3 ms·

I don't think I could convince you of anything. But can I ask: if the other side were right, and some of these views are so abhorrent that the outrage against

I don't think I could convince you of anything. But can I ask: if the other side were right, and some of these views are so abhorrent that the outrage against people who express them is almost entirely justified- would you be able to tell? There are definitely some political views that should be socially discouraged and attacked and there should be social repercussions for the people who express them. You disagree on whether some particular views fit in this category. You must admit that from your position, it can be very difficult to distinguish between unfair persecution and genuine persecution. For the record, if a company I work for invited someone as purely evil / anti-intellectual and vapid as Scott Adams to give a speech, I would absolutely resign in protest.

yzhou 9y ago
why do you say Scott Adams is purely evil?
blfr 9y ago
I can maybe see how Scott Adams is anti-intellectual, although people claiming to be rational should definitely consider his view, but how is he "purely evil"?
Cookingboy 9y ago
If you really think Scott Adams is "purely evil", as in Hitler level, I have some strong suspicion that you are a troll that is trying to make liberals look ridiculous. If not, then I have a feeling that you mistakenly equate many opposing ideas to "pure evil ideologies".
- tstactplsignore 9y ago
  I could list off how he treats his purposeful ignorance and anti-intellectualism as a virtue, how he pushed a strange cult-like "persuation" pseudoscience that also celebrates a kind of selfish creepiness as a virtue, his endorsement of Trump, his purposefully disengenious gas lighting of his critics, and arguably most impotant, his advocating for climate denial- But I don't think we can reconcile our viewpoints in the comments here, and I think you missed my entire point. My point was it is very difficult to tell right from wrong when those wrongs are widely accepted by society. A majority of Germans in the 1930s either believed in Nazism or believed it was just an "opposing idea". An even larger majority of Americans in the 60s disapproved of MLK, and either believed in racist laws or believed that they were just "opposing ideas". My point is that once again, you are now in a position where a minority of people believe that some ideas are truly evil and not worthy of any merit. You are sympathetic towards these ideas, or unsympathetic to their opponents (just as many who disapproved of Jim Crow laws but thought MLK was too radical)- so I hope you can at least realize that statistically speaking, you're in a position where it has traditionally been very difficult for people to determine right from wrong.
  - Cookingboy 9y ago
    Your entire argument is based off cherry picking historic examples where the majority is wrong. >My point is that once again, you are now in a position where a minority of people believe that some ideas are truly evil and not worthy of any merit. You are sympathetic towards these ideas, or unsympathetic to their opponents (just as many who disapproved of Jim Crow laws but thought MLK was too radical)- so I hope you can at least realize that statistically speaking, you're in a position where it has traditionally been very difficult for people to determine right from wrong. So what are you suggesting here? Should we automatically crown the minority's opinion as the "right one" because they challenge the status quo being accepted by society? Yes, you have examples of Jim Crow and MLK, does that mean every time someone writes off an idea his argument is automatically as valid as MLK's and his opponents are automatically the KKK? > so I hope you can at least realize that statistically speaking, you're in a position where it has traditionally been very difficult for people to determine right from wrong. My point is that it doesn't matter whether we can determine right from wrong. I can't do that easily, and neither can you. So let all sides debate and engage with each other and make history judge the outcome. You do not get to jump through this step. Remember, Fascism and Communism rose to power by being the "progressive minority" at first and claimed morale high ground against their oppositions and shut down all forms of public debate soon after. If you think the majority is bad at judging good from bad, what makes you think the minority is better in this case? Dr. King's speech started with "I have a dream", not "I'm right and you are wrong and is not even worth my time to debate". Unfortunately, Social Justice Warriors today are no MLK.
  - Cookingboy 9y ago
    > his endorsement of Trump, his purposefully disengenious gas lighting of his critics, and arguably most impotant, his advocating for climate denial- So endorsing Trump is literally "pure evil" on the same level as Hitler? Yeah, at this point I'm afraid that I can't take anything you say seriously.
sunsets_44 9y ago
>But can I ask: if the other side were right, and some of these views are so abhorrent that the outrage against people who express them is almost entirely justified- would you be able to tell? Well, on some issues you can always appeal to authorities - for example if people have strong opinions on economic issues you can compare that consensus to IGM Forum polls. People are oftentimes predictably biased. Alternatively, you can try to get people who disagree with eachother to perform an ideological Turing test. It should be informative if someone basically cannot meaningfully articulate the actual arguments that are being presented that they disagree with.
Cookingboy 9y ago
> some of these views are so abhorrent that the outrage against people who express them is almost entirely justified- would you be able to tell? Yes, we can tell most of the time, and yes even if it gets difficult sometimes and we fail to distinguish unfair and genuine persecution, we will try our best to discuss it, study it, and get better at it. That's how we should approach the problem. That, is the intellectual way. Your method of automatically shutting down discussion of controversial ideas just because a small percentage of them are truly evil, is in fact more anti-intellectual than anything Scott Adams has ever said/written.
- tstactplsignore 9y ago
  I certainly never said that was "my method". I disagree that we can tell most of the time. I think we can't tell most of the time. Most Americans couldn't tell in the 60s- about 33% of the country had a favorable view of MLK. Most Germans couldn't tell in the 30s. And so on and so on. If we were any good at tellint, then evil wouldn't be so scary! My point is that here you are again, in a similar situation to those, saying the exact same sorts of things the people who were wrong in those circumstances said. It's possible we're not in that kind of situation, but I hope that you realize that (a) some of the things that you're upset about (educated people pushing some ideas out of their institutions; radicals and communists protesting in the streets; highly charged and accusatory language) were the exact same sorts of things the people who ended up being wrong in those circumstances were upset about, and (b) historically, people sympathetic towards these bad ideas or unsympathetic to their opponents could not tell the difference in their own times.
  - Cookingboy 9y ago
    So? That's my exact point. In all of your examples the righteous eventually prevailed due to their own merits, and history proved that they were on the right side. You don't get claim victory by shutting down the debate at the beginning. You don't get to moral high ground by "proclaiming" it, you get there by engaging the opposition in debates and by fighting to change people's mind with positive examples. MLK knew he was right, and he worked hard to convince the remaining 66% of the country by engaging with them, by changing one mind at a time. >My point is that here you are again, in a similar situation to those, saying the exact same sorts of things the people who were wrong in those circumstances said. That's some crazy logic fallacy. Just because you are pushing new agenda doesn't mean you are automatically correct and your opposition are literally the same as Nazis. You also automatically assume that your ideas are the "good ones" and anything that differs even slightly to your opinion is "bad ideas". How can you tell that you are not the one being sympathetic toward "bad ideas", it is after all, like you said, hard to tell right? You know who used the same kind of logic? Literally Nazis and Communists. They automatically proclaimed their ideology as the "righteous ones" and brutally shut down any debates. I'm of the opinion that if you have to forcefully shut down opposite views from even debating you, then your idea is not worth debating in the first place, and you are just some immature child putting himself on a moral pedestal. I don't know how old you are, but I wish one day you get to learn that the world is not black and white, but different shades of gray. And yes, even your own opinions will change throughout time, for different reasons.

