5 ms·
In my opinion, I think it is important that we maintain a belief that it is possible to distinguish between progressive controversial ideas and regressive ones.
by perfmode 9y ago
In my opinion, I think it is important that we maintain a belief that it is possible to distinguish between progressive controversial ideas and regressive ones.
Am I placing too much faith in reason?
An issue I take with Sam's initial argument is that it seemed to imply that it is not possible to tell the progressive and regressive apart.
- jrs95 9y agoThat's not the point. The point is that freedom of speech should exist absolutely regardless. Weakening freedom of speech to attack regressive ideas still weakens freedom of speech.
- charonn0 9y agoFreedom of speech hasn't been weakened, though.
- perfmode 9y agoWhat is the (purpose of / value in) defending regressive ideas?
- l_t 9y agoIf we can distinguish "progressive" and "regressive" ideas through reason, that can only happen with an open discussion that gives both sides' advocates equal, fair treatment. If an idea is universally considered regressive, then usually it doesn't come up. Ideas that people are discussing are usually ones where it's not completely clear yet, to everyone, whether it is a good idea or not. In that case, allowing both sides fair advocacy is critical to making a fair decision.
- markdog12 9y agoYou pretty much could have just said, "What is the (purpose of / value in) defending ideas I don't like?" Obviously people may disagree on what you feel is "regressive".
- perfmode 9y agoSince when is regressive defined that way? If we can’t agree that there exist regressive ideas, what are we even doing here? I haven’t stated what I believe to be progressive or regressive. You don’t know what viewpoints I hold. I have withheld these viewpoints from the discussion precisely because I am trying to establish agreement regarding some basic, primitive notions.
- markdog12 9y ago> If we can’t agree that there exist regressive ideas And just what are those ideas? I'm guessing not everyone will agree to them. > I haven’t stated what I believe to be progressive or regressive. You don’t know what viewpoints I hold. It doesn't matter. My point is not everyone will agree with your viewpoints.
- perfmode 9y agoWhat is your point? How do you propose we move forward?
- echaozh 9y agoHow does the stock market go up? In a straight line? No, it moves up and down, but mostly up. That's why index funds are better, no? How do we move forward? Do we go straight ahead? Well, dictatorship is always moving straight ahead, because they can easily define what is progressive and what is regressive, by looking at the dictator. If progressiveness and regressiveness is so easy to define, what do we even need democracy for? Let's just find the most progressive person and appoint him our president/prime minister/chariman/king/chieftain, and let him lead us forward.
- taneq 9y agoIn my opinion, denoting your personal viewpoint as "progressive" (in the sense of 'my politics = progress = good') is egotistical at best and pure hubris at worst. And reading both TFA in question and the post linked from it, and all I got from the author was the sentiment that "hey maybe we shouldn't bring out the torches and pitchforks at the merest suggestion that someone may not always genuflect before the current Doctrine of Rightthink."
- perfmode 9y agoI never said my viewpoints were progressive. I was asking the question: is it possible to, through the application of reason, distinguish between progressive and regressive ideas? Unless we can reason our way through ideas, what hope is there that we can find our way out of a paper bag?
- backpropaganda 9y agoYes it's not. People 100 years ago didn't manage to predict the beliefs common today. What makes you think you'd be able to predict common beliefs 100 years from now?
- perfmode 9y agoI didn’t say “common.” Of what intellectual value is common belief? It’s more worthwhile to anchor the discussion sub specie aeternitatis.