871–880 of 882 posts
> "[A]ny process for deciding which ideas to ban is bound to make mistakes. All the more so because no one intelligent wants to undertake that kind of work, so it ends up being done by the stupid." This is pg conflating conformity (because conformists* would largely be the ones choosing to undertake the work of deciding which ideas to ban) with stupidity, which... is pretty telling... and wrong. Intelligence (to the…
People spend so much time on the "meta-conversation" about the ecosystem of ideas, and so little time talking about the actual ideas themselves. What are these repressed debates people are so anxious about? Is it just race stuff?
I have wondered about that. What is your guess ? ( other than race)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right militarizing). If I had to choose between “cancel culture” versus militarized violence, cancel me any day.
I see you slipped the word "violence" in there. Perhaps you misspelled "defence"? The State is the primary perpetrator of violence, not "the right". You shouldn't be thinking in "left vs right", but in "individuals vs the state". The only things sitting between your liberties and the State are: its constitution (if any), and the "militarized right" (gun owners). There's some historical examples of individuals giving…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Punished by the state specifically. I don't see how you could enforce speech _not_ having social consequences, nor what the purpose of such speech would be if that were possible.
If that is the case, then free speech is not in danger. As you say, "the liberal-Left are aggressively exercising their intolerance". The liberal left is not in power in the government. So are they not just exercising their free speech?
I will admit:
a) individuals and groups should be able to withdraw their co-operation, money and labor from other individuals or groups with whom they disagree. b) the examples which have happened in the recent flare-up fall squarely into a)
However, where things get complicated is the definition of the state and how practical control is exercised over what can and cannot be said. The state is more than just the government, it is also traditionally the press, the army, the judiciary and the clergy.
We are an 'interesting' situation now where the function of the press is to a large extent assumed by Facebook, Google and (indirectly) CloudFlare and the ISPs. Concretely they can prevent the spreading of information, the publication of ideas for reasons that they deem justified.
The power to suppress and censor ideas has been exercized against what some would characterize as 'right wing' causes such as the publication of anti-semitic 'hate speech'. It has also be exercized against 'left wing' causes such as the publication of footage and reporting showing the massacres of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army.
The only unique, useful thing about the internet is the possibility that it offers in allowing us to circumvent the censors. With that we get access to the Wikileaks material, the details of financial crimes carried out by our politicians and business people. We also get mis-information and pornography.
The calls to boycott Facebook come from disparate places: government functionaries and political parties who wish to discipline the internet and control the narrative (no more upsetting the funding model, no more embarassing leaks showing our boys murdering civilians); activists who wish to protest specific social issues.
In order for their wishes to become concrete there needs to be mechanism/s put in place by Facebook, Google, CloudFlare that enable them to suppress information: for good or bad reasons.
The people who will be in control of these mechanisms are the people who got us here.
The next round of popular protests won't happen because we will not have seen the video of a human being shot in their car or having their neck crushed.
Tools of centralized power are used by those in power. That's not likely to be you and me.
1) https://newrepublic.com/article/158346/willful-blindness-rea...
Loved this essay. The phrase “aggressively conventional minded” is genius, and may contribute a lot towards the solution. As someone coming from an ex-soviet state, I’ve felt personal alarm bells ring more and more, as I experience the kind of intolerance and double speak America is heading into. Both the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right…
Some ideas are dangerous, and closely tied to both actions and policies. It is the responsibility of smart, powerful and conscientious people to acknowledge that. I am not saying that dangerous ideas should not be discussed. But we should be careful what we say in public. How should society regulate pedophilia, if at all? Nambla has opinions about that. Does Paul draw the line at legalizing pedophilia? Does he advoca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you are conventionally-minded. ;-)
Disagreeing with PG on HN is rather contrarian... ;-) That said, going against the flow as a matter of habit or policy is just as predictable as being conformist. Yet he doesn't appear to see that, or at least doesn't address it and places in the 4th quadrant those who are always breaking the rules "because they're there"...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Remember, the term "fake news" was conjured by left-wing media in response to Trump's election victory, referring to up and coming media companies which were eating away at their numbers This is completely untrue and a deliberate reframing of Donald Trump's actions in the most benevolent possible light. "Fake news" referred to actual fake news. Like 5G causes coronavirus, Hillary Clinton runs a secret pedophile rin…
> "Fake news" referred to actual fake news. Like 5G causes coronavirus, Hillary Clinton runs a secret pedophile ring and literally kills people fake news. This is part true, but not the entire story. "Fake news" was a reaction to Trump's rise in popularity. It was an attempt to censor alternative news sites which were taking numbers away from establishment media. The obviously-fake-news/conspiracy websites weren't wh…
Trump very successfully changed the association of the term to refer to any unfavorable coverage of him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t speak for the states but I feel strongly that the aggressive conformists are gaining ground on several levels of society. One can avoid the worst of it if as you say one stays away from certain threads online and I’ve personally taken steps to do so but the way it has started to permeate broader academia and work places is creating a real problem which needs to be addressed and the fact that sensible people a…
It hasn't started permeating academia - the thing started its life in academia. Most of the newspeak and the mobs' grievances are rather directly born of "critical theory" born at the Frankfurt School. This is a bun that's been in the oven for decades. The critical theory was originally a tool for a philosopher to use, a lens to view things through or toy for them to play with: A way to look at things as power dynami…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see the similarities, but one big difference is that the Red Guards were created by Mao as a way to purge the party of his enemies and reshape society to serve him more fully. What's happening in the US emerging from below, without anyone orchestrating it.
>one big difference is that the Red Guards were created by Mao as a way to purge the party of his enemies... No -- that's not the case, and that's precisely why I think the parallel to what is happening now is so strong. The Red Guards started in 1966 as a student movement. They later developed a manifesto, which Mao thought he could leverage to his own advantage, so he endorsed its broadcast. This fanned the flames…
This is a massive understatement of what Mao's support and endorsement meant, and understating the "organic” nature of what happened after.