3 ms·

Never thought I'd see the day that a pg essay crosses over with /r/politicalcompassmemes The problem with "discussing ideas" as a framing is that it exists in

Never thought I'd see the day that a pg essay crosses over with /r/politicalcompassmemes The problem with "discussing ideas" as a framing is that it exists in opposition to something. What is that something? Those whose position favours the status quo would read it in opposition to "not discussing ideas", which is obviously bad. However, to those who find the status quo untenable, the opposite position is "acting on ideas". Following pg's example, let us consider the following classic debate topic: "is slavery good?" A plantation owner might find themselves tickled by a lively discussion on the subject, replete with a cornucopia of Enlightenment principles and classical liberalism and such. A slave might find this discussion less interesting, because no outcome would lead to their freedom. It is perhaps telling that slavery was not abolished through free inquiry or the discussion of ideas. It was abolished through acts of state power and, ultimately, violence. Are we to believe in an alternate history where the South was debated out of its peculiar institution? The discussion of ideas gave way to acting on those ideas. The alternative would be a society of endless, meaningless rambling. Today, if you were still debating "is slavery good?", you would not be a brave free-thinking iconoclast, you would be either an idiot or a very devoted racist. You would get uninvited from lectures and yelled at on Twitter, not because your ideas are too advanced, but because they're too far behind. The debate is over, and the actual free-thinkers have moved on. It's sad to say, but I think the real lesson of this essay is that political ideas are just like music taste. Whatever your parents were listening to is outdated and embarrassing, whatever the kids are listening to is just angry noise, and miraculously your generation was the only one to stumble upon that which is profoundly, timelessly good.

philwelch 6y ago
> Following pg's example, let us consider the following classic debate topic: "is slavery good?" A plantation owner might find themselves tickled by a lively discussion on the subject, replete with a cornucopia of Enlightenment principles and classical liberalism and such. Historically, the Southern states (which were politically dominated by slaveholders) outlawed all abolitionist literature because they feared that free discussion of ideas would undermine the system. > It is perhaps telling that slavery was not abolished through free inquiry or the discussion of ideas. 90% of the work was done through free inquiry and discourse, ranging from the Lincoln-Douglas debates to the publishing of books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The attempts to solve the problem violently (e.g. John Brown at Harper’s Ferry) failed. It was only when the slave states refused to accept the outcome of a free election and started the civil war that violence became necessary. > The debate is over, and the actual free-thinkers have moved on. You’ve cherry-picked a specific example that fits that narrative.
mikhailfranco 6y ago
I think you are wrong about the abolition of slavery. Slavery had existed in almost every society throughout history (and beyond, no doubt). The word slave comes from the Slavs of eastern Europe, who were captured and enslaved by the Turks and Barbary pirates. Then there was a unique event: Protestant (many non-conformist) groups in the wealthiest democratic country (Britain), decided to campaign on a fundamental principle of Enlightenment and Christian human rights. It was a vivid debate of ideals and economic practicalities, conducted in the Mother of Parliaments, and on the streets outside. Britain was a major beneficiary of slavery in the American colonies and the Caribbean. It would have renounced the trade, and the practice, in the late 18th century, but the military and economic imperatives of the French Revolution, American Revolution and Napoleonic Wars intervened. So the British slave trade was not abolished until 1807, and the practice of slavery itself in 1833. Britain also had the largest navy in the world at that time. It not just passed laws for its empire, but also actively blockaded Atlantic ports and intercepted the slave trade from Africa to Spanish and Portuguese colonies (both Catholic, not a coincidence). It was later joined by the northern Yankee navy in the Atlantic and on the Barbary coast of N.Africa. Slavery was abolished in the US and Russia (serfdom) about the same time in the 1860s, but it lingered in Cuba and Brazil toward the end of the 19th century. T.E.Lawrence commented on the slavery he found in Saudi Arabia during World War 1 (1916) [Seven Pillars of Wisdom]. The practice of legal slavery continued into the 1970s in the Gulf States, and the indentured servitude practiced there today is little different (long working hours in difficult conditions, physical isolation, confiscation of passports, non-payment of wages, no rights in the legal system, sexual abuse of women, etc.). The fact that these countries are undemocratic unenlightened Arabs is also not a coincidence (Arabs seem to have an extra cultural level of racist arrogance, over and above the intolerance of other Muslims in non-Arab countries, such as, say, Iran or Indonesia).
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  France outlawed slavery in 1315 (later leaders undid this, but it was illegal for a time). Spain did as well in the 1500s. The Catholic Church condemned the slave trade in the 1600s. So by the time the "non-conformists" were openly discussing whether or not slavery should be banned, the Conformists (the catholic church) had already stated it was bad. > The fact that these countries are undemocratic unenlightened Arabs is also not a coincidence (Arabs seem to have an extra cultural level of racist arrogance, over and above the intolerance of other Muslims in non-Arab countries, such as, say, Iran or Indonesia). Yiiiiiiiiiikes.

