5 ms·

Ok I’ll bite. I’m sure this person means well. But I have to ask - why are they the authority on what is OK for people to believe, talk about, and propagate? Wh

Ok I’ll bite. I’m sure this person means well. But I have to ask - why are they the authority on what is OK for people to believe, talk about, and propagate? Who owns the truth? Why is this persons views the correct ones? Or even more, what about things that are talked about on the internet, have their groups, that they don’t find problematic but others do. And why are those ok? Because they believe this? The foundation of Liberalism (I’m not saying left wing here) is that no one owns knowledge. No one has the last day and all opinions can be heard. And mocked relentlessly. And through this we will discover as close to the truth as we can. Nobody - no group, movement, person, or authority owns the truth. All ideas are fallible. If people use the internet to say the most outrageous things then do be it. The minute someone gets to say “that’s ok to be said and this other thing is not. End of story” we are in trouble. It doesn’t mean someone can’t be raked across the coals for their awful ideas - you need to own it. But anyone or group that gets to determine what is ok and what is not is, in essence, a fundamentalist regime. We don’t need inquisitors. We don’t need thought police. We do need people willing to say “that’s bullshit and here is why”. If you can prove that generally speaking 2+2=5 then the foundation of arithmetic is broken. But meanwhile I can poke holes in your argument. Until you can prove it better than 2+2=4 then I can judge you for a sophist at best, a dipshit less generously.

