4 ms·

The best mechanism against bad ideas is to allow trustworthy people who can speak clearly and honestly about those ideas to do so. The first amendment, in addi

The best mechanism against bad ideas is to allow trustworthy people who can speak clearly and honestly about those ideas to do so. The first amendment, in addition to freedom of speech, was supposed to enshrine the idea of a free press so that the two could keep the government in check. The press was supposed to allow honest trustworthy people to become known and to inform the public about issues of the day, and allow their honesty to be questioned and put on trial. The press chose a different path long ago, favoring one political party to an extreme degree where instead of the public's ability to test the honesty of politicians and pundits, we are simply to be told without question, mostly along party lines, what the truth is. Simply adding more power to the press will without a doubt make every problem in America much, much worse in the long run.

jmcqk6 6y ago
First of all, talking about "the press" as though it's some monolithic entity is just wrong. "The Press" is made up of thousands and thousands of uncoordinated organizations and people. There are still honest and trustworthy members of "the press" out there and available. Just as each individual member of "the press" has a responsibility and duty to serve that role well, we also have a shared responsibility to hold them to that standard. What we are facing here is a not just a failure of "the press", but a failure across society as a whole. We mostly don't want to do the right thing, which means putting aside our egos and focusing on what is actually true. We want to do the thing that feels good, which is getting confirmation of our current beliefs as righteous. "The press" is not responsible for this feeling, but some of them definitely benefit from it. >allow trustworthy people who can speak clearly and honestly about those ideas to do so And who, exactly, is going to make these decisions about who is "allowed" to speak or not? What, exactly, is that mechanism?
- Covzire 6y ago
  The question of who is exactly the point, the American ideal is all people get a voice. The more our voices are squashed by a powerful special interest, like the collective media and big tech, the more deranged our society will become. Everyone goes insane when left to themselves and group dynamics are no different. Whatever group of people you revere as 'good' the most, need to go through trials of their character by opposing voices or your favorite group is just getting more and more deranged over time. This is precisely why freedom of speech is so important, because wielding the power of 'who' can talk is far too powerful and far too easily abused.
  - jmcqk6 6y ago
    The problem is that people are believing things that are factually false and that leads them to cause problems for the entire group. Nothing that you described will fix that problem at all. How, exactly, are we going to fix that problem?
    - Covzire 6y ago
      Allow people to speak. To use your climate change example, climate change experts need to engage the public, even people they disagree with. The fact that they're not creates the appearance they are dishonest or have alternative agendas. Universities are the worst for this, they no longer allow free speech almost anywhere, and do not engage with anyone who disagrees with them once they've decided they have all the facts. Even if they're right, engagement is the only possible way to a society without oppression by the people who think they have the facts and the longer they avoid engagement, the more they will become deranged even if they do start out completely and factually correct. Derangement is guaranteed in groups without full engagement of ideas and the media and universities (at large) are already at alarming levels of insanity in the ideas they're peddling, they've stopped engaging with critics long ago and now they want more power to silence those critics in their own homes. It's the definition of oppression masquerading as decency.
      - jmcqk6 6y ago
        >The fact that they're not creates the appearance they are dishonest or have alternative agendas. What are you talking about? They are constantly trying to engage. Your comment about universities doesn't ring true to me either. Universities are where you're most likely to find free exchanges of ideas today. You can cherry pick counter examples, but that ignores the larger truth, and the reality of larger society. People do not want to hear how they are wrong. People do not want to be wrong. Allowing people to speak does not fix this problem. It does nothing to this problem at all. It is, in fact, the current reality. You speak of not engaging with critics, but what I've found is that the people who are ignoring basic facts about the world are the ones that are least likely to have honest exchanges about their own ideas. Still, you have offered no such solution to that problem.

jmcqk6 6y ago

First of all, talking about "the press" as though it's some monolithic entity is just wrong. "The Press" is made up of thousands and thousands of uncoordinated organizations and people. There are still honest and trustworthy members of "the press" out there and available. Just as each individual member of "the press" has a responsibility and duty to serve that role well, we also have a shared responsibility to hold them to that standard. What we are facing here is a not just a failure of "the press", but a failure across society as a whole. We mostly don't want to do the right thing, which means putting aside our egos and focusing on what is actually true. We want to do the thing that feels good, which is getting confirmation of our current beliefs as righteous. "The press" is not responsible for this feeling, but some of them definitely benefit from it. >allow trustworthy people who can speak clearly and honestly about those ideas to do so And who, exactly, is going to make these decisions about who is "allowed" to speak or not? What, exactly, is that mechanism?

Covzire 6y ago
The question of who is exactly the point, the American ideal is all people get a voice. The more our voices are squashed by a powerful special interest, like the collective media and big tech, the more deranged our society will become. Everyone goes insane when left to themselves and group dynamics are no different. Whatever group of people you revere as 'good' the most, need to go through trials of their character by opposing voices or your favorite group is just getting more and more deranged over time. This is precisely why freedom of speech is so important, because wielding the power of 'who' can talk is far too powerful and far too easily abused.
- jmcqk6 6y ago
  The problem is that people are believing things that are factually false and that leads them to cause problems for the entire group. Nothing that you described will fix that problem at all. How, exactly, are we going to fix that problem?
  - Covzire 6y ago
    Allow people to speak. To use your climate change example, climate change experts need to engage the public, even people they disagree with. The fact that they're not creates the appearance they are dishonest or have alternative agendas. Universities are the worst for this, they no longer allow free speech almost anywhere, and do not engage with anyone who disagrees with them once they've decided they have all the facts. Even if they're right, engagement is the only possible way to a society without oppression by the people who think they have the facts and the longer they avoid engagement, the more they will become deranged even if they do start out completely and factually correct. Derangement is guaranteed in groups without full engagement of ideas and the media and universities (at large) are already at alarming levels of insanity in the ideas they're peddling, they've stopped engaging with critics long ago and now they want more power to silence those critics in their own homes. It's the definition of oppression masquerading as decency.
    - jmcqk6 6y ago
      >The fact that they're not creates the appearance they are dishonest or have alternative agendas. What are you talking about? They are constantly trying to engage. Your comment about universities doesn't ring true to me either. Universities are where you're most likely to find free exchanges of ideas today. You can cherry pick counter examples, but that ignores the larger truth, and the reality of larger society. People do not want to hear how they are wrong. People do not want to be wrong. Allowing people to speak does not fix this problem. It does nothing to this problem at all. It is, in fact, the current reality. You speak of not engaging with critics, but what I've found is that the people who are ignoring basic facts about the world are the ones that are least likely to have honest exchanges about their own ideas. Still, you have offered no such solution to that problem.