|
| Thread: Open Discourse: Beyond Freedom of Speech |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted May 23, 2014 09:15 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:26, 23 May 2014.
|
mvassilev said:
The matter is not simply one of whether you agree with the person, or how strongly you disagree. If you don't try to stop people from boycotting someone you disagree with, you're letting them silence someone from expressing their views. This seems fine at first, because they were expressing terrible views, but the problem is that this can happen to anyone, regardless of whether you personally happen to think that their views are terrible. One day, atheists boycott a socially conservative CEO who says that atheists tend to be immoral, the next day an atheist CEO says that social conservatives tend to be immoral and he's boycotted by them - why wouldn't they boycott, since it's okay to use boycotts as a weapon in the culture war? So people aren't silenced based on whether they're right or wrong, they're silenced depending on whether the group opposing them is powerful enough to silence them. And that's a worse world than one in which no one boycotts anyone based on this kind of disagreement.
Mvass, that's not much different than saying, if somebody's ideas get a reaction, eventually, our ideas can get a reaction, too, someday. So, let's not give any reaction to anything.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 09:50 AM |
|
|
artu said:
[I asked a simple question, were they justified for demanding it not to be allowed, you replied YES (in caps), I said "that would result in oppression," you, then, switched to talking about responsibility and acted as if you had not supported what you supported five seconds before. I didn't accuse you of trolling because you had a different opinion, I underlined the magnitude of your inconsistency.
So you say that the producer of hundreds and thousands of other caricatures IS OPPRESSED by simply receiving a ban for one of them?
Or is he oppressed by their actions,which if you reread my statement,you can see I have not justified?
Once again - I have said what I think only for the their RIGHT TO DEMAND,not about their actions afterwards.
(if you think I should read the muslim thread,I can do so to refresh my memory)
artu said:
Oh, and just to clarify, in the kind of socio-cultural climate you had approved with your YES in caps, there's a word for "people predicting the consequences of their decision to speak and write." It's called SELF-CENSORSHIP.
Thank you for clarifying that.So what you think of self-censorship again?
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 10:34 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:30, 23 May 2014.
|
Quote:
Once again - I have said what I think only for the their RIGHT TO DEMAND,not about their actions afterwards.
...their right to demand that it should NOT BE ALLOWED. Saying "boo" and saying "outlaw it" isn't the same thing. And the question was that if it was a JUSTIFIED demand.
Quote:
So you say that the producer of hundreds and thousands of other caricatures IS OPPRESSED by simply receiving a ban for one of them?
Of course, it is not a matter of quantity. It's about being able TO DECIDE whatever you want to draw. Besides, if you ban one caricature today about Islam, on what basis will you say no to a Christian, if he demands the same thing? And then, more groups... (So basically, what I don't agree about the boycotts with Mvass, is actually a valid point when it comes to freedom of speech.)
And self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship, it's when people give up fighting censorship and start interiorising it instead. For example, in Saudi Arabia, nobody would even dream about being able to draw such a caricature.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 10:51 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Of course, it is not a matter of quantity. It's about being able TO DECIDE whatever you want to draw. Besides, if you ban one caricature today about Islam, on what basis will you say no to a Christian, if he demands the same thing? And then, more groups... (So basically, what I don't agree about the boycotts with Mvass, is actually a valid point when it comes to freedom of speech.)
Just to point out there are laws,where pornography/erotica in general is restricted in some ways-you don't want the 4-5 yo kids to watch it,right?
Are you suggesting these laws are written against the freedom of speech?
To be precise-I have read what you wrote about messages/speech to not express will to do violence,but there are many ways to inflict fear/confusion/desperation in people by the mass media.
There are many lies,sensations just for the sake of buying the magazine,brainwashing children with chalga and so on,which only lead to degradation of society itself.
artu said:
And self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship, it's when people give up fighting censorship and start interiorising it instead.
I would appreciate if you enlighten me about the difference of self-censorship and the edit button we use here to censor out posts.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 11:22 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:32, 23 May 2014.
|
Once again, we join this place voluntarily and if we dont agree with the CoC, instead of editing our posts, we can create our own web site with our own CoC. If a Muslim says to another Muslim, "if you draw a picture of our prophet, it is a big sin," that would be perfectly understandable. The caricature case is more like a Hindu asking you not to eat burgers anymore because the cows are very sacred to them. And it would mean a social pressure is on you, if you start feeling uncomfortable when ordering burgers around Hindus. Of course, you can CHOOSE to be the type of person, who doesnt eat meat around a Hindu, just out of courtesy but the decision should come from you.
