31–40 of 53 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why many countries have a public figure with limited political power, such as British queen or German president. They serve as a "conscience of the nation".
I'm French and I prefer very much 'liberté, égalité, fraternité' as a moral standard than British's queen/king who are definitively not equal with their subjects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I should've also pointed out there is also obviously a huge difference between not going to see a movie someone made and beating someone. Also, it's still out of the kid's control, depending on age (parents supply the food) so it's not a great example.
Depending on circumstances, boycotting a person and running his (or her) career may cause more suffering than beating. While these two situations are different, they have a lot in common: - the casus belli often has nothing to do with the bully. Being fat is my problem (unless you sit next to me in the airplane). Me cheating my wife is between two of us. None of that should be anyone's business - the purpose of both…
I say no: at some point I don't want to be 'entertained' by someone I despise, even if I understand that this also impacts the rest of the band..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why many countries have a public figure with limited political power, such as British queen or German president. They serve as a "conscience of the nation".
I'm French and I prefer very much 'liberté, égalité, fraternité' as a moral standard than British's queen/king who are definitively not equal with their subjects.
Like the German or Israeli presidents
There are two types of social force: physical violence, and attack on reputation (shaming). However imperfectly, we instantiated The State as a monopoly on violence, subjecting violent force to The Rule of Law; while the success of that enterprise is hotly contentious, it's fair to say it works at least sometimes (exonerating some innocents who might simply be killed under pure tribal dynamics; allowing some who are…
Where does libel fit into your theory? Libel being saying unflattering untruths, which I guess is more akin to violence, whereas you are talking about exaggerating or taking to the extreme the saying of unflattering truths or maybe ambiguously true statements, things that ride the line of fact and opinion. I think I agree that we haven't decided how to draw the line. Of course, when I think of embarrassment as a puni…
The desire to punish cheaters is ancient and instinctual; but the other side of that coin is shaming a violator of norms (whether guilty or innocent) is also a group bonding experience, and potentially a selfish means for signaling one's moral high ground to the tribe. Rene Girard's Scapegoat Theory presents an interesting model of the phenomenon: https://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/#H3
There are two types of social force: physical violence, and attack on reputation (shaming). However imperfectly, we instantiated The State as a monopoly on violence, subjecting violent force to The Rule of Law; while the success of that enterprise is hotly contentious, it's fair to say it works at least sometimes (exonerating some innocents who might simply be killed under pure tribal dynamics; allowing some who are…
>If we don't find a way to solve that problem, however imperfectly, we'll have to learn to live with a certain degree of unjust collateral damage, both to individuals and our social infrastructure. On the bright side, the collateral from such situations is not always entirely negative. My (imperfect) words once fell "victim" to shaming on a popular social media website; while there was a large downside associated wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We used to have a way to deal with reputational attack, the duel. If a gentleman's reputation is attacked, he may demand satisfaction from the offender. The offender could reject the duel at the cost of being known as a coward. If the duel is accepted, honer is restored to the victor of the duel. So much more elegant, faster, cheaper then the current system of lawyers and judges and various other third parties who al…
Curiously the duel died out. There is a field in Gloucestershire where the last UK duel was held and it was a very long time go. I don't think the law was the reason for the demise of 'the duel', I also wonder if it loomed larger in literature than in life. Although a 'bit silly' I think there is also something to be said for 'the duel'. Participants have 'skin in the game'. Plus there is conduct and rules that you d…
"Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the people we do." I think this is the entire message of this article, and its one I wholeheartedly agree with too - suppression of speech, be it governmental or by internet mobs is detrimental to a free society.
What do you think about Popper's paradox? The reason I ask is because even the philosophers behind free speech didn't see it as a blank check for every expression, and agreed that there are situations where a free society benefited from speech being curtailed.
Second, it's doubtful that allowing intolerant speech makes a society intolerant. After all, the society became tolerant when intolerant speech was allowed and accepted - why would this process now reverse itself?
And if it did reverse itself, perhaps there's a good reason for it - perhaps voters aren't happy with the fruits tolerance bore. It's a bit undemocratic to say that free speech philosophers know best how a society should be structured, and if the populace disagrees, they'll be censored until only permitted ideas may be expressed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curiously the duel died out. There is a field in Gloucestershire where the last UK duel was held and it was a very long time go. I don't think the law was the reason for the demise of 'the duel', I also wonder if it loomed larger in literature than in life. Although a 'bit silly' I think there is also something to be said for 'the duel'. Participants have 'skin in the game'. Plus there is conduct and rules that you d…
Sorry If I misunderstand, but wasn't this form of dueling with real pistols where the loser most often (almost always?) died? Or did they have non-lethal duels?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depending on circumstances, boycotting a person and running his (or her) career may cause more suffering than beating. While these two situations are different, they have a lot in common: - the casus belli often has nothing to do with the bully. Being fat is my problem (unless you sit next to me in the airplane). Me cheating my wife is between two of us. None of that should be anyone's business - the purpose of both…
In France there's a famous singer who beat a woman to death, by the same logic this is private business between him, the justice and the woman's family? I say no: at some point I don't want to be 'entertained' by someone I despise, even if I understand that this also impacts the rest of the band..
But if you start a public campaign to boycott his concerts in order to punish him further, that is akin to bullying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think about Popper's paradox? The reason I ask is because even the philosophers behind free speech didn't see it as a blank check for every expression, and agreed that there are situations where a free society benefited from speech being curtailed.
Paradox of tolerance? I think it's built on shaky foundations at best. It assumes that tolerance is the highest value, to which other values (e.g. free speech) can be sacrificed, if necessary. If you value freedom of speech higher, you would not make that sacrifice. Second, it's doubtful that allowing intolerant speech makes a society intolerant. After all, the society became tolerant when intolerant speech was allow…
> why would this process now reverse itself?
Are you trying to argue that the process never does reverse itself? Because that does happen.
> And if it did reverse itself, perhaps there's a good reason for it - perhaps voters aren't happy with the fruits tolerance bore. It's a bit undemocratic to say that free speech philosophers know best how a society should be structured, and if the populace disagrees, they'll be censored until only permitted ideas may be expressed.
Thats what the makers of the Weimar Constitution thought.