Why was this flagged in 2026 and not in 2022?
The fashion of what is viewed as heresy changes ever so often.
Heresy (2022]
51–60 of 65 posts
Re: Heresy (2022]
#52There really hasn't been a heretical witchhunt in the US in recent times like against those who do not want US aid to Israel. BDS resolutions and state employees across the country having to sign pledges they won't boycott Israel, college expulsion of Palestine supporters, then expulsion of multiple Ivy League presidents for not cracking down on students more, with Congressional visits and hearings. Nothing this cent…
This seems like a strangely inverted observation, i.e. pretty directly backwards of what's actually happening. This is evident in the odd way you characterize your latter 2 of 3 examples. The first example is real though, and those are bad state laws. Further reading for those interested: https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-bds-legislation Basically all of them restrict government contracting with BDS companies, or…
> college expulsion of Palestine supporters, then expulsion of multiple Ivy League presidents for not cracking down on students more,
?? We have all been seeing this happen, and professors have lost their jobs over criticism of Israel, such as Katherine Franke from Columbia, and now this prof suing Northwestern.
But nobody ever seems to get fired for defending Israel etc.
And no university has ever had funding threatened for having curricula or profs that demonize Palestinians or undermine their narrative.
You could probably make an argument that the students who got expelled were expelled for the nature of the protest, and not the cause itself, but that's rather different from "pretty directly backwards of what's actually happening"
Re: Heresy (2022]
#53There is one question I ask myself everytime. Do words hurt in such strong ways that they should be censored? Some simple words may express the wish to end the existence of a particular group of people. Other words are used to express that something cannot be human. While I personally dont feel much when such words are used against me, others explode with emotions. I dont see a problem with respecting others if they…
Words shape worldviews of other people though, and in some circumstances they may act in accordance with those altered perspectives.
This is an absurd standard that no society can hold members to.
If you are judged not on your actions but on the actions others may take due to words they heard from someone who heard them from someone who heard them from you, then we might as well close up shop.
The responsibility for actions remains with the people who those actions.
The exceptions we have traditionally made, "You can't shout 'fire!' in a crowded theatre" same quite reasonable next to, "You cant discuss the sexual dimorphism of humans because someone somewhere might feel bad about themselves"
Re: Heresy (2022]
#54> when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion Aaand thats when I stopped reading. You're not being censored, Paul, you're being rightfully told you're an asshole and refusing to take it to heart.
Do you really not see to what degree you are proving his point here?
Ostracizing X-ist and X-ism is a noble idea.
Creating an intellectual culture where all political ideas you disagree with can be construed as X-ist... not so much.
Re: Heresy (2022]
#55> The clearest evidence of this is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doesn't work that way. The same statement can't be true when one person says it, but x-ist, and therefore false, when another person does. That's a bit too reductionist. When people say things they often have a hidden motivation, and who they are is a strong signal about what their hidden motivation is.…
> When people say things they often have a hidden motivation, and who they are is a strong signal about what their hidden motivation is.
Citation needed.
The idea that most statements contain hidden meanings or only serve to cover up hidden motivations suggests an incredible level of paranoia.
I would posit the opposite - when people say things you can & should generally take them at face value. Sometimes people will disappoint you some of the time. Some people will do it so often that you would do well to discount their future statements. If you find yourself believing that anyone who doesn't share your opinions & values is secretly a facist/nazi, carefully curating their public image until it's time to strike, then you should really consider finding some grass and touching it.
Re: Heresy (2022]
#56> 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 have expected freedom of expression to continue to increase. Instead it has decreased. Let’s apply his heresy test. Is his statement tru…
People don't talk about it anymore. The list of things you can't discuss is quite long and it has many items that logically shouldn't be on it.
You can say for example that the sum of genetics, culture, finances and upbringing will have different results.
Make it ever so slightly more specific and the water gets hot fast.
The retaliation for different topics is also different and has little relation with how offending the topic might be (if at all) 100 people might call your employer or you will simply be considered a lunatic.
The worse part of politics is that any real opinion will cost votes. You can't really say anything. Everything is heresy at that point.
Re: Heresy (2022]
#57Yeah heresy has ‘returned in a modern form’ - if you overlook the glaring issue of the fact that people were typically imprisoned or executed for heresy in the past. What a ridiculous false equivalence.
Losing your job, being "cancelled", publicly vilified and unhirable is not the same as being executed, so therefore we should dismiss it as a false equivalency?
Losing your job is not unlike being excommunicated.
Re: Heresy (2022]
#58I have to say I was distracted by the punctuation typo: (2022] means the range of 2022 including 2022. I never noticed before that when we write (2022) we are excluding the year 2022.
I know this really apply to the topic but hopefully I’m not the only one to have gotten a chuckle from it.
Re: Heresy (2022]
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Words shape worldviews of other people though, and in some circumstances they may act in accordance with those altered perspectives.
This is an absurd standard that no society can hold members to. If you are judged not on your actions but on the actions others may take due to words they heard from someone who heard them from someone who heard them from you, then we might as well close up shop. The responsibility for actions remains with the people who those actions. The exceptions we have traditionally made, "You can't shout 'fire!' in a crowded t…
The standard can be, "don't utter words with the intent of spurring others onto antisocial actions."
Re: Heresy (2022]
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an absurd standard that no society can hold members to. If you are judged not on your actions but on the actions others may take due to words they heard from someone who heard them from someone who heard them from you, then we might as well close up shop. The responsibility for actions remains with the people who those actions. The exceptions we have traditionally made, "You can't shout 'fire!' in a crowded t…
The standard can be, "don't utter words with the intent of spurring others onto antisocial actions."
Who decides whether or not there was intent behind your words?
What do we do when people disagree about the intent behind a word?
Who decides what is antisocial?
What do we do when people disagree about what is antisocial?
I don't believe there are neat clean answers to any of these. The closest we'll get will involve mutual respect, assumption of good faith, and dialogue. We can't have any of that if our starting point is, "I believe your words are secretly not what you say they are" or "I will hold you responsible for anything bad that anyone does that might be tenuously connected to your words"