5 ms·

Maybe, but the argument is that mere public existence of an idea effectively promotes correct ideas and demotes incorrect ideas. That is absolutely not in evid

Maybe, but the argument is that mere public existence of an idea effectively promotes correct ideas and demotes incorrect ideas. That is absolutely not in evidence.

aantthony 6y ago
My comment wasn't about whether people knew these practices were occurring. People knew they were occurring. The mere public existence of an idea (like in some dusty old book that nobody reads) is not sufficient to change majority option, no.
WalterBright 6y ago
Sure it is. All kinds of ideas died when information became readily available, even when the authorities tried to suppress them. For example, the idea of a nobility class.
- james-mcelwain 6y ago
  Past results do not guarantee future performance.
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    This is a pretty low effort comment, but more importantly is conceding the several upthread assertions that freedom of speech has historically been effective at correcting bad ideas. If your claim is that we shouldn't expect this to continue in the future, that's a whole new claim that you need to support.
    - james-mcelwain 6y ago
      I mean, a teleological view of history and ethics is just so absurd that it disturbs me that professed "rational" scientifically minded people believe it. There's no basis for believing just because things "tend" to get better that is in itself a causative argument about some intrinsic nature of humanity. I mean, even the example used ("the noble class") is preposterous on face because: 1. The Russian Revolution? Germany 1849? Even the American Revolution? None of these are about ideas, or "shining the light on ignorance" -- they're about putting the nobility up against the wall. If there's some kind of teleology at play here, it's not that we thought about it in the marketplace of ideas long enough and decided to do away with the concept. 2. Nobility still exists! At best, this just means we live in a secular society, where we no longer believe the Word of God justifies massive inequality.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        > Nobility still exists! Only as formality in some countries. In America, there are some people who call the Kennedys "America's aristocracy", call JFK's white house "Camelot", and make references to members of the Kennedy family being "entitled" to office, but there's no legal basis for it. Apartheid in South Africa is also gone.
      - tomhoward 6y ago
        All the events you list happened in the wake of the enlightenment, the period when ideas challenging the validity of the dominance of the monarchies, nobles and the church were disseminated and popularised in large part due to the invention of the printing press - i.e., an instrument of free speech.
        james-mcelwain 6y ago
        This either trivially true, in the sense that the Western canon builds on itself, or patently absurd, in the sense that you attempt to frame the 1918 revolution as being a mere effect of the invention of the printing press 500 years earlier. Neither strikes me as being particularly rigorous historiography.
        tomhoward 6y ago
        > particularly rigorous historiography It was one-line discussion-board summation of what is widely accepted by historians (as you said, "trivially true"), but if you'd like to share an explanation of how the spread of ideas leading to the revolutions of Europe could have happened without an innovation that had the same effect as the printing press did, I'd be intrigued to to read it. > patently absurd So far, three of your replies in this thread alone have contained the word "absurd". They probably all break the HN guidelines ("Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation", and "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says"). But more importantly, you're too busy sneering at other people's comments to make any positive assertion of your own. So what is it you actually want to persuade us of, about the appropriate levels of constraints on speech in the modern world?
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  > All kinds of ideas died when information became readily available > For example, the idea of a nobility class. America literally has a nobility class right now. The UK isn't far off.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > America literally has a nobility class right now. Literally nope. For example, there is no law that says the word of one group of people is worth more in court than another group. There are no laws saying only certain people can be in power based on their ancestors. There is no law enshrining divine right.
    - zimpenfish 6y ago
      > For example, there is no law that says the word of one group of people is worth more in court And yet. > There are no laws saying only certain people can be in power based on their ancestors. And yet. Just because there are no explicit written laws does not mean this doesn't happen every single day in multiple ways.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        Common people with nobody parents routinely wind up as Presidents, Senators, Representatives, and SC Justices.
        zimpenfish 6y ago
        I think "routinely" is overstating it. These days, "infrequently" is probably more accurate. US politics is very much of the monied, for the monied. Without a huge warchest, barring odd circumstances[1], you've got little chance of making it through the various filters. [1] e.g an extremely unpopular incumbent against a popular challenger with excellent ground game.
        tomhoward 6y ago

Maybe, but the argument is that mere public existence of an idea effectively promotes correct ideas and demotes incorrect ideas. That is absolutely not in evidence.

aantthony 6y ago

My comment wasn't about whether people knew these practices were occurring. People knew they were occurring. The mere public existence of an idea (like in some dusty old book that nobody reads) is not sufficient to change majority option, no.

