5 ms·

> Mindreading. Your initial point that GP is making an unsubstantiated claim about the intentions and strategy of a large group of people with diverse motivati

> Mindreading. Your initial point that GP is making an unsubstantiated claim about the intentions and strategy of a large group of people with diverse motivations is a good one, but the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way that detracts from your argument (significantly). > Get a time machine, tell that truck to James Madison. Tell it to John Stuart Mill. This second argument seems like a straw man to me. The GP is not saying that we should apply new ideas about speech to past thinkers. GP is instead simply stating that the left happens to have these ideas about speech and that this is the intention of them. > There is one proven way of raising consciousness and of expanding the possibilities of consciousness, and that's free speech. Every other mode of conceptualizing the kaleidoscope of realities leads to bad places. Every other mode other than free speech is a blasphemy against the Enlightenment. I will defend your right to blaspheme of course Once again, I think that your argument here that free speech is the only way to raise consciousness is an interesting one with significant merit, but the subsequent straw man really derails it. You imply that the GP is "blaspheme[ing]" free speech, but GP does no such thing. > I will defend your right to blaspheme of course, but reserve my right to sneer at your "dialectic" and at your deeply broken toxic simile about how "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons". This bit doesn't really add much. "words and speech are exceedingly used like weapons" is not a simile, and sneering at GP's use of the word dialectic + the scare quotes doesn't really add anything substantive to your previous assertions. NB: I suspect that this comment will come off as overly patronizing, and I apologize in advance. I hope that this will at least add to a constructive discussion of this topic, and help other readers focus on some important points in the parent's post.

atoav 7y ago
> Your initial point that GP is making an unsubstantiated claim about the intentions and strategy of a large group of people with diverse motivations is a good one Indeed he had a point there. In my defense, talking about something as vaguely as “the right” or “the left” is always slippery terrain, especially without lenghty definition. When I write “the right” one person might think about the extreme right fringes while others think I speak about everything right from the center. Additionally right movements from different areas differ, so as someone who grew up in Austria and lives in Germany our right are clearly nazis, while the right in the US might have more diverse movements on top of the classical fascist right that I meant (e.g. libertarians).
arduanika 7y ago
Thanks for taking the time. > the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way Do you mean, identifying it as "mindreading" in this terse way is unproductive, or the subsequent phrasing and is unproductive? > The GP is not saying that we should apply new ideas about speech to past thinkers Oops, that wasn't what I meant to imply. My point was, JM and JSM would roll over to hear what I saw as GP's (recently revised) weasel words, e.g. "negatively impact" for "harm", employed towards what I saw as GP's desire to delegitimize large swaths of the political spectrum. But maybe that's some mindreading of my own. I had a visceral reaction to what I read as GP's roundabout argument against free speech. It seems to me like GP is imputing and denouncing the motives of people they dislike, and questioning the legitimacy of people's free speech rights given that GP know's what's in their soul. Do you see where I'm coming from here? < is not a simile How not?

atoav 7y ago

> Your initial point that GP is making an unsubstantiated claim about the intentions and strategy of a large group of people with diverse motivations is a good one Indeed he had a point there. In my defense, talking about something as vaguely as “the right” or “the left” is always slippery terrain, especially without lenghty definition. When I write “the right” one person might think about the extreme right fringes while others think I speak about everything right from the center. Additionally right movements from different areas differ, so as someone who grew up in Austria and lives in Germany our right are clearly nazis, while the right in the US might have more diverse movements on top of the classical fascist right that I meant (e.g. libertarians).

arduanika 7y ago

Thanks for taking the time. > the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way Do you mean, identifying it as "mindreading" in this terse way is unproductive, or the subsequent phrasing and is unproductive? > The GP is not saying that we should apply new ideas about speech to past thinkers Oops, that wasn't what I meant to imply. My point was, JM and JSM would roll over to hear what I saw as GP's (recently revised) weasel words, e.g. "negatively impact" for "harm", employed towards what I saw as GP's desire to delegitimize large swaths of the political spectrum. But maybe that's some mindreading of my own. I had a visceral reaction to what I read as GP's roundabout argument against free speech. It seems to me like GP is imputing and denouncing the motives of people they dislike, and questioning the legitimacy of people's free speech rights given that GP know's what's in their soul. Do you see where I'm coming from here? < is not a simile How not?