tenebrisalietum 6y ago
> Nobody - no group, movement, person, or authority owns the truth. Putting truth itself on a pedestal doesn't really address the problem. The problem is people are motivated by things other than a good standard of truth most of the time. Social media provides a medium where it is easy for emotion can rule over reason and advertisers profit off of it. > If people use the internet to say the most outrageous things then do be it. Let's say everyone online starts calling you a pedophile because a soon-to-be-ex-wife of yours decided to try to cause you harm. What then? Is posting your address next also free speech? The issue is not the truth, or access to it, but the fact we have large numbers of people that act on things less than the truth and a culture/economy that seems to perpetuate that for those who aren't interested. Putting these people in the same network as people who really want to talk about and debate ideas isn't working. There are standards of truth but people that aren't ruled by reason won't obey them. They'll go with their gut, or what their friends say, or what they think they should say to impress their peers, or what everyone else is doing. For people who over their lives have been concerned more with survival or overcoming trauma than a real exchange of knowledge or ideas, often these strategies work well.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  If I had an ex-wife that made that claim then I would sue for slander. That isn’t free speech or free thought - it’s an attack designed to damage a persons reputation. Maybe it isn’t working - but why should I trust your alternative of deciding what’s ok and not ok to talk about? Why are you the authority? Why would I be? We have laws - fire in a theatre, slander, etc. flat Earthers, holocaust deniers, climate change skeptics, etc all can say what they want. Provide the evidence they want. And I can disagree. I can vote in a manner that squashes their ideas from having any real power. But here is the rub - just because I’m certain they are wrong doesn’t mean I automatically get my way. We need to be ever vigilant in defending what we believe to be the truth. In the end what works will win. What’s the alternative? It’s violence. History has proven this.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Slander and libel laws in the USA are extremely weak (in large part because of the 1st amendment). Your lawsuit will likely not accomplish much, if it wins at all. You need to show damage, not the intent to damage. And the stories will still be out there, no matter how it turns out.
    - nemo44x 6y ago
      Then solve that problem. It still had absolutely nothing to do with my point.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        You claimed you had some defense against being slandered. I'm pointing out that you don't have much of a defense at all.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Also, certainly you can vote in a manner that would, if done by a majority, squash ideas you don't agree with from having real power. But you write with the myth of "rational man" in mind, it seems. The 20th century in particular, with the rise of both psychology and marketing, along with a couple of thousand years of insights from great thinkers of the past, should have made it clear that humans are deeply fallible, highly gullible, frequently irrational and easily manipulated. You can vote however you like, but if there are forces determined to exploit human weakness by promoting lies and half-truths and hatred, there's a good chance that your vote will accomplish nothing. And not because you're wrong and "truth has won out", but because people are being manipulated, intentionally or otherwise.
mountainboy 6y ago
very well said. upvoted.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  Thanks! An upvote for the enlightenment. :)
froasty 6y ago
"Your pretended fear lest Error should step in, is like the man who would keep all the wine out the country lest men should be drunk. It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy, to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon a supposition he may abuse it. When he doth abuse it, judge. If a man speak foolishly, ye suffer him gladly because ye are wise; if erroneously, the truth more appears by your conviction 'of him.' Stop such a man's mouth by sound words which cannot be gainsayed. If he speak blasphemously, or to the disturbance of the public peace, let the Civil Magistrate punish him: if truly, rejoice in the truth." -- Oliver Cromwell, 1650. Within four years of this letter, Cromwell would essentially have to put these Presbyterian inquisitors down by force and assume guardianship of the country because these people never stop. Coincidentally, Cromwell also held that the right to the liberty of conscience, a largely heretical view for another century, was a fundamental requirement of his Protectorate, which he had to personally safeguard against everyone. "Is not liberty of conscience in religion a fundamental? … Liberty of conscience is a natural right; and he that would have it, ought to give it; having himself liberty to settle what he likes for the public. Every sect saith: “Oh, give me liberty!” But give him it, and to his power he will not yield it to anybody else. Where is our ingenuousness? Liberty of conscience – truly that’s a thing ought to be very reciprocal."
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Around the same time that Cromwell penned these inspiring words, he was also busy killing off hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland, amounting to maybe 40% of the population; perhaps as much as 80% in some parts of the country. I leave the reconciliation of his words with his actions as an exercise for the reader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Irelan...
  - froasty 6y ago
    If you want to call Cromwell a hypocrite, the most tenable and intellectually honest but still ungrounded point of attack is that his support of liberty of conscience did not extend to Catholics. His institutional anti-Catholicism and his suppression of the rebellion in Ireland were not aberrational by his context. That he was successful in achieving these objectives (e.g. defeating an insurrection and effectively criminalizing public Catholicism during the Protectorate) is the aberration. Cromwell was competent and that was his actual sin. He also happened to believe that self-directed (i.e. not dogmatic to a foreign power, e.g. Rome) conscience was a virtue to be established and maintained and for that should be seen as another facet of him as a human being. That said, I don't disagree that the ethnically Irish have every reason to be livid that it happened, or that comparable events preceded and succeeded it through history, but to act as if Cromwell was categorically evil for what he did to the Irish is like saying America is categorically evil for firebombing Dresden in 1945. Yes, it was an atrocity given the perspective that distance and the luxury of time and peace provide, but it doesn't capture the whole provenance of the situation.
elisbce 6y ago
> The foundation of Liberalism (I’m not saying left wing here) is that no one owns knowledge This is complete BS to begin with. "No one owns knowledge" is a typical ideological statement without any merits or proof. It is an idea that you want to believe, that is based on nothing factual. Yes, you can have opinions. Tastes. Ideologies. Beliefs. And they could be true, or false, or changing, depending on where you are and how you look at it. They are all subjective. However, there are things in this world that are neutral to opinions and stands the test of time. Facts that happened in the physical world and mathematical knowledge, are two examples of such objects. They are the truth. They are absolutely correct. There is no room for "disagreement" because they are not subjective opinions. They are facts that can't and won't be changed. Math is always correct. 100% correct. From day 1 they are discovered / invented till forever. Explicit assumptions and theorems that followed by rigorous proof are absolutely correct. You can expand it later, you can discover more, you can enrich math. But as long as it is correct, it stands forever. Every single second you are using technologies based on mathematical knowledge that was proved thousands of years ago. They never failed, and will never fail. Facts, in the physical world, are objective as well. You can argue whether a killer is a good person or not, or how good/bad he is, but you can't alter the fact if he did pull the trigger and killed someone. That is a fact. Physics, based on a wider set of physical assumptions, can be viewed as close to truth, because they have stood the test of time by physical experiments and phenomena. There is a chance that they are not completely true and will be subsumed by more advanced theories, just like Newton's Laws, however, they are close approximations to reality. That's how we get the rockets into the space. By science. Now comes to my point. You have the right to express your opinions, even if they are harsh criticisms. But you don't have the right to spread false information that can be proved false by facts. You don't have the right to spread lies. You don't have the right to say whatever you want, however you want it. Why? Because statements against facts are false, are lies, and spreading lies can hurt and cost others' lives, sometimes millions or more. This is why there is law against spreading hate speech, against spreading extremist ideology against human race, against fraud and scams. Free speech is about being free expressing your opinions within the framework. Outside these boundaries, your speech becomes a weapon that can hurt others and that is not allowed by law and society. The fundamental rule in the society is simple. You have every right about yourself, but you don't have the right to hurt others.