WalterBright 6y ago

Sure it is. All kinds of ideas died when information became readily available, even when the authorities tried to suppress them. For example, the idea of a nobility class.

james-mcelwain 6y ago
Past results do not guarantee future performance.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  This is a pretty low effort comment, but more importantly is conceding the several upthread assertions that freedom of speech has historically been effective at correcting bad ideas. If your claim is that we shouldn't expect this to continue in the future, that's a whole new claim that you need to support.
  - james-mcelwain 6y ago
    I mean, a teleological view of history and ethics is just so absurd that it disturbs me that professed "rational" scientifically minded people believe it. There's no basis for believing just because things "tend" to get better that is in itself a causative argument about some intrinsic nature of humanity. I mean, even the example used ("the noble class") is preposterous on face because: 1. The Russian Revolution? Germany 1849? Even the American Revolution? None of these are about ideas, or "shining the light on ignorance" -- they're about putting the nobility up against the wall. If there's some kind of teleology at play here, it's not that we thought about it in the marketplace of ideas long enough and decided to do away with the concept. 2. Nobility still exists! At best, this just means we live in a secular society, where we no longer believe the Word of God justifies massive inequality.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      > Nobility still exists! Only as formality in some countries. In America, there are some people who call the Kennedys "America's aristocracy", call JFK's white house "Camelot", and make references to members of the Kennedy family being "entitled" to office, but there's no legal basis for it. Apartheid in South Africa is also gone.
    - tomhoward 6y ago
      All the events you list happened in the wake of the enlightenment, the period when ideas challenging the validity of the dominance of the monarchies, nobles and the church were disseminated and popularised in large part due to the invention of the printing press - i.e., an instrument of free speech.
      - james-mcelwain 6y ago
        This either trivially true, in the sense that the Western canon builds on itself, or patently absurd, in the sense that you attempt to frame the 1918 revolution as being a mere effect of the invention of the printing press 500 years earlier. Neither strikes me as being particularly rigorous historiography.
        tomhoward 6y ago
        > particularly rigorous historiography It was one-line discussion-board summation of what is widely accepted by historians (as you said, "trivially true"), but if you'd like to share an explanation of how the spread of ideas leading to the revolutions of Europe could have happened without an innovation that had the same effect as the printing press did, I'd be intrigued to to read it. > patently absurd So far, three of your replies in this thread alone have contained the word "absurd". They probably all break the HN guidelines ("Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation", and "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says"). But more importantly, you're too busy sneering at other people's comments to make any positive assertion of your own. So what is it you actually want to persuade us of, about the appropriate levels of constraints on speech in the modern world?
zimpenfish 6y ago
> All kinds of ideas died when information became readily available > For example, the idea of a nobility class. America literally has a nobility class right now. The UK isn't far off.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > America literally has a nobility class right now. Literally nope. For example, there is no law that says the word of one group of people is worth more in court than another group. There are no laws saying only certain people can be in power based on their ancestors. There is no law enshrining divine right.
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    > For example, there is no law that says the word of one group of people is worth more in court And yet. > There are no laws saying only certain people can be in power based on their ancestors. And yet. Just because there are no explicit written laws does not mean this doesn't happen every single day in multiple ways.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      Common people with nobody parents routinely wind up as Presidents, Senators, Representatives, and SC Justices.
      - zimpenfish 6y ago
        I think "routinely" is overstating it. These days, "infrequently" is probably more accurate. US politics is very much of the monied, for the monied. Without a huge warchest, barring odd circumstances[1], you've got little chance of making it through the various filters. [1] e.g an extremely unpopular incumbent against a popular challenger with excellent ground game.
        tomhoward 6y ago