6 ms·

And who gets to define who has ideas that are unacceptable anyway? Who gets to accuse ideology x of "repackaging and resubmitting ideas"? Whose speech do we shu

by JamilD 10y ago

And who gets to define who has ideas that are unacceptable anyway? Who gets to accuse ideology x of "repackaging and resubmitting ideas"? Whose speech do we shut down, and whose do we allow? > And you think debates are healthy, yet they wouldn't give you that privilege if they were in power. So we deny them the privilege of debate, because we're afraid that if they get into power, they'll deny us the privilege of debate?

bad_user 10y ago
Oh, that's simple, unacceptable ideas are the ones that have historically led to genocide and hate speech qualifies.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  Who defines hate speech? Who defines genocide? Are we going to say that the settlement of the west by the US was a genocide of American Indians? If so, doesn't that mean the whole ideological basis of America is genocidal and should be banned? What if some religious ideologues got control of the government and used hate speech laws to band criticism of religion? Or defined abortion as a genocide against the unborn? I'm not willing to risk allowing anyone to define what is rightthink and wrongthink for my country.
  - bad_user 10y ago
    Oh come on, is that the best straw man you're capable of? Surely can do better than that. > "Who defines hate speech? Who defines genocide?" Genocide is the intentional action to systematically eliminate an ethnic, national, racial or religious group. I don't think the definition is subjective in any way. > "Are we going to say that the settlement of the west by the US was a genocide of American Indians?" I don't know much of US's history, but there are scholars that believe the decline in population of American Indians was genocidal. > "If so, doesn't that mean the whole ideological basis of America is genocidal and should be banned?" What is this "ideological basis of America" that you're referring to? Is it the US constitution? Does the US constitution invite to racism and genocide of American Indians? Are you seriously going to argue that genocide is a matter of interpretation in the Nazi propaganda? > "Or defined abortion as a genocide against the unborn?" Abortion isn't genocide by definition. > "I'm not willing to risk allowing anyone to define what is rightthink and wrongthink for my country." Really? Because that's the whole point of having a government and by having a government you've already lost that battle. And if you're an anarchist, your energy isn't spent where it should be.
danharaj 10y ago
As a human being with the capacity to understand, communicate, and reason about ideas, you are allowed to determine which ideas are acceptable and unacceptable to you. Everyone has the capacity. Ideas are have meaning, they can be analyzed, they can be judged. The fact that different people come to different judgments doesn't mean no one can judge ideas, that would be absurd. How to reconcile conflicts of ideology, that is important. Understanding why reasonable people acting in good faith can disagree on very basic questions, that is important, too. But I think throwing up one's hands and refusing to be political, refusing to judge any ideas is irrational. And if somebody else executes their similar ability to reason through and judge ideas, and condemns ideas you think aren't worth condemning, and perhaps even suppresses that speech to the extent of their capacity, and you disagree with them, of course you are perfectly capable of disagreeing with them, resisting them, condemning them in turn, coming into conflict with people whose exercise of power has consequences you disagree with. That's what being a human being is. > So we deny them the privilege of debate, because we're afraid that if they get into power, they'll deny us the privilege of debate? Well, yes. Why is that invalid reasoning? If you analyze the content and aims of fascist ideology, what other judgment could you come to? There are people out there who are very outspoken about what they would do to people like you and me if they were in power and we crossed them.

by JamilD 10y ago

bad_user 10y ago

Oh, that's simple, unacceptable ideas are the ones that have historically led to genocide and hate speech qualifies.

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
Who defines hate speech? Who defines genocide? Are we going to say that the settlement of the west by the US was a genocide of American Indians? If so, doesn't that mean the whole ideological basis of America is genocidal and should be banned? What if some religious ideologues got control of the government and used hate speech laws to band criticism of religion? Or defined abortion as a genocide against the unborn? I'm not willing to risk allowing anyone to define what is rightthink and wrongthink for my country.
- bad_user 10y ago
  Oh come on, is that the best straw man you're capable of? Surely can do better than that. > "Who defines hate speech? Who defines genocide?" Genocide is the intentional action to systematically eliminate an ethnic, national, racial or religious group. I don't think the definition is subjective in any way. > "Are we going to say that the settlement of the west by the US was a genocide of American Indians?" I don't know much of US's history, but there are scholars that believe the decline in population of American Indians was genocidal. > "If so, doesn't that mean the whole ideological basis of America is genocidal and should be banned?" What is this "ideological basis of America" that you're referring to? Is it the US constitution? Does the US constitution invite to racism and genocide of American Indians? Are you seriously going to argue that genocide is a matter of interpretation in the Nazi propaganda? > "Or defined abortion as a genocide against the unborn?" Abortion isn't genocide by definition. > "I'm not willing to risk allowing anyone to define what is rightthink and wrongthink for my country." Really? Because that's the whole point of having a government and by having a government you've already lost that battle. And if you're an anarchist, your energy isn't spent where it should be.

danharaj 10y ago

As a human being with the capacity to understand, communicate, and reason about ideas, you are allowed to determine which ideas are acceptable and unacceptable to you. Everyone has the capacity. Ideas are have meaning, they can be analyzed, they can be judged. The fact that different people come to different judgments doesn't mean no one can judge ideas, that would be absurd. How to reconcile conflicts of ideology, that is important. Understanding why reasonable people acting in good faith can disagree on very basic questions, that is important, too. But I think throwing up one's hands and refusing to be political, refusing to judge any ideas is irrational. And if somebody else executes their similar ability to reason through and judge ideas, and condemns ideas you think aren't worth condemning, and perhaps even suppresses that speech to the extent of their capacity, and you disagree with them, of course you are perfectly capable of disagreeing with them, resisting them, condemning them in turn, coming into conflict with people whose exercise of power has consequences you disagree with. That's what being a human being is. > So we deny them the privilege of debate, because we're afraid that if they get into power, they'll deny us the privilege of debate? Well, yes. Why is that invalid reasoning? If you analyze the content and aims of fascist ideology, what other judgment could you come to? There are people out there who are very outspoken about what they would do to people like you and me if they were in power and we crossed them.