4 ms·

>This is problematic in ways that used to be obvious to people in free societies, but for some reason seems lost now. I don't think this is true. I think some

>This is problematic in ways that used to be obvious to people in free societies, but for some reason seems lost now. I don't think this is true. I think some people always got it, and some people still do. The difference is that the internet allows anyone to post their opinions, but it used to be a lot harder to reach other people. We still have people that we hold up on pedestals for saying the right things, and the people that we remember from the past are the ones that said things that were incredibly right, or incredibly wrong. We don't remember what every common Joe used to say daily.

menacingly 8y ago
This might be true. When I was a kid, I saw a full hooded KKK march on TV, and I said "why do we let them march?" and my mom said "because you have to hear from people you don't want to hear from to know free speech is working" I cannot fathom that this conversation would even be considered good parenting today.
- rhacker 8y ago
  Today's parents are creating this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/08/17/a-satanic-idols-3-year-journey-to-the-arkansas-capitol-building/?utm_term=.cb8420e8c0ba https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/08...
  - hnbroseph 8y ago
    i dig it. would be cool to see buddhist, hindu and islamic emplacements as well. personally i'd like to see something for atheists but i don't know how well that plays into government religious definitions.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  I think you probably don't have kids. I don't know many parents and children who would be sitting around watching tv with each other. Let alone watching a klan march? Way too many screens. Way too much choice. Way too much personalization. The scenario itself would only arise in VERY conservative or traditional families. Most other families just don't work like this. Blame Netflix I guess?
  - manfredo 8y ago
    I think you're missing the forest for the tree. It's about instilling the priciples of the free market place of ideas - not just the specific medium involved.
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      I'm going to gently suggest that the proliferation of screens, the proliferation of choice, the proliferation of personalization, in and of themselves, demonstrates that the principles of the free market place of ideas is well understood. The kids just choose ideas that perhaps we would not choose. (Or in most cases, ideas that we would definitely not choose.) But this is the essence of the free market of ideas that you subscribe to. That children are not interested in the ideas that we are interested in, does not mean that we need to go and make sure they consume our ideas instead. That's kind of the opposite of a free market. So kids live in a free market, and they generally choose things we, as parents, don't like. This doesn't, always, make the kids wrong. And it doesn't mean that they are in need of our guidance to see things "correctly". (Which invariably seems to mean, "You're wrong kid, this is what you should believe." And then we wonder why they call us hypocrites when we at the same time talk about a "free market of ideas".)
      - manfredo 8y ago
        You're still missing the above commenter's point. > When I was a kid, I saw a full hooded KKK march on TV, and I said "why do we let them march?" and my mom said "because you have to hear from people you don't want to hear from to know free speech is working" The point is, exposure of reprehensible ideas is part of free speech. The fact that we consume media differently today does not change this. Maybe the 21st century analogue is a kid asking their parents why Alex Jones is on YouTube (well, that example isn't possible anymore). Or why we let the KKK use Twitter. The medium is a detail, the point is explaining the value of free speech to kids. The fact that kids may be interested of different ideas also has no relevance to this point. The situation here is when kids ask why certain ideas aren't banned and suppressed, the answer is because free speech entails tolerating the existence of said ideas.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  We let them march because they are using public streets to do so. A KKK march through a shopping mall would be quickly broken up. You don't have to allow the KKK to use your private property, and neither does anyone else.

menacingly 8y ago

This might be true. When I was a kid, I saw a full hooded KKK march on TV, and I said "why do we let them march?" and my mom said "because you have to hear from people you don't want to hear from to know free speech is working" I cannot fathom that this conversation would even be considered good parenting today.

rhacker 8y ago
Today's parents are creating this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/08/17/a-satanic-idols-3-year-journey-to-the-arkansas-capitol-building/?utm_term=.cb8420e8c0ba https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/08...
- hnbroseph 8y ago
  i dig it. would be cool to see buddhist, hindu and islamic emplacements as well. personally i'd like to see something for atheists but i don't know how well that plays into government religious definitions.
bilbo0s 8y ago
I think you probably don't have kids. I don't know many parents and children who would be sitting around watching tv with each other. Let alone watching a klan march? Way too many screens. Way too much choice. Way too much personalization. The scenario itself would only arise in VERY conservative or traditional families. Most other families just don't work like this. Blame Netflix I guess?
- manfredo 8y ago
  I think you're missing the forest for the tree. It's about instilling the priciples of the free market place of ideas - not just the specific medium involved.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    I'm going to gently suggest that the proliferation of screens, the proliferation of choice, the proliferation of personalization, in and of themselves, demonstrates that the principles of the free market place of ideas is well understood. The kids just choose ideas that perhaps we would not choose. (Or in most cases, ideas that we would definitely not choose.) But this is the essence of the free market of ideas that you subscribe to. That children are not interested in the ideas that we are interested in, does not mean that we need to go and make sure they consume our ideas instead. That's kind of the opposite of a free market. So kids live in a free market, and they generally choose things we, as parents, don't like. This doesn't, always, make the kids wrong. And it doesn't mean that they are in need of our guidance to see things "correctly". (Which invariably seems to mean, "You're wrong kid, this is what you should believe." And then we wonder why they call us hypocrites when we at the same time talk about a "free market of ideas".)
    - manfredo 8y ago
      You're still missing the above commenter's point. > When I was a kid, I saw a full hooded KKK march on TV, and I said "why do we let them march?" and my mom said "because you have to hear from people you don't want to hear from to know free speech is working" The point is, exposure of reprehensible ideas is part of free speech. The fact that we consume media differently today does not change this. Maybe the 21st century analogue is a kid asking their parents why Alex Jones is on YouTube (well, that example isn't possible anymore). Or why we let the KKK use Twitter. The medium is a detail, the point is explaining the value of free speech to kids. The fact that kids may be interested of different ideas also has no relevance to this point. The situation here is when kids ask why certain ideas aren't banned and suppressed, the answer is because free speech entails tolerating the existence of said ideas.
snowwrestler 8y ago
We let them march because they are using public streets to do so. A KKK march through a shopping mall would be quickly broken up. You don't have to allow the KKK to use your private property, and neither does anyone else.