3 ms·

> No one should be able to dictate what the proper "just and ethical outcomes" should be Not only is every human _able_ to dictate what "just and ethical outco

> No one should be able to dictate what the proper "just and ethical outcomes" should be Not only is every human _able_ to dictate what "just and ethical outcomes" are, we're _obliged_ to, if we intend to form civil society. > Is today's morality the end of all things? No, of course not. Everyone is obliged to continuously engage in the conversation, to push the course of all society away from suffering and toward justice.

DuskStar 7y ago
> No, of course not. Everyone is obliged to continuously engage in the conversation, to push the course of all society away from suffering and toward justice. Well how the fuck are you supposed to be able to do this if all wrongthink is banned? Because things like "women are equal to men", "race doesn't matter", "slavery is wrong", etc were most certainly wrongthink to begin with.
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  > Because things like "women are equal to men", "race doesn't matter", "slavery is wrong", etc were most certainly wrongthink to begin with. Pretty big difference between your examples and literal nazis posting hate on 8chan.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Oh, of course - but the point is that you can't always tell ahead of time, and giving the people in power the ability to determine such just ensures that the people in power will never change.
- sagichmal 7y ago
  I’m going to turn it around on you: how can we have a just society if women legitimately fear for their safety when they go to certain places? We’re not obliged to suffer white nationalists carrying tiki torches down the national mall chanting “Blood and thunder” and making the world unambiguously worse because we need to know their position exists. Sunlight is not always the best disinfectant.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > how can we have a just society if women legitimately fear for their safety when they go to certain places? This is a really hard question, partly because those women are generally wrong - men are much more likely to be mugged/assaulted/killed than women in every US location I've seen statistics for. > We’re not obliged to suffer white nationalists carrying tiki torches down the national mall chanting “Blood and thunder” and making the world unambiguously worse because we need to know their position exists. Should we also not be obliged to suffer black supremacists doing the same? Or, more recently, gay rights advocates? How is that not exactly analogous to pride parades? Yes, we now agree with (and approve of) some values and not others. But locking those values in place 20 years ago would have been clearly wrong (no gay marriage, etc), so why do we assume that doing the same today would have been better? How can we differentiate between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' while still allowing the next gay rights movement to take place?
    - sagichmal 7y ago
      > Should we also not be obliged to suffer ... gay rights advocates? If you want to make a case that gay rights advocates make the world unambiguously worse, be my guest. At a societal scale, you will fail, because there is a clear and categorical difference between that example and mine. It's fine that not everyone feels that way. The people who think gay rights advocates make the world worse are wrong, and society has the right to judge them that way. Just because you can swap the nouns in a formulation of a policy and turn it from good to bad (or bad to good) doesn't mean that policy is wrong, or bad, or shouldn't be used. Social policy don't need to be content-agnostic to be useful. We can apply a policy against nouns that, in outcome, make the world better; and refuse to apply the same policy against nouns that, in outcome, make the world worse. We're gonna get those determinations wrong sometimes, and that's inevitable and fine, we can just course-correct and carry on in good faith.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        > If you want to make a case that gay rights advocates make the world unambiguously worse, be my guest. At a societal scale, you will fail, because there is a clear and categorical difference between that example and mine. My point was that 20 years ago, there are a hell of a lot of people that would have made that argument. There's probably still a double-digit percentage of Americans who believe that today. It's like evaluating a stock trading strategy on historical data - success there does not guarantee success in the real world, but failure highly implies it. Your proposed policy - which as far as I can tell simplifies to "ban advocating for things that a supermajority of the population finds distasteful" - would have prevented (or at least harmed) quite a few movements over the past century or three, and so I say that if implemented today it would do the same in the future.

DuskStar 7y ago

> No, of course not. Everyone is obliged to continuously engage in the conversation, to push the course of all society away from suffering and toward justice. Well how the fuck are you supposed to be able to do this if all wrongthink is banned? Because things like "women are equal to men", "race doesn't matter", "slavery is wrong", etc were most certainly wrongthink to begin with.

spookthesunset 7y ago
> Because things like "women are equal to men", "race doesn't matter", "slavery is wrong", etc were most certainly wrongthink to begin with. Pretty big difference between your examples and literal nazis posting hate on 8chan.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Oh, of course - but the point is that you can't always tell ahead of time, and giving the people in power the ability to determine such just ensures that the people in power will never change.
sagichmal 7y ago
I’m going to turn it around on you: how can we have a just society if women legitimately fear for their safety when they go to certain places? We’re not obliged to suffer white nationalists carrying tiki torches down the national mall chanting “Blood and thunder” and making the world unambiguously worse because we need to know their position exists. Sunlight is not always the best disinfectant.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > how can we have a just society if women legitimately fear for their safety when they go to certain places? This is a really hard question, partly because those women are generally wrong - men are much more likely to be mugged/assaulted/killed than women in every US location I've seen statistics for. > We’re not obliged to suffer white nationalists carrying tiki torches down the national mall chanting “Blood and thunder” and making the world unambiguously worse because we need to know their position exists. Should we also not be obliged to suffer black supremacists doing the same? Or, more recently, gay rights advocates? How is that not exactly analogous to pride parades? Yes, we now agree with (and approve of) some values and not others. But locking those values in place 20 years ago would have been clearly wrong (no gay marriage, etc), so why do we assume that doing the same today would have been better? How can we differentiate between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' while still allowing the next gay rights movement to take place?
  - sagichmal 7y ago
    > Should we also not be obliged to suffer ... gay rights advocates? If you want to make a case that gay rights advocates make the world unambiguously worse, be my guest. At a societal scale, you will fail, because there is a clear and categorical difference between that example and mine. It's fine that not everyone feels that way. The people who think gay rights advocates make the world worse are wrong, and society has the right to judge them that way. Just because you can swap the nouns in a formulation of a policy and turn it from good to bad (or bad to good) doesn't mean that policy is wrong, or bad, or shouldn't be used. Social policy don't need to be content-agnostic to be useful. We can apply a policy against nouns that, in outcome, make the world better; and refuse to apply the same policy against nouns that, in outcome, make the world worse. We're gonna get those determinations wrong sometimes, and that's inevitable and fine, we can just course-correct and carry on in good faith.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > If you want to make a case that gay rights advocates make the world unambiguously worse, be my guest. At a societal scale, you will fail, because there is a clear and categorical difference between that example and mine. My point was that 20 years ago, there are a hell of a lot of people that would have made that argument. There's probably still a double-digit percentage of Americans who believe that today. It's like evaluating a stock trading strategy on historical data - success there does not guarantee success in the real world, but failure highly implies it. Your proposed policy - which as far as I can tell simplifies to "ban advocating for things that a supermajority of the population finds distasteful" - would have prevented (or at least harmed) quite a few movements over the past century or three, and so I say that if implemented today it would do the same in the future.