7 ms·

The more forcefully and loudly people try to suppress certain ideas, the more they are afraid those ideas might be right. For example, nobody is trying to supp

• thraway1 9y ago
  Do you have proof of that? Isn't it possible people are trying to suppress certain ideas because they've been tried before with objectively catastrophic consequences?
  • catdograbbit 9y ago
    If that was the case, you wouldn't need to suppress the ideas, but rather counter them with the evidence of their past failure.
• asteli 9y ago
  What ideas are being suppressed because of fear that they could be correct? To be US centric for a moment, I can see examples of attempted suppression of ideas by conservatives - defunding climate change research and the refusal to allow CDC research into gun control, for example. I'm racking my brain trying to think of counterexamples of suppression from the left. Suppression of white supremacist thought? Anti-gay sentiment? The value of diversity? Who on the left is genuinely (if secretly) afraid that whites are the master race, or that the gays are destroying family values?
  • skookumchuck 9y ago
    Nobody would actually admit they are afraid that the ideas may be correct. Free speech kills bad ideas. The nazis, for example, have free speech in the US. They get nowhere.
    • millermp12 9y ago
      "free" speech in that they are not promptly jailed. Economically, the socioeconomic cost is massive.
  • catdograbbit 9y ago
    One example is the idea that the gender imbalance in tech could be caused by population-level differences between the genders. This is what Damore was arguing for and got fired for.
  • zephharben 9y ago
    (speaking as a self-identifying liberal) - Some examples that a "conservative" person might give: - "by definition, PoC can't be racist" - e.g. as an argument to shut down complaints of "reverse racism" - white people must listen to PoC's before they can engage in discussions about racism (e.g. - don't force PoC's to engage in the emotional labor of educating you) - you can't make assertions about the experiences of PoC/women/trans/non-binary people if you haven't lived as one etc. I'm not making ANY judgements about the truth/validity of the aforementioned "rules of engagement". I try to follow these rules when talking about social justice issues. It's no skin off my back - but it certainly adds some limits to the types of conversations I'll participate in, and the kinds of things I might say. I don't think there's anything wrong with that - as long as I don't slip into outright dishonesty as a result of these constraints. I think some of the backlash against social justice by conservatives comes from the belief that these kinds of constraints are unacceptable, and are concocted by stupid, illogical people.
  • zephharben 9y ago
    re-reading your question, I realize that I ignored the "fear that they are correct" part. That was framed in response to the parent past - I don't have any useful response to that question!
  • millermp12 9y ago
    "The value of diversity" for starters, e.g. that is a firing offense in may companies.
• PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  This seems like the classic "everyone says I'm wrong, which somehow just proves that I'm right" Usenet argument. The only modern viewpoint I can think of that remotely fits your narrative is the tendency of outspoken homophobes to get caught having gay sex, and even that's a stretch.
• wasx 9y ago
  >The more forcefully and loudly people try to suppress certain ideas, the more they are afraid those ideas might be right. What bollocks, most "ideas" people are trying to surpress like white nationalism and sexism aren't being surpress because people are secretly scared that whites are the master race or women are inferior, they're being surpress because they're objectively harmful ideas that have caused enormous suffering throughout human history. The idea that people are trying to stop the spread of these ideologies because they're "secretly scared they're correct" is nothing but a way for people who hold these harmful views to justify having them through defending some self delusional "truth" they've substantiated purely through nonsense.
  • skookumchuck 9y ago
    It's unnecessary to suppress nazi speech in a free country with free speech. They get nowhere. In fact, trying to forcibly suppress them just legitimizes them. You'll never convince people they're wrong by violently suppressing them.
    • skookumchuck 9y ago
      Or by downvoting them :-)
    • PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      > It's unnecessary to suppress nazi speech in a free country with free speech. They get nowhere. Tell that to Germany in 1920.
      • skookumchuck 9y ago
        The nazi party had their own private army, the brownshirts, that they used to violently suppress other parties and discourage non-supporters from voting. Once in power, the Night of the Long Knives was used to get rid of any opposition.
        • PhasmaFelis 9y ago
• conanbatt 9y ago
  A heuristic at best. I don't think people really fear the earth is flat.
  • skookumchuck 9y ago
    Exactly, they laugh at the idea. No need to suppress it.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• philipkglass 9y ago
  "The Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax staged with paid crisis actors." "Volcanoes add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than fossil fuel combustion." "Vaccines cause autism." I have no fear that these ideas might be right. I am nonetheless loudly and forcefully against them. Spreading anti-vaccination falsehoods is literally a bannable offense on a scientific forum I run. If I were God Emperor of Facebook it'd be a bannable offense on Facebook too.
• sudojudo 9y ago
  I have to disagree. Many people are trying to suppress pseudoscience; not because we fear it is true, but because disinformation is harmful to society as a whole. For example, anti-vaxers degrading herd immunity, or astrologists conning vulnerable people out of their savings, or a climate change denier dismantling the EPA... there are far too many examples to list! Each facet of nonsense you've mentioned is being battled by one group of skeptics or another. Off the top of my head, there's the work of James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Brian Dunning, and Steven Novella. Those people aren't fighting ideas they're afraid are true, they fear the harmful outcome of misplaced beliefs. If people weren't battling pseudoscience, you'd see a lot more of it in your day-to-day life, and society as a whole would be much worse off. That's not speculation, it's a solid fact.