Pornography is another matter but since it is not illegal but only restricted to children, I dont think it is a relevant subject here.
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 03:05 PM |
|
|
@MVass
All of that goes without saying. Of course the only thing boycotts determine is how powerful the boycotters are. Just as democracy doesn't determine who is the most fit to rule, but who got the majority of votes.
As for battling things you disagree through convincing people otherwise... For every enlightenment attempt of yours, you could have an opposing activist preaching his own. There's persuasion hailing from the White House, from the Tea Party, from the Church, the NGOs, the press, the media, school teachers, hairdressers, taxi drivers, Jehovahs Witnesses, all sorts of centralized and uncentralized sources rooting for you seeing things their way. The only thing that should be done about this, that would have a meaningful impact, in this sea of both good and bad ideas, quality rhetoric and cheap demagoguery, is teach as many people as possible how to think. So they have an easier time sorting bullshyte from reason. Reorganize basic education priorities: invest more in logic, rhetoric, philosophy and history in the education system. History is important to understand many of the methods of manipulation employed throughout it, but the program must be well thought out - what was said and what was done should take precedent to when it was done (bland dates and years) except in the context of general chronology with other relevant deeds. The exact date of the battle of Stalingrad doesn't matter, and should be left as a choice if someone wants to learn it - analyzing Hitler's speech about the attack on the USSR, and all its similarities to war-justifying demagoguery today, is important, for instance.
Because, of course, while all of this can be found (in traces) from time to time in education, no one seems to bother too much. It boils down to you being able to dig that stuff up over the internet if you're really that much interested in it - whereas I believe teaching kids how to think logically and critically is as important as teaching them how to read. After all, they decide the future of the world. Democracy carries with it the responsibility of every voter, which is often intentionally overlooked in favour of subtle and not so subtle manipulation.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 03:19 PM |
|
|
Bak, I think, we face a different problem with kids today.
Earlier, say, in Hitler's time, once they had brought the few media in line and made sure everyone could here them over the "Volksempfängers", people wouldn't hear much beside that one official voice.
Today, the problem is, EVERYONE IS TALKING! There is so much information available, most of it noise, a lot of it wrong or at least unverified, that the problem is more one of FILTERING out all that white nose around the real pearls.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 03:29 PM |
|
|
A more straight-forward approach to Baklava's policy:
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 03:43 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Bak, I think, we face a different problem with kids today.
Earlier, say, in Hitler's time, once they had brought the few media in line and made sure everyone could here them over the "Volksempfängers", people wouldn't hear much beside that one official voice.
Today, the problem is, EVERYONE IS TALKING! There is so much information available, most of it noise, a lot of it wrong or at least unverified, that the problem is more one of FILTERING out all that white nose around the real pearls.
What he mentions is not quite different:
baklava said:
Because, of course, while all of this can be found (in traces) from time to time in education, no one seems to bother too much. It boils down to you being able to dig that stuff up over the internet if you're really that much interested in it - whereas I believe teaching kids how to think logically and critically is as important as teaching them how to read.
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 04:01 PM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 16:01, 23 May 2014.
|
Not just that, I also said:
The only thing that should be done about this, that would have a meaningful impact, in this sea of both good and bad ideas, quality rhetoric and cheap demagoguery, is teach as many people as possible how to think. So they have an easier time sorting bullshyte from reason.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 05:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Mvass, that's not much different than saying, if somebody's ideas get a reaction, eventually, our idea's can get a reaction, too, someday. So, let's not give any reaction to anything.
It depends on the kind of reaction it is.