yzhou 9y ago

why do you say Scott Adams is purely evil?

blfr 9y ago

I can maybe see how Scott Adams is anti-intellectual, although people claiming to be rational should definitely consider his view, but how is he "purely evil"?

Cookingboy 9y ago

If you really think Scott Adams is "purely evil", as in Hitler level, I have some strong suspicion that you are a troll that is trying to make liberals look ridiculous. If not, then I have a feeling that you mistakenly equate many opposing ideas to "pure evil ideologies".

tstactplsignore 9y ago
I could list off how he treats his purposeful ignorance and anti-intellectualism as a virtue, how he pushed a strange cult-like "persuation" pseudoscience that also celebrates a kind of selfish creepiness as a virtue, his endorsement of Trump, his purposefully disengenious gas lighting of his critics, and arguably most impotant, his advocating for climate denial- But I don't think we can reconcile our viewpoints in the comments here, and I think you missed my entire point. My point was it is very difficult to tell right from wrong when those wrongs are widely accepted by society. A majority of Germans in the 1930s either believed in Nazism or believed it was just an "opposing idea". An even larger majority of Americans in the 60s disapproved of MLK, and either believed in racist laws or believed that they were just "opposing ideas". My point is that once again, you are now in a position where a minority of people believe that some ideas are truly evil and not worthy of any merit. You are sympathetic towards these ideas, or unsympathetic to their opponents (just as many who disapproved of Jim Crow laws but thought MLK was too radical)- so I hope you can at least realize that statistically speaking, you're in a position where it has traditionally been very difficult for people to determine right from wrong.
- Cookingboy 9y ago
  Your entire argument is based off cherry picking historic examples where the majority is wrong. >My point is that once again, you are now in a position where a minority of people believe that some ideas are truly evil and not worthy of any merit. You are sympathetic towards these ideas, or unsympathetic to their opponents (just as many who disapproved of Jim Crow laws but thought MLK was too radical)- so I hope you can at least realize that statistically speaking, you're in a position where it has traditionally been very difficult for people to determine right from wrong. So what are you suggesting here? Should we automatically crown the minority's opinion as the "right one" because they challenge the status quo being accepted by society? Yes, you have examples of Jim Crow and MLK, does that mean every time someone writes off an idea his argument is automatically as valid as MLK's and his opponents are automatically the KKK? > so I hope you can at least realize that statistically speaking, you're in a position where it has traditionally been very difficult for people to determine right from wrong. My point is that it doesn't matter whether we can determine right from wrong. I can't do that easily, and neither can you. So let all sides debate and engage with each other and make history judge the outcome. You do not get to jump through this step. Remember, Fascism and Communism rose to power by being the "progressive minority" at first and claimed morale high ground against their oppositions and shut down all forms of public debate soon after. If you think the majority is bad at judging good from bad, what makes you think the minority is better in this case? Dr. King's speech started with "I have a dream", not "I'm right and you are wrong and is not even worth my time to debate". Unfortunately, Social Justice Warriors today are no MLK.
- Cookingboy 9y ago
  > his endorsement of Trump, his purposefully disengenious gas lighting of his critics, and arguably most impotant, his advocating for climate denial- So endorsing Trump is literally "pure evil" on the same level as Hitler? Yeah, at this point I'm afraid that I can't take anything you say seriously.

