6 ms·

A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous.

A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all.

supernova87a 6y ago
>A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all. Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex? You think personal liberties are at a low point? I must live in a different world. We are in the age of the greatest emphasis on personal choice, personal satisfaction, and personal decision making in recent history. If anything we are in danger of the opposite -- personal freedoms making us unable to do or support things that are for the communal good. Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, that is stressed in our daily lives (as well as what many people seek to display to others) is about you deciding what you want and not having to put up with someone telling you what to do. "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc. The ease of finding subcultures and not having to have your individual interests and quirks diluted by a generic community. The ease of creating/joining isolated interest groups and segregating onesself from your neighbors, community, state, country. (This is not a new thesis -- written about extensively such as in "Bowling Alone".) It's driven by our consumerism, of course, but it leaks into our government and other aspects of societal life very strongly. Note today, even governments almost feel they cannot force people to act in ways that benefit the community, and have to ask politely people to do things like wear masks (for fear of backlash and being voted out for violating people's personal liberties -- or what they believe are their liberties). JSM was writing in an age where tyranny (or lack of recourse to rebel against tyranny) and material deprivation were common, social mobility was almost non-existent, and the notion that you could have a prosperous life without relying on the rest of society (and its rigid rules) laughable. If you feel that (at least in the US) personal liberty is at risk, I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country.
- virmundi 6y ago
  The US faces an interesting philosophical dissonance. We are being pushed to allow individual autonomy to the point that individuals get to define reality for others. At the same time if the others don't accept the reality pushed on them, they are called bigots and Nazis. For example, a man can wake up one day saying to himself, "Damn, I feel like a woman". If I don't accept that he is, if only for a fleeting moment, a woman, than I'm labeled a bigot. If I wake up and say, "A man can never be a woman" based on science, my reality cannot be forced on anyone, for again, doing such would make those affected by me oppressed. This extends to social associations. Blacks are called to throw off the oppressive colonizer by burning their own neighborhoods, but if they dare step off the Democrats' plantation, they are no longer black. The Black community ostracize them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTcViL8Udo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTcViL8Udo0
  - xpe 6y ago
    > For example, a man can wake up one day saying to himself, "Damn, I feel like a woman". If I don't accept that he is, if only for a fleeting moment, a woman, than I'm labeled a bigot. This comes across as a caricature of a serious issue. For what it is worth, whether I agree or disagree with you (or anyone), I strive not to mischaracterize your concerns. I would like to ask a favor. Please read [1] and come back here afterward. Try rephrasing your comment. I hope you are capable of making a good faith attempt at understanding sex (at birth), gender identity, expression, and so on. 1: https://www.adolescenthealth.org/Meetings/Past-Meetings/2017-Annual-Meeting/2017-Speaker-Handouts/March-9_BEYOND-THE-BINARY-SUPPORTING-TRANSGENDER-A.aspx https://www.adolescenthealth.org/Meetings/Past-Meetings/2017...
    - virmundi 6y ago
      It’s not a mischaracterization. That is the platform of the trans positive groups. They say that sex and gender are divorced and anyone who does not agree with that are committing hate speech. Further there are those that advocate for fluidity of gender. They say that a single individual may float across the whole spectrum of gender in the same day. If I don’t use the proper pronoun at the right time for that person, again, I am committing hate speech. If I say in my reality, remember they are claiming relativity, that gender and sex are the same; If I say no one floats across the spectrum like that, rather than them conforming to my reality as they demand of me and society at large, I am labeled a bigot.
lvs 6y ago
Absurd. Just put a mask on for goodness' sake.
- xpe 6y ago
  Please aim higher with your comments. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - lvs 6y ago
    Oh but I did. The worse interpretation was that the commenter feels their liberty is constrained by current efforts to combat racism, sexism, sexual assault, etc.. Either way, invoking Mill is philosophical hogwash. Aim higher with your dishonest intellectualism.
    - xpe 6y ago
      > Either way, invoking Mill is philosophical hogwash. There are more than two reasons that a link about Mill might have been posted. You've only mentioned two very pessimistic interpretations. I will grant that choosing the least pessimistic is a step in the right direction, but I want to point out this: there are many positive reasons why people value Mill. If you ask first, you might find them. You don't have to agree to ask. You can have a conversation without attacking. So, please don't take this personally -- you can make your points without an attacking tone -- that's what I mean by aim higher. As in, strive to give people the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the irony here is that I may actually support many of the same causes as you. I've learned that using an abundance of grace when responding to people is not only kinder but leads to better outcomes. So, yes, I want to believe that you are capable of making a better, clearer, more persuasive claim. For example, you could have written something like this: "Given this moment in the world, with a history of racism and abusive policing, with tragedy after tragedy, with a blatant lack of accountability, with with protests in the US, I am concerned that some people are grabbing onto concepts such as individual liberty without realizing that in the very founding of the US that rights come with responsibilities." You might add some quotes from Mill where he argues against narrowly individualistic misinterpretations of his philosophy. > Aim higher with your dishonest intellectualism. One definition of intellectualism is "the exercise of the intellect at the expense of the emotions." Remember this: you don't know me. You assume a lot without asking questions. These issues are both emotional and intellectual to me. They work together. All in all, I invite you to have a better conversation.