For example, boycotts are a silencing reaction. While Bak is right that just like any group can boycott, any group can engage in persuasion, and while boycotts silence (and thus aren't truth-seeking), persuasion is at least moderately truth-seeking - even more so when people know how to tell good arguments from bad ones, can detect fallacies, and so on. If I debate someone who disagrees with me, perhaps I'll persuade him, or he'll persuade me, or at least some third party who's listening to us will decide for themselves in a more informed manner. But if I and someone who disagrees with me each tries to silence each other, we won't learn anything.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 06:12 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:12, 23 May 2014.
|
Okay, I get what you mean. But in the case of boycotts, nobody is directly "silencing" a point of view or even suggesting that. They are discrediting it by not interacting with it. I mean, hello, weren't you the one who wrote
Quote:
I interact with people in voluntary mutually beneficial relations, and society is the network of such relations. If someone else doesn't like what I do, they're free not to interact with me, but I don't care if they don't like it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 06:48 PM |
|
|
They don't silence by using aggression or related unjust acts (which is why it's not a violation of freedom of speech), but when people are afraid that they're going to lose their jobs or businesses for speaking freely, they're going to self-censor and not express their unpopular views.
Someone who doesn't like what I do is indeed free not to interact with me, by which I mean that I'm not going to force him to interact with me, and I don't think anyone else (like the state) should force him to interact with me, either. If they don't like what I say, they are indeed free to disassociate themselves from me, not to hire me, not to use my products, and so on - but they shouldn't do those things to silence me. Not because silencing me in this way would be a rights-violation, but because it would be injurious to open discourse. It's one of those "They can, but they shouldn't" things, like buying a million toothpicks. "Not being boycotted for expressing one's ideas" isn't a right, but it is a good social norm.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 07:38 PM |
|
|
Why?
Maybe, it is a very good idea to discredit some ideas, as long as they are given the constitutional zone of freedom to defend themselves?
I agree that it's thin ice and some cases would be, indeed, wide-open to exploitation (irony intended), but other than not crediting people according to their ideas, can you bring a feasible alternative to react to them?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 07:46 PM |
|
|
The problem is, boycotts don't discredit any ideas, they just encourage people who have controversial/unpopular ideas to self-censor - and it's important to note that it's controversial/unpopular ideas, and not wrong ideas. There's no way to ensure that only the evil people get boycotted, because any sufficiently powerful group can use boycotts. So, either you say that you can use boycotts to silence people (but then so can anyone else, including people who think you're evil) or you say that even if someone says something you think is evil, they still shouldn't be boycotted.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 08:07 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:10, 23 May 2014.
|
I'm not commentating on this with a conceptualization of good ideas versus evil ideas. I am commentating on it with a conceptualization of many ideas getting a variety of reactions. If somebody self-censors because he is afraid to be unpopular, well, good luck, he made his choice. I can not feel pity for him; there are poets who spent years in prison just because they refused to change a single verse in their work.
You can't both have your cake and eat it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 08:10 PM |
|
|
He made his choice, yes, but presumably he made his choice because he's afraid of being punished for those views, and if he's right to be afraid, that's where the problem lies - people shouldn't be afraid to express their views.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 08:16 PM |
|
|
They shouldn't be afraid of unjustified punishment. You are talking about something else: Social reaction. If I am a Klu Klux Klan member, who also happens to play the blues-harp so well, I can not expect to go to a club and say:
- Let's leave the racism out of this and play. One, two, three four...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 08:20 PM |
|
|
People who are afraid of boycotts are afraid of punishment. It may not be forceful, rights-violating punishment, but it's punishment nevertheless.
Also, if racism turns out to be correct, then boycotting the KKK member would have been a bad idea in retrospect. And of course racism is unlikely to be correct, but at different points of time in history, different ideas have been unpopular that later turned out to be correct. Do we want all people who have unpopular ideas to self-censor, or not? That's the question.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 09:00 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:05, 23 May 2014.
|
Since, it was ME who pointed out norms changing through time and all the rest that comes with it, in the first page of this thread, I'm gonna skip that part.
mvass said:
Do we want all people who have unpopular ideas to self-censor, or not? That's the question.
No. The question, at this point of the argument, is about the nature of the consequence that they're afraid of. If they had self-censored because of some unjustified punishment of the law, you'd be right. And since you oversimplified the situation into "having unpopular ideas" let me counter-oversimplify: If I'm a history professor who believes that the holocaust didn't happen, I am very likely to get fired. There are many kinds of unpopular ideas.
You are trying to object to a notion of excessive political correctness but you are doing it the wrong way: You end up in some other kind of political correctness. It's as if you start your finger by pointing out the mistakes in the notion of political correctness but end up in the same place: 360 degrees.
(Btw, these last two sentences suck but I'm too tired to think in English right now, I'll edit tomorrow.)
|
| |
|
|
