the right to fire people for saying this" as "we have the right to fire people for disagreeing with me"?
Quoting Tzeentch
You're right, why would it? So why would someone saying "transgender men aren't men" be considered a civil way of expressing one's belief when it purposefully insults transgender men?
Quoting Tzeentch
So you're saying that I shouldn't lobby a business to convince them to fire their employee for being a racist? That my speech is morally reprehensible? I don't quite understand how you balance this apparent contradiction in your position. I have the natural right to condemn and ask for someone to be fire don't I?
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
It's not me saying you should have a right to freedom of speech. It's mankind as a whole deciding that freedom of speech belongs to a list of things governments should uphold in order to guarantee a baseline of humanity.
In that list are also things like "legitimate governments shall not commit genocides", and that should probably tell you something.
Quoting Michael
Because it's not an insult, regardless of how one may interpret it.
Saying the world is round may offend a flat earther. It doesn't make it an insult.
I guess for transgenderism specifically it's unfortunate their stake in reality is so closely related to their identity, to the point of which any discussion about that reality becomes an insult to them.
Quoting Michael
People may use their freedom to do things I find morally reprehensible.
And I'm fine with that, assuming it doesn't infringe upon the freedoms of others or break the law.
That's the essence of liberalism you see.
Basically I agree with you. But it seems this same argument cuts both ways. Assuming that gender expression is otherwise unconstrained, it seems that keeping pronouns tied to biology is just tradition, just words, etc. Being offended by having to use the 'wrong' pronoun seems adjacent to being offended by having the 'wrong' pronoun used. Some would like to give control over the pronoun to the referent, others to the user. In general, the referent is perceived, probably correctly, as more vulnerable, so that it's easy to forget the symmetry mentioned above (it's all just bitching about linguistic norms, which is seemingly only as important as we make it out to be.)
I agree in general but I would refuse to use BS titles of nobility. No matter if it was based on the vile UK honours system or a family inheritance.
I would not bow to the queen or refer to a moron like Alan Sugar, as Lord Sugar. I would respect a title such as judge, professor, doctor etc but not ever king, queen, lord, pope etc or Sir something. I would use sir but not Sir Alan or such.
Bad comment :down:
You seem to be arguing that because I disagree with Nazism then when I claim that someone should be fired for being a Nazi then I am claiming that someone should be fired because I disagree with them. That's a non sequitur. I was trying to offer a similar misinterpretation of your claim to explain the fallacy.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes it is.
Quoting Tzeentch
I don't understand this. Gender identity is an identity, and so the reality of their gender is their identity.
Quoting Tzeentch
And this is where we disagree. I don't think liberalism requires that morally reprehensible speech be tolerated. As I alluded to before, one can be liberal in one area but not another. I'm liberal with respect to marriage if I support interracial and same-sex marriage. I'm liberal with respect to drugs if I support drug legalisation. I'm liberal with respect to the economy if I oppose regulations. I don't see a problem with someone referring to themselves as a liberal if they are liberal in many areas, even if they're not liberal in one or two others.
In the US, this is a conservative position. Liberals are pro-regulation.
Would you include the German babies killed during the allied bombings of Germany under your;Quoting Streetlight
comment?
Yes, that's the very problem with labels like this. It's not as straightforward as some would like to make it. Are Libertarian Republicans liberal or conservative?
And isn't that exactly what's happening? You disagree with someone's views and therefore seek to get them fired?
Seems like a perfectly sound depiction of what you told me.
Quoting Michael
I am not looking to get into a discussion about transgenderism.
My point is that expressing a view about the nature of reality is not an insult, even if someone is insulted by it. You have views on a subject, and someone else may have a different view. If the discussion alone is reason to take offense then one is perhaps too fragile and should think twice before partaking in public discourse.
Quoting Michael
Freedom of speech is a liberal pillar, and a fundamental human right as enshrined in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stating:
A liberal that's against freedom of speech is basically missing the entire point. We could have a page-long discussion about why freedom of speech is fundamental - the whole idea that free exchange of ideas counteracts extremism, etc. but I don't think more discussion would get us much further.
I thank you for the discussion as it was heated but fair. :pray:
I'll read your response if you choose to reply.
The tend to be in cahoots with anti-regulation conservatives.
Good, I am glad you struggle with the concept. It will help you understand that many good German people died in WW2 as well. All those killed by the actions of the allies were not guilty nazis. I hope for all our sakes that most were but perhaps you will see why your comment about bombing Germany was a bad one.
I don't struggle with the concept. The concept is nonsensical and therefore there is nothing to struggle with. And last I checked I said I was pro bombing Nazis.
Was there a tech during WW2 I never knew about.
The bomb that only kills nazis?
Understandable. But someone who cares about free speech might forgo the authorities and take a different approach, for instance reasoning with the speaker.
If I did not find your original comment bad then I would not have posted my opinion against it, so obviously I considered it ambiguous at least if I already labelled it bad. My opinion has not changed and I think your attempts to explain have been poor and leave me with the opinion that you can be a mere âshit stirrer,â at times just because being like that is a âbuzz,â for your, at times, skewed character.
Your streetlight can flicker at times. Flaw in your machine?
Itâs interesting to me that you chose to use the term âmurderâ nazis as opposed to kill or even âjustly execute.â
Weâre those who killed nazis, murderers?
It depends how good you are at using ridicule.
If you use it like an uncontrolled sledgehammer instead of a precisely controlled scalpel then most people with categorise you as being part of the same problem as those you target.
Always âthose peopleâ? Never you?
Not very politically correct I know, but the trick to not being politically correct - which I'm all for - is that you aim it at assholes and not the vulnerable.
So you obfuscate rather than answer my questions directly. I did not ask you to repeat your opinion of dead nazis.
If you are just a âsledgehammer,â then you are of limited use to those who are trying to make real change for the better of all, to happen asap.
I am sure you will be useful, anytime a blunt tool is required. I have found some of your posts insightful and accurate but you can employ very skewed logic as well.
I am sure your opinion of my posts are not exactly revelational either. It takes all kinds to make a world.
Very large variety in a vast number of combinations, makes anomalies common.
Consider me a varietal.
Ok!