Heresy

Post by virgilp » Mon, Apr 11, 2022, 7:16 AM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #856

slibhb wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just as disqualifying as the x-isms from the left, if you care about staying in the good graces of convention on the right The question isn't "staying in good graces". While people should have friends with whom they disagree, the topic here is heresy . Heresy leads to punishment that goes beyond social consequences. At this point, it's hard for me to know how to respond to people who remain skeptical of the th…

> The question isn't "staying in good graces". While people should have friends with whom they disagree, the topic here is heresy. Heresy leads to punishment that goes beyond social consequences. Potayto potahto. I was talking about the same thing that the article called "heresy". My claim isn't that shunning and social pressure doesn't exist or isn't a problem. I'm just a bit skeptical that it's a lot worse now than…

Post by watwut » Mon, Apr 11, 2022, 7:54 AM UTC

Beltalowda wrote: post #414

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with this argument is the free speech "is at an all time high if you zoom out a bit". This is much like the argument, "gun violence is at an all time low if you zoom out a bit" argument. Both of these statements are true in the macro, but if you look at the trends, they point to a very disturbing line. The call for the restriction of free speech on the right(1) and the left (2) have increased in v…

It just puts things in perspective; I'm not saying it's not something to be worried about, but you can both worry about something while also keeping the historical perspective in mind. There is also a lot of hysteria going on; that Maus "controversy" which your CVS article cites (among others) is a good example. The concerns were over some nudity and profanity. You may think that's prudish or a bit childish, but fine…

Post by Doxin » Mon, Apr 11, 2022, 8:42 AM UTC

fsckboy wrote: post #932

Beltalowda wrote: post #155

I think this is an important part: "Fortunately in western countries the suppression of heresies is nothing like as bad as it used to be. Though the window of opinions you can express publicly has narrowed in the last decade, it's still much wider than it was a few hundred years ago. The problem is the derivative. Up till about 1985 the window had been growing ever wider. Anyone looking into the future in 1985 would…

you quote him: Anyone looking into the future in 1985 would have expected freedom of expression to continue to increase. Instead it has decreased. and you state: Many people proclaim that "free speech is dead" and all of that, but it's still at an all-time high if you zoom out a bit. It can't decrease and remain at an all time high. You are disagreeing with him, not finding a nuance.

Post by blub » Mon, Apr 11, 2022, 9:12 AM UTC

Avshalom wrote: post #516

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_Stat... just sayin'. maybe 1985 sucked a lot for a lot of people that weren't paul graham.

Post by kataklasm » Mon, Apr 11, 2022, 9:35 AM UTC

onionisafruit wrote: post #898

taneq wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just struck me that the term 'dog whistle' to the general population just means something you toot to get a dog's attention, whereas to a select target audience it has far more sinister implications and acts as a call to action of sorts. Ironic.

“dog whistle” comes from supersonic dog whistles that dogs can hear but humans can’t, not just whistling to call a dog. The analogy is that a speaker can use a phrase that most people won’t notice but their intended audience will understand. Maybe you already know this and I misunderstood your comment.