sunsets_44 9y ago

>But can I ask: if the other side were right, and some of these views are so abhorrent that the outrage against people who express them is almost entirely justified- would you be able to tell? Well, on some issues you can always appeal to authorities - for example if people have strong opinions on economic issues you can compare that consensus to IGM Forum polls. People are oftentimes predictably biased. Alternatively, you can try to get people who disagree with eachother to perform an ideological Turing test. It should be informative if someone basically cannot meaningfully articulate the actual arguments that are being presented that they disagree with.

Cookingboy 9y ago

> some of these views are so abhorrent that the outrage against people who express them is almost entirely justified- would you be able to tell? Yes, we can tell most of the time, and yes even if it gets difficult sometimes and we fail to distinguish unfair and genuine persecution, we will try our best to discuss it, study it, and get better at it. That's how we should approach the problem. That, is the intellectual way. Your method of automatically shutting down discussion of controversial ideas just because a small percentage of them are truly evil, is in fact more anti-intellectual than anything Scott Adams has ever said/written.

tstactplsignore 9y ago
I certainly never said that was "my method". I disagree that we can tell most of the time. I think we can't tell most of the time. Most Americans couldn't tell in the 60s- about 33% of the country had a favorable view of MLK. Most Germans couldn't tell in the 30s. And so on and so on. If we were any good at tellint, then evil wouldn't be so scary! My point is that here you are again, in a similar situation to those, saying the exact same sorts of things the people who were wrong in those circumstances said. It's possible we're not in that kind of situation, but I hope that you realize that (a) some of the things that you're upset about (educated people pushing some ideas out of their institutions; radicals and communists protesting in the streets; highly charged and accusatory language) were the exact same sorts of things the people who ended up being wrong in those circumstances were upset about, and (b) historically, people sympathetic towards these bad ideas or unsympathetic to their opponents could not tell the difference in their own times.
- Cookingboy 9y ago
  So? That's my exact point. In all of your examples the righteous eventually prevailed due to their own merits, and history proved that they were on the right side. You don't get claim victory by shutting down the debate at the beginning. You don't get to moral high ground by "proclaiming" it, you get there by engaging the opposition in debates and by fighting to change people's mind with positive examples. MLK knew he was right, and he worked hard to convince the remaining 66% of the country by engaging with them, by changing one mind at a time. >My point is that here you are again, in a similar situation to those, saying the exact same sorts of things the people who were wrong in those circumstances said. That's some crazy logic fallacy. Just because you are pushing new agenda doesn't mean you are automatically correct and your opposition are literally the same as Nazis. You also automatically assume that your ideas are the "good ones" and anything that differs even slightly to your opinion is "bad ideas". How can you tell that you are not the one being sympathetic toward "bad ideas", it is after all, like you said, hard to tell right? You know who used the same kind of logic? Literally Nazis and Communists. They automatically proclaimed their ideology as the "righteous ones" and brutally shut down any debates. I'm of the opinion that if you have to forcefully shut down opposite views from even debating you, then your idea is not worth debating in the first place, and you are just some immature child putting himself on a moral pedestal. I don't know how old you are, but I wish one day you get to learn that the world is not black and white, but different shades of gray. And yes, even your own opinions will change throughout time, for different reasons.