431–440 of 606 posts
From independent sources, I hear “don’t take a single word we’re saying at face value, verify every claim we make and use critical thinking and research to judge whether you think this is the truth.”
Which approach is more likely to result in a society that values truth and integrity over the long term?
Censorship is also about who you uplift, and substack has been very one-sided here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we are in complete agreement, but for some reason you want to avoid using the word "censorship" in the case of a restriction of speech that you agree with (a restriction you agree with). Sure, free speech has limits. Beyond those limits, censorship is applied. At this point it's just an argument over the definition of words, not very interesting.
Yes and no. Words do matter. Censorship usually (also) refers to restrictions of free speech typical for non-democratic societies [1], which doesn't lead to productive discussions (in my experience). It is not uncommon to see the false conclusion "censorship is used in authoritarian countries therefore free speech must not be restricted". > a restriction of speech that you agree with It doesn't matter whether I agree…
Yes. And this is called... censorship. Even when we, the good guys, do it. You can't just change the definition of words based on whether a western democracy or an authoritarian hellhole does it, when they're doing exactly the same thing.
Edit:
> Censorship usually (also) refers to restrictions of free speech typical for non-democratic societies [1], which doesn't lead to productive discussions (in my experience). It is not uncommon to see the false conclusion "censorship is used in authoritarian countries therefore free speech must not be restricted".
If people make a faulty argument, point out the fault in the argument. No need to change the definition of words so the ground shifts under their feet. FWIW, I think "censorship is a prime feature of authoritarian governments" is a perfectly valid argument against, ahem, restricting free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate the bad, not the people. "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering"
Hateful ideology without followers is just that: ideology to be forgotten in the dustbin of history. It is one's own choice to believe in hateful ideology like racism, sexism or transphobia. No one forces anyone to believe in any kind of ideology - therefore the focus and the blame should be on the people who willingly decide to believe hateful ideology (and, obviously, the spreaders of such ideology). The US has bee…
Still, they are people that should have compassion, that you can call onto.
> No one forces anyone to believe in any kind of ideology
I think you don't understand the common working of religious societies very well, or people in general that would not allow their beliefs to be questioned or think in absolutes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine you have free speech. Yay! Now what? Why was this so important again? Free speech is not an end goal. It's a tool that serves a purpose. In the relationship between a powerful government and a collection of individually vulnerable citizens, it pushes the power balance farther toward the individual. Is the goal to give all the power to the individual? No, that's not the goal. The goal is to have some sort of e…
This is a very utilitarian point of view. I cannot say that I disagree hard, but free speech is more than just a tool. It is part of human dignity, at least for some people: not to be muzzled by somebody else on the account that (s)he is of a) nobler birth, b) dominant religion, gender or race, c) physically stronger, d) elected to decorate some office etc. This is an intangible, but very important human asset. So ma…
As an example, in both Czech Republic and Slovakia denying Holocaust is a crime. I’m sure new examples will come in future, though I hope we will not have to endure another mass horror and/or loss of life for that.
So, how about as a thought experiment we invert the aforementioned construct “allowed = everything except set X” and think of it as “allowed = one giant set Y”. Looks like we believe we must allow only certain things for humanity to exist and progress—so what is the criteria shared by speech in set Y? Random idea; what if it has less to do with what is said but the intent of it? However, the intent can never be communicated perfectly or proven, so it doesn’t seem feasible to restrict based on it, and we have to resort to substance banning instead.
Another thought, if we eliminate all mental issues and insecurities that cause people to attack (and agitate others to join) a group or generally behave in a way that is detrimental to others for personal gain, would we still need to restrict freedom of speech? Or is that an unrealistic scenario generally?
The funny thing is that everyone commenting here thinks that we're headed towards an authoritarian nightmare, but for different reasons. It's not until you sit with someone and nut out what they mean by "authoritarian" and "censorship" and so on that you realise you're completely morally and politically opposed to them. This shallow political take is what allows so many strange bedfellows to unite on the "political r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we must be talking at cross purposes, I didn't say anything about "stupid people", or forcing people to have any particular viewpoint. You seem to be lost in a sea of relative opinion, and of all viewpoints being equally valid/stupid. That's far from always the case. Again, by this logic, we should never address crime because by it's very nature a court case is trying to establish what are or are not real fac…
> Are we too stupid to have courts? I have a slightly different opinion from /u/ cf141q5325's. I think the problem isn't stupidity, it's hunger for power. When you grant someone the authority to decide what other people should do, you can optimize for intelligence all you like, but the ones who will actually _struggle_ to get that position are the ones who want to be able to tell other people what to do. Separation o…
The funny thing is that everyone commenting here thinks that we're headed towards an authoritarian nightmare, but for different reasons. It's not until you sit with someone and nut out what they mean by "authoritarian" and "censorship" and so on that you realise you're completely morally and politically opposed to them. This shallow political take is what allows so many strange bedfellows to unite on the "political r…
Wondering to what extent the growing "left vs. right" divide is mostly artificially created as a distractionary strategy to keep attention away from the very real and growing divide of the Have's and Have-not's. And prolong the unfettered capitalism that nowadays is best-served with flawed democracies or even outright autocracy.
Republicanism vs monarchy, socialism vs capitalism, libertarianism vs authoritarianism, anarchism vs fascism...
It always has been about "power be in the hands of the many" vs "the few". Often there is much nuance to be added, both in the moment and over time as categories are gradual, complex and changing. Some have been more consistent or radical, some focus on a narrower part or are generally more moderate. But it's the same essential struggle but has different faces throughout history.
There is also the issue when hierarchical side dominates, then the divide seems almost arbitrary, because you only get to have radicals of one side and moderates who keep trying to put band-aids over things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Journalists have been serving the interests of moneyed elites since well over a hundred years. It's good that they finally have some competition, even if it means that flat earthers also get a voice. Well, I wouldn't agree with you, as journalists (and here I mean real journalists) are often members of professional organisation and they have code of conduct. Random people on Facebook or influencers doesn't have tha…
> Well, I wouldn't agree with you, as journalists (and here I mean real journalists) are often members of professional organisation and they have code of conduct This is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Clearly there are professional journalists who are not adhering to the code of conduct. So clearly you will claim that they are not "real" journalists, and that journalists are only "real" journalists if they adhere to t…
Just because someone thinks of absurd stuff, doesn't mean this fixes groupthink.
To combat groupthink requires critical analysis, and safety - that is, the group must allow for people who make different (but still logical) points that go against the grain. However, flat earthers do not fall into this category, because they are denying evidence, rather than imagining an alternative theory. Plate tectonics is different, since there's no evidence denying that theory!
I think the populous, in general, really just need to learn the scientific method, and how one discerns truths using evidence (and not fall prey to confirmation bias etc). This requires work, and i feel many do not get taught nor learn themselves.
First online media that removed editor for the homepage and put an algorithm to decide which article is more important than other (based on clicks and shares), we got Kardashians, flat earth believers and everything went sideways. As someone who is 15 years in comms, public relations and media relations, for me, influencers were journalists, not some kid with 1 million followers on Instagram or TikTok. Now they are i…
I'm watching "Dopesick" at the moment, and I'm beginning to understand why people don't trust medical professionals and Big Pharma. Any call to trust journalists should be met with hoots of derision - I've worked with journalists and they (as a general rule) are not interested in "the truth", or in balance, but in creating a good story that will generate interest and go over well on Twitter. There is a fundamental co…