  • skookumchuck 9y ago
    Nobody is attempting to forcibly suppress pseudoscience. Speaking out against it is not "battling" it. I've read Randi's book, he's not trying to suppress misplaced beliefs. He's ridiculing them. Carl Sagan's books ridiculed astrology. He made no attempt to suppress it. Huge difference. Mel Brooks once was asked why he wrote a comedy about Hitler (The Producers). He replied that ridicule was the best way to oppose bad ideas. Not suppressing them.
    • arkades 9y ago
      I would wholeheartedly endorse legislation against anti-vax garbage in its more extreme forms. That is not because I fear it is true.
      • skookumchuck 9y ago
        > That is not because I fear it is true. Are you a scientist researching vaccines and autism? No? Do you know that leading scientists are often wrong, very wrong, especially about health issues? Scientists were wrong about dietary fat causing heart attacks, for example. Isn't it a good thing that we didn't make questioning them illegal? Besides, you'll just legitimize their opinions if you make them illegal.
• greglindahl 9y ago
  Another example of this statement being wrong is that there was a movement among astronomers to stop supplying sunrise/sunset moonrise/moonset information to newspapers which also published horoscopes.
• yesenadam 9y ago
  Seems to me you're making a lot of sense in your responses to comments on this, not sure why people seem to think you aren't. It seems by try to suppress, you meant, as you've tried to explain, acts like try to make illegal, not acts like ridicule. Also I notice your phrasing "The more..the more.." explicitly claimed only correlation, not causation either way, or a feedback loop. You gave a lot of examples of things nobody is trying to suppress, but no examples of things people are trying to. So..can you give as many examples of things you think fit what you said? Thanks.
  • skookumchuck 9y ago
    The James Damore case mentioned in the article, for one. In Damore's lawsuit, he provided evidence of threats of violence against conservatives. For another, http://crosscut.com/2017/01/uw-shooting-milo-yiannopoulos-how-it-happened/ http://crosscut.com/2017/01/uw-shooting-milo-yiannopoulos-ho... During the last election, there were bricks thrown through the windows of the GOP campaign office in Seattle.
    • yesenadam 9y ago
      Thanks. Holy crap, that whole scene in the crosscut.com story sounds so crazy, so glad I don't live in the US! Anyway..I don't know anything about these issues, just curious. So..these are all things you think happened because the people doing the suppressing were afraid the ideas involved might be true? (Hmm now I notice there was mention of causality in your initial claim)
      • skookumchuck 9y ago
        I think the best answer is to look at the history of violent suppression of ideas. Those ideas tended to turn out to be more correct than the suppressors' ideas, and turned out to be not so good for the suppressors' fortunes.
        • yesenadam 9y ago
          Thanks for those. Well, I'm in Australia. We have some of our own small crazy moments too..One that comes to mind was the 2012 story that "Alan Jones did not breach the radio industry's code of conduct or his broadcaster's licence conditions when he said five times that Julia Gillard should be “put in a chaff bag” and dumped at sea, the broadcasting regulator has found" - she was at the time Australia's first female Prime Minister (i.e. leader). Jones had a popular right-wing radio talk show. edit: OMG, I just read that Ebert page. Are you kidding, that made you like Ebert less?! Can't follow you on that one. He hardly just 'said' it, it was the very start of Ebert's open letter to Limbaugh, it seems. "You should be horse-whipped for the insult you have paid to the highest office of our nation." In context, it sounds a fair enough remark to me. Ebert goes on, disgusted Limbaugh and caller agree "that Obama might steal money intended for the Red Cross to help the wretched of Haiti. .. This conversation came 48 hours after many of us had seen pitiful sights from Port au Prince. Tens of thousands are believed still alive beneath the rubble. You twisted their suffering into an opportunity to demean the character of the President of the United States." etc Well, I didn't hear about that, maybe Obama did steal the money, in which case I apologize. But I kinda doubt it. So how does that fit into "suppression because they fear it's true"? I don't see any part of it fits that. But anyway. :-) Thanks for this exchange, it was enlightening.
• akhilcacharya 9y ago
  What? >The same goes for phrenology, ancient astronauts, flat earthers, 9/11 conspiracies, etc. If you've ever listened to these people they constantly, constantly talk about how their ideas (just asking questions!) are being suppressed.
• PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  So, people keep refuting your core assertion here, and you keep moving the goalposts to different arguments. I want to see you support and expand on your argument that people only try to suppress ideas that they fear are correct. Are you literally saying that anti-Nazis secretly fear that Jews run the world? That gay rights activists secretly fear that homosexuality is a depraved plot to destroy our moral fibre? If not, then what are you saying?
  • millermp12 9y ago
    Paul Graham said it best (without saying it). http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html Sam Altman recently said the same, that in several ways freedom of expression is healthier in China today than in the bay area. And for that matter, Shakespeare, "the lady doth protest too much." Sometimes even burning down the university at the faintest glimmer of the bogeyman.
  • skookumchuck 9y ago
    We all know people who go to great lengths, despite all contrary evidence, to prove themselves correct. Like the convict who was exonerated by DNA evidence, yet the prosecutor still insists he was guilty. Like the pastor who insists that his flock close their ears to any contrary viewpoints. Like the authoritarian societies who jail anyone daring to question them. Etc. Just think of the beliefs you hold dear. What would you do if someone produced evidence that you were wrong? You'd be a very rare person to accept it and change your mind. Remember the physicists (including Einstein) who could not accept quantum mechanics?
    • PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      > Just think of the beliefs you hold dear. What would you do if someone produced evidence that you were wrong? It is literally impossible to produce solid, well-supported evidence that homosexuality is a Satanic plot. It is exactly as likely as Flat Earth. And you're still evading the question. Do you, or do you not, believe that dedicated gay rights activists secretly fear the above is true? Yes or no, please.