3 ms·

It started with not allowing anyone to agree or even argue that vaccines cause autism because people can die if they believe they shouldn’t get vaccines. Then,

It started with not allowing anyone to agree or even argue that vaccines cause autism because people can die if they believe they shouldn’t get vaccines. Then, we couldn’t argue that the Holocaust didn’t happen because that could give rise to a new Holocaust. Then, we couldn’t argue that Black crime was self-inflicted. Now, we can’t argue that police brutality is overstated. In each case, I tend to agree with the mainstream opinion. However, I only got to be that way because I heard both sides’ arguments and came to my own conclusion. There is an idea that these ideas are inherently dangerous and that holding these ideas could lead to lives lost. While that may be true, entirely censoring one side of a discussion makes everyone feel like evidence is being withheld and suspicion only grows. Even worse, ruining lives by doxxing is what was sought to prevent by stifling discussion in the first place. The only way forward is to accept that these ideas must be openly discussed, no matter how dangerous the opposing conclusion may be. If the truth really is self-evident, then there is nothing to fear, provided all sides are afforded ample opportunity to make their case. Otherwise, perhaps those who seek to censor are not, themselves, as correct and righteous as they might think. Edit: Even the Amish let their kids roam free temporarily in Rumspringa so that they don’t feel like they’re missing the truth.

mercer 6y ago
I think I mostly agree with you, but two nitpicks: 1. Allowing anti-vaxxers to have and discuss their ideas should be (and is?) allowed. But perhaps the risk to society is high enough that vaccination should be mandatory. I don't know enough to believe this strongly, but from what I understand the risks are there. 2. I always thought the 'rumspringa' approach was nice, but I've come to believe that it's deceptive, whether intentional or not. Throwing a teen into the deep end with no experience of the 'real world' strikes me as a very clever way to give them an experience that is intense, and perhaps usually skewed in favor of returning to the fold. It reminds me of the 'cool' speakers I was inundated with as an evangelical teen: they would talk about their 'worldly' lives filled with drugs, sex and booze, and how they ended up in various horrible situations and, obviously, how we should just avoid it altogether. What I learned later in life is that drugs, booze and sex are various degrees of danger, but also awesome. And because I 'went in' with a good amount of experience and education, a decent childhood, and at a slightly older age, for the most part none of these things actively harmed me.
Udik 6y ago
I don't agree fully with your explanation as I don't think the problem has been posed, in general, in terms of avoiding putting people's lives in danger. The issue is instead that empathy has become the attitude and quality that needs to take precedence over any other, including any amount of skepticism, inquisitive attitude and reason. We have become a world where the ultimate element of truth are someone's subjective feelings (usually negative) as the person reports them. (Google finds 3710 results for the exact phrase "I was in tears, shaking" which is not a bad number for such a precise description of an extreme state of distress). The problem with this is that of course, when you state a fact, it's possible to debate its truth rationally; but no rational debate is possible about a subjective feeling (short of calling the person reporting it a liar). For example, the problem that led to the sacking of the NYT's opinion editor over Tim Cotton's piece is not that the piece itself was putting lives in danger- that could have been up for debate; it's that some people objected that they felt it was putting lives in danger. While you could argue that stopping violent demonstrations is meant to preserve lives, the feeling is instead outside of any rational debate- you cannot argue that I'm not feeling what I say I'm feeling. So now whoever has a grievance or feels to have been wronged or is afraid of something, can claim his or her own feelings as the ultimate proof of the fact. It should be obvious to everyone that feeling something, being totally certain of it, doesn't really prove anything, that the whole point of discussion and rational inquiry is to separate what we feel from what is actually true. But refusing to fully acknowledge someone's negative feeling has become the ultimate sin. We used to negotiate negative feelings with others; sometimes this would bring acknowledgment, but other times sharing and debating them could actually help seeing a different side and attenuate them, or even change our attitude and make us grow. But when every single negative feeling is invariably received as the ultimate proof of a valid grievance, a positive feedback cycle starts: I only need to say how bad I feel to be comforted and assured that I am in the right and something is owed to me. This cannot but lead to an explosion of grivances. Which is what we're seeing now.
- thunderbong 6y ago
  >> The issue is instead that empathy has become the attitude and quality that needs to take precedence over any other, including any amount of skepticism, inquisitive attitude and reason. This is the key point. What I don't get is how it ended up this way? A person might empathize, but why should it take precedence? And if indeed it did, why doesn't that person's skepticism or criticism hold the same weight? Why should that get disregarded?

mercer 6y ago

I think I mostly agree with you, but two nitpicks: 1. Allowing anti-vaxxers to have and discuss their ideas should be (and is?) allowed. But perhaps the risk to society is high enough that vaccination should be mandatory. I don't know enough to believe this strongly, but from what I understand the risks are there. 2. I always thought the 'rumspringa' approach was nice, but I've come to believe that it's deceptive, whether intentional or not. Throwing a teen into the deep end with no experience of the 'real world' strikes me as a very clever way to give them an experience that is intense, and perhaps usually skewed in favor of returning to the fold. It reminds me of the 'cool' speakers I was inundated with as an evangelical teen: they would talk about their 'worldly' lives filled with drugs, sex and booze, and how they ended up in various horrible situations and, obviously, how we should just avoid it altogether. What I learned later in life is that drugs, booze and sex are various degrees of danger, but also awesome. And because I 'went in' with a good amount of experience and education, a decent childhood, and at a slightly older age, for the most part none of these things actively harmed me.

Udik 6y ago

I don't agree fully with your explanation as I don't think the problem has been posed, in general, in terms of avoiding putting people's lives in danger. The issue is instead that empathy has become the attitude and quality that needs to take precedence over any other, including any amount of skepticism, inquisitive attitude and reason. We have become a world where the ultimate element of truth are someone's subjective feelings (usually negative) as the person reports them. (Google finds 3710 results for the exact phrase "I was in tears, shaking" which is not a bad number for such a precise description of an extreme state of distress). The problem with this is that of course, when you state a fact, it's possible to debate its truth rationally; but no rational debate is possible about a subjective feeling (short of calling the person reporting it a liar). For example, the problem that led to the sacking of the NYT's opinion editor over Tim Cotton's piece is not that the piece itself was putting lives in danger- that could have been up for debate; it's that some people objected that they felt it was putting lives in danger. While you could argue that stopping violent demonstrations is meant to preserve lives, the feeling is instead outside of any rational debate- you cannot argue that I'm not feeling what I say I'm feeling. So now whoever has a grievance or feels to have been wronged or is afraid of something, can claim his or her own feelings as the ultimate proof of the fact. It should be obvious to everyone that feeling something, being totally certain of it, doesn't really prove anything, that the whole point of discussion and rational inquiry is to separate what we feel from what is actually true. But refusing to fully acknowledge someone's negative feeling has become the ultimate sin. We used to negotiate negative feelings with others; sometimes this would bring acknowledgment, but other times sharing and debating them could actually help seeing a different side and attenuate them, or even change our attitude and make us grow. But when every single negative feeling is invariably received as the ultimate proof of a valid grievance, a positive feedback cycle starts: I only need to say how bad I feel to be comforted and assured that I am in the right and something is owed to me. This cannot but lead to an explosion of grivances. Which is what we're seeing now.

thunderbong 6y ago
>> The issue is instead that empathy has become the attitude and quality that needs to take precedence over any other, including any amount of skepticism, inquisitive attitude and reason. This is the key point. What I don't get is how it ended up this way? A person might empathize, but why should it take precedence? And if indeed it did, why doesn't that person's skepticism or criticism hold the same weight? Why should that get disregarded?