3 ms·

I hope someone will. Intellectual discussion seems to always play second fiddle to emotion and personal attacks (attack the idea, please, instead of the person

by ColanR 7y ago

I hope someone will. Intellectual discussion seems to always play second fiddle to emotion and personal attacks (attack the idea, please, instead of the person). Takes courage to stand up to a mob, online or in person. We need to defend the right to discuss distasteful things, and even to wonder if they are true (should I add a holocaust disclaimer here?).

gwm83 7y ago
Does it make a difference if there is no true discussion or debate, but instead one party that simply desires to spread misinformation? (Party in this context not meaning a US political party)
- ColanR 7y ago
  It makes no difference whatsoever: because otherwise we need to appoint a referee that gets to decide what counts as misinformation.
danaris 7y ago
Intellectual discussion has no chance against a mob of people who are convinced that you're against them, and anything you say to try to prove you're not is just more evidence of how awful you are. The people whose speech you're defending aren't interested in intellectual discussion or good-natured adversarial debate. They want to kill people, deprive them of rights, shout down everyone who disagrees with them, and justify all of this with a tissue of lies and conspiracy theories grounded primarily in bigotry and self-importance.
- ColanR 7y ago
  Doesn't mean they are any less entitled to the right of free speech. > They want to kill people, deprive them of rights, shout down everyone who disagrees with them, and justify all of this with a tissue of lies and conspiracy theories grounded primarily in bigotry and self-importance. You're talking about a vocal / violent minority of conspiracy theorists. Most are investigating their theories about possible conspiracies. Is there anything a conspiracy theorist could say, to try and prove they aren't against you? Because your blanket description of 'the people whose speech I'm defending', and your implication they should be denied the freedom to speak their theories, makes you look disinterested in an intellectual discussion with any conspiracy theorist.

by ColanR 7y ago

gwm83 7y ago

Does it make a difference if there is no true discussion or debate, but instead one party that simply desires to spread misinformation? (Party in this context not meaning a US political party)

ColanR 7y ago
It makes no difference whatsoever: because otherwise we need to appoint a referee that gets to decide what counts as misinformation.

danaris 7y ago

Intellectual discussion has no chance against a mob of people who are convinced that you're against them, and anything you say to try to prove you're not is just more evidence of how awful you are. The people whose speech you're defending aren't interested in intellectual discussion or good-natured adversarial debate. They want to kill people, deprive them of rights, shout down everyone who disagrees with them, and justify all of this with a tissue of lies and conspiracy theories grounded primarily in bigotry and self-importance.

ColanR 7y ago
Doesn't mean they are any less entitled to the right of free speech. > They want to kill people, deprive them of rights, shout down everyone who disagrees with them, and justify all of this with a tissue of lies and conspiracy theories grounded primarily in bigotry and self-importance. You're talking about a vocal / violent minority of conspiracy theorists. Most are investigating their theories about possible conspiracies. Is there anything a conspiracy theorist could say, to try and prove they aren't against you? Because your blanket description of 'the people whose speech I'm defending', and your implication they should be denied the freedom to speak their theories, makes you look disinterested in an intellectual discussion with any conspiracy theorist.