philwelch 6y ago

> Following pg's example, let us consider the following classic debate topic: "is slavery good?" A plantation owner might find themselves tickled by a lively discussion on the subject, replete with a cornucopia of Enlightenment principles and classical liberalism and such. Historically, the Southern states (which were politically dominated by slaveholders) outlawed all abolitionist literature because they feared that free discussion of ideas would undermine the system. > It is perhaps telling that slavery was not abolished through free inquiry or the discussion of ideas. 90% of the work was done through free inquiry and discourse, ranging from the Lincoln-Douglas debates to the publishing of books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The attempts to solve the problem violently (e.g. John Brown at Harper’s Ferry) failed. It was only when the slave states refused to accept the outcome of a free election and started the civil war that violence became necessary. > The debate is over, and the actual free-thinkers have moved on. You’ve cherry-picked a specific example that fits that narrative.

mikhailfranco 6y ago

I think you are wrong about the abolition of slavery. Slavery had existed in almost every society throughout history (and beyond, no doubt). The word slave comes from the Slavs of eastern Europe, who were captured and enslaved by the Turks and Barbary pirates. Then there was a unique event: Protestant (many non-conformist) groups in the wealthiest democratic country (Britain), decided to campaign on a fundamental principle of Enlightenment and Christian human rights. It was a vivid debate of ideals and economic practicalities, conducted in the Mother of Parliaments, and on the streets outside. Britain was a major beneficiary of slavery in the American colonies and the Caribbean. It would have renounced the trade, and the practice, in the late 18th century, but the military and economic imperatives of the French Revolution, American Revolution and Napoleonic Wars intervened. So the British slave trade was not abolished until 1807, and the practice of slavery itself in 1833. Britain also had the largest navy in the world at that time. It not just passed laws for its empire, but also actively blockaded Atlantic ports and intercepted the slave trade from Africa to Spanish and Portuguese colonies (both Catholic, not a coincidence). It was later joined by the northern Yankee navy in the Atlantic and on the Barbary coast of N.Africa. Slavery was abolished in the US and Russia (serfdom) about the same time in the 1860s, but it lingered in Cuba and Brazil toward the end of the 19th century. T.E.Lawrence commented on the slavery he found in Saudi Arabia during World War 1 (1916) [Seven Pillars of Wisdom]. The practice of legal slavery continued into the 1970s in the Gulf States, and the indentured servitude practiced there today is little different (long working hours in difficult conditions, physical isolation, confiscation of passports, non-payment of wages, no rights in the legal system, sexual abuse of women, etc.). The fact that these countries are undemocratic unenlightened Arabs is also not a coincidence (Arabs seem to have an extra cultural level of racist arrogance, over and above the intolerance of other Muslims in non-Arab countries, such as, say, Iran or Indonesia).

joshuamorton 6y ago
France outlawed slavery in 1315 (later leaders undid this, but it was illegal for a time). Spain did as well in the 1500s. The Catholic Church condemned the slave trade in the 1600s. So by the time the "non-conformists" were openly discussing whether or not slavery should be banned, the Conformists (the catholic church) had already stated it was bad. > The fact that these countries are undemocratic unenlightened Arabs is also not a coincidence (Arabs seem to have an extra cultural level of racist arrogance, over and above the intolerance of other Muslims in non-Arab countries, such as, say, Iran or Indonesia). Yiiiiiiiiiikes.