5 ms·

Why is it necessary to "come down hard" on people who express morally wreak (or even stupid) viewpoints? Surely, putting forth a better argument or, at least,

Why is it necessary to "come down hard" on people who express morally wreak (or even stupid) viewpoints? Surely, putting forth a better argument or, at least, ignoring them is a far more morally superior response than suppressing their speech? I've recently read about Bobby Sands (who was a IRA member who starved himself to death) and am reminded of that monk who lit themself on fire in protest. I think an interesting question about these two people is why did their action have any impact? The authorities were against them and killing themselves doesn't "oppress" those authorities. I think the opening paragraph of this book http://www.jstor.org/stable/3750951 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3750951 is an interesting angle: martyrs against a cause illegitimize a cause. If that is true, as I think it is, then it is crucially important to not victimize people no matter how wrong they may be. I think that the way to do that is, as I said above, to tolerate wrong viewpoints but respond to them or ignore them.

lern_too_spel 11y ago
You think it's OK for a majority to say that racial Jews should not have property rights and then make it so? Eich achieved hos goal of writing oppression into the state constitution. Ignoring or tolerating promotion of oppression doesn't make it go away. (That's exactly the fair and balanced horseshit I was talking about.) Tolerating morally neutral actions is entirely different from tolerating morally bad actions. Pretending that Eich's treatment for promoting oppression (or even the downvotes I've received for stating my views or you may have received for stating yours -- I've seen a lot of handwringing in this thread about maintaining multiple HN accounts and self-censoring themselves on HN as if that was some great horror) are in any way equivalent to actually taking away rights is another form of fair and balanced horseshit.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > Eich achieved hos goal of writing oppression into the state constitution. You mis-spelt 'sanity' as 'oppression.' It's not oppression to pass a law saying that a man who claims to be a hyena cannot demand to be taken in by a zoo; it's not oppression to pass a law saying that a woman who claims to be Intergalactic Space-empress doesn't automatically have her orders followed; it's not oppression to pass a law stating that two people who aren't married don't get to force everyone to pretend that they are.
- sinxoveretothex 11y ago
  Suppose that everyone in the world (except Jews perhaps) believed that it WERE OK for them not to have property rights, then what would protect their property rights? The truth is that what is right is decided by how well the arguments for it can convince people. If you look back far enough, the arguments were: my army is stronger than you. As you get closer to the present, we tend to like using better arguments (the veil of ignorance for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance). It's based on notions like the veil of ignorance that we can say maybe every human should have property rights lest the group we're part of today lose it when the balance of power shifts. That's why I believe that jews should have property rights, but don't believe that advocating against what I believe should be stifled. I am confident enough that my argument is better than theirs to not need to prevent their speech if you prefer. I also don't believe that we should stifle: climate change denial, flat earthers, religious people, pro-life people and a host of other people that I believe are wrong.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    You make a nonsense point (nobody is arguing for morality by majority rule) then refute it by pointing out that you have good arguments for advocating a certain morality. Then you make a straw man (nobody is arguing for stifling anybody). At the core, you seem to agree with me that there are certain actions that we should be intolerant of. Things like murder we should not tolerate forcefully, and things like oppression, we should argue against strongly until they go into effect, in which case, other action is sometimes better.
    - sinxoveretothex 11y ago
      Hmm, I thought thinking about my initial question would be enough to see my point from your perspective. Maybe it is. You were, in your now flagged comment, arguing for stifling (or censoring if you prefer) people who, you believe, hold that kind of opinion. The point I am making is that morality is only part of it. In practice, it doesn't matter that you're right if you're dead. You say that > tolerating promotion of oppression doesn't make it go away I'll answer that arguing with words without understanding the process that allows for people to agree to "fight" with words rather than weapons is even less likely to make bad ideas go away. This won't convince you, I know, the tone of your replies shows an adversarial reading of my comments. But maybe one day you'll have a more skeptical approach to your own beliefs.

lern_too_spel 11y ago

You think it's OK for a majority to say that racial Jews should not have property rights and then make it so? Eich achieved hos goal of writing oppression into the state constitution. Ignoring or tolerating promotion of oppression doesn't make it go away. (That's exactly the fair and balanced horseshit I was talking about.) Tolerating morally neutral actions is entirely different from tolerating morally bad actions. Pretending that Eich's treatment for promoting oppression (or even the downvotes I've received for stating my views or you may have received for stating yours -- I've seen a lot of handwringing in this thread about maintaining multiple HN accounts and self-censoring themselves on HN as if that was some great horror) are in any way equivalent to actually taking away rights is another form of fair and balanced horseshit.

wtbob 11y ago
> Eich achieved hos goal of writing oppression into the state constitution. You mis-spelt 'sanity' as 'oppression.' It's not oppression to pass a law saying that a man who claims to be a hyena cannot demand to be taken in by a zoo; it's not oppression to pass a law saying that a woman who claims to be Intergalactic Space-empress doesn't automatically have her orders followed; it's not oppression to pass a law stating that two people who aren't married don't get to force everyone to pretend that they are.
sinxoveretothex 11y ago
Suppose that everyone in the world (except Jews perhaps) believed that it WERE OK for them not to have property rights, then what would protect their property rights? The truth is that what is right is decided by how well the arguments for it can convince people. If you look back far enough, the arguments were: my army is stronger than you. As you get closer to the present, we tend to like using better arguments (the veil of ignorance for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance). It's based on notions like the veil of ignorance that we can say maybe every human should have property rights lest the group we're part of today lose it when the balance of power shifts. That's why I believe that jews should have property rights, but don't believe that advocating against what I believe should be stifled. I am confident enough that my argument is better than theirs to not need to prevent their speech if you prefer. I also don't believe that we should stifle: climate change denial, flat earthers, religious people, pro-life people and a host of other people that I believe are wrong.
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  You make a nonsense point (nobody is arguing for morality by majority rule) then refute it by pointing out that you have good arguments for advocating a certain morality. Then you make a straw man (nobody is arguing for stifling anybody). At the core, you seem to agree with me that there are certain actions that we should be intolerant of. Things like murder we should not tolerate forcefully, and things like oppression, we should argue against strongly until they go into effect, in which case, other action is sometimes better.
  - sinxoveretothex 11y ago
    Hmm, I thought thinking about my initial question would be enough to see my point from your perspective. Maybe it is. You were, in your now flagged comment, arguing for stifling (or censoring if you prefer) people who, you believe, hold that kind of opinion. The point I am making is that morality is only part of it. In practice, it doesn't matter that you're right if you're dead. You say that > tolerating promotion of oppression doesn't make it go away I'll answer that arguing with words without understanding the process that allows for people to agree to "fight" with words rather than weapons is even less likely to make bad ideas go away. This won't convince you, I know, the tone of your replies shows an adversarial reading of my comments. But maybe one day you'll have a more skeptical approach to your own beliefs.