supernova87a 6y ago

>A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all. Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex? You think personal liberties are at a low point? I must live in a different world. We are in the age of the greatest emphasis on personal choice, personal satisfaction, and personal decision making in recent history. If anything we are in danger of the opposite -- personal freedoms making us unable to do or support things that are for the communal good. Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, that is stressed in our daily lives (as well as what many people seek to display to others) is about you deciding what you want and not having to put up with someone telling you what to do. "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc. The ease of finding subcultures and not having to have your individual interests and quirks diluted by a generic community. The ease of creating/joining isolated interest groups and segregating onesself from your neighbors, community, state, country. (This is not a new thesis -- written about extensively such as in "Bowling Alone".) It's driven by our consumerism, of course, but it leaks into our government and other aspects of societal life very strongly. Note today, even governments almost feel they cannot force people to act in ways that benefit the community, and have to ask politely people to do things like wear masks (for fear of backlash and being voted out for violating people's personal liberties -- or what they believe are their liberties). JSM was writing in an age where tyranny (or lack of recourse to rebel against tyranny) and material deprivation were common, social mobility was almost non-existent, and the notion that you could have a prosperous life without relying on the rest of society (and its rigid rules) laughable. If you feel that (at least in the US) personal liberty is at risk, I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country.

virmundi 6y ago
The US faces an interesting philosophical dissonance. We are being pushed to allow individual autonomy to the point that individuals get to define reality for others. At the same time if the others don't accept the reality pushed on them, they are called bigots and Nazis. For example, a man can wake up one day saying to himself, "Damn, I feel like a woman". If I don't accept that he is, if only for a fleeting moment, a woman, than I'm labeled a bigot. If I wake up and say, "A man can never be a woman" based on science, my reality cannot be forced on anyone, for again, doing such would make those affected by me oppressed. This extends to social associations. Blacks are called to throw off the oppressive colonizer by burning their own neighborhoods, but if they dare step off the Democrats' plantation, they are no longer black. The Black community ostracize them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTcViL8Udo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTcViL8Udo0
- xpe 6y ago
  > For example, a man can wake up one day saying to himself, "Damn, I feel like a woman". If I don't accept that he is, if only for a fleeting moment, a woman, than I'm labeled a bigot. This comes across as a caricature of a serious issue. For what it is worth, whether I agree or disagree with you (or anyone), I strive not to mischaracterize your concerns. I would like to ask a favor. Please read [1] and come back here afterward. Try rephrasing your comment. I hope you are capable of making a good faith attempt at understanding sex (at birth), gender identity, expression, and so on. 1: https://www.adolescenthealth.org/Meetings/Past-Meetings/2017-Annual-Meeting/2017-Speaker-Handouts/March-9_BEYOND-THE-BINARY-SUPPORTING-TRANSGENDER-A.aspx https://www.adolescenthealth.org/Meetings/Past-Meetings/2017...
  - virmundi 6y ago
    It’s not a mischaracterization. That is the platform of the trans positive groups. They say that sex and gender are divorced and anyone who does not agree with that are committing hate speech. Further there are those that advocate for fluidity of gender. They say that a single individual may float across the whole spectrum of gender in the same day. If I don’t use the proper pronoun at the right time for that person, again, I am committing hate speech. If I say in my reality, remember they are claiming relativity, that gender and sex are the same; If I say no one floats across the spectrum like that, rather than them conforming to my reality as they demand of me and society at large, I am labeled a bigot.

lvs 6y ago

Absurd. Just put a mask on for goodness' sake.

xpe 6y ago
Please aim higher with your comments. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lvs 6y ago
  Oh but I did. The worse interpretation was that the commenter feels their liberty is constrained by current efforts to combat racism, sexism, sexual assault, etc.. Either way, invoking Mill is philosophical hogwash. Aim higher with your dishonest intellectualism.
  - xpe 6y ago
    > Either way, invoking Mill is philosophical hogwash. There are more than two reasons that a link about Mill might have been posted. You've only mentioned two very pessimistic interpretations. I will grant that choosing the least pessimistic is a step in the right direction, but I want to point out this: there are many positive reasons why people value Mill. If you ask first, you might find them. You don't have to agree to ask. You can have a conversation without attacking. So, please don't take this personally -- you can make your points without an attacking tone -- that's what I mean by aim higher. As in, strive to give people the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the irony here is that I may actually support many of the same causes as you. I've learned that using an abundance of grace when responding to people is not only kinder but leads to better outcomes. So, yes, I want to believe that you are capable of making a better, clearer, more persuasive claim. For example, you could have written something like this: "Given this moment in the world, with a history of racism and abusive policing, with tragedy after tragedy, with a blatant lack of accountability, with with protests in the US, I am concerned that some people are grabbing onto concepts such as individual liberty without realizing that in the very founding of the US that rights come with responsibilities." You might add some quotes from Mill where he argues against narrowly individualistic misinterpretations of his philosophy. > Aim higher with your dishonest intellectualism. One definition of intellectualism is "the exercise of the intellect at the expense of the emotions." Remember this: you don't know me. You assume a lot without asking questions. These issues are both emotional and intellectual to me. They work together. All in all, I invite you to have a better conversation.