tenebrisalietum 6y ago

> Nobody - no group, movement, person, or authority owns the truth. Putting truth itself on a pedestal doesn't really address the problem. The problem is people are motivated by things other than a good standard of truth most of the time. Social media provides a medium where it is easy for emotion can rule over reason and advertisers profit off of it. > If people use the internet to say the most outrageous things then do be it. Let's say everyone online starts calling you a pedophile because a soon-to-be-ex-wife of yours decided to try to cause you harm. What then? Is posting your address next also free speech? The issue is not the truth, or access to it, but the fact we have large numbers of people that act on things less than the truth and a culture/economy that seems to perpetuate that for those who aren't interested. Putting these people in the same network as people who really want to talk about and debate ideas isn't working. There are standards of truth but people that aren't ruled by reason won't obey them. They'll go with their gut, or what their friends say, or what they think they should say to impress their peers, or what everyone else is doing. For people who over their lives have been concerned more with survival or overcoming trauma than a real exchange of knowledge or ideas, often these strategies work well.

nemo44x 6y ago
If I had an ex-wife that made that claim then I would sue for slander. That isn’t free speech or free thought - it’s an attack designed to damage a persons reputation. Maybe it isn’t working - but why should I trust your alternative of deciding what’s ok and not ok to talk about? Why are you the authority? Why would I be? We have laws - fire in a theatre, slander, etc. flat Earthers, holocaust deniers, climate change skeptics, etc all can say what they want. Provide the evidence they want. And I can disagree. I can vote in a manner that squashes their ideas from having any real power. But here is the rub - just because I’m certain they are wrong doesn’t mean I automatically get my way. We need to be ever vigilant in defending what we believe to be the truth. In the end what works will win. What’s the alternative? It’s violence. History has proven this.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Slander and libel laws in the USA are extremely weak (in large part because of the 1st amendment). Your lawsuit will likely not accomplish much, if it wins at all. You need to show damage, not the intent to damage. And the stories will still be out there, no matter how it turns out.
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    Then solve that problem. It still had absolutely nothing to do with my point.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      You claimed you had some defense against being slandered. I'm pointing out that you don't have much of a defense at all.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Also, certainly you can vote in a manner that would, if done by a majority, squash ideas you don't agree with from having real power. But you write with the myth of "rational man" in mind, it seems. The 20th century in particular, with the rise of both psychology and marketing, along with a couple of thousand years of insights from great thinkers of the past, should have made it clear that humans are deeply fallible, highly gullible, frequently irrational and easily manipulated. You can vote however you like, but if there are forces determined to exploit human weakness by promoting lies and half-truths and hatred, there's a good chance that your vote will accomplish nothing. And not because you're wrong and "truth has won out", but because people are being manipulated, intentionally or otherwise.

mountainboy 6y ago

very well said. upvoted.

nemo44x 6y ago
Thanks! An upvote for the enlightenment. :)

froasty 6y ago

"Your pretended fear lest Error should step in, is like the man who would keep all the wine out the country lest men should be drunk. It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy, to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon a supposition he may abuse it. When he doth abuse it, judge. If a man speak foolishly, ye suffer him gladly because ye are wise; if erroneously, the truth more appears by your conviction 'of him.' Stop such a man's mouth by sound words which cannot be gainsayed. If he speak blasphemously, or to the disturbance of the public peace, let the Civil Magistrate punish him: if truly, rejoice in the truth." -- Oliver Cromwell, 1650. Within four years of this letter, Cromwell would essentially have to put these Presbyterian inquisitors down by force and assume guardianship of the country because these people never stop. Coincidentally, Cromwell also held that the right to the liberty of conscience, a largely heretical view for another century, was a fundamental requirement of his Protectorate, which he had to personally safeguard against everyone. "Is not liberty of conscience in religion a fundamental? … Liberty of conscience is a natural right; and he that would have it, ought to give it; having himself liberty to settle what he likes for the public. Every sect saith: “Oh, give me liberty!” But give him it, and to his power he will not yield it to anybody else. Where is our ingenuousness? Liberty of conscience – truly that’s a thing ought to be very reciprocal."

anigbrowl 6y ago
Around the same time that Cromwell penned these inspiring words, he was also busy killing off hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland, amounting to maybe 40% of the population; perhaps as much as 80% in some parts of the country. I leave the reconciliation of his words with his actions as an exercise for the reader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Irelan...
- froasty 6y ago
  If you want to call Cromwell a hypocrite, the most tenable and intellectually honest but still ungrounded point of attack is that his support of liberty of conscience did not extend to Catholics. His institutional anti-Catholicism and his suppression of the rebellion in Ireland were not aberrational by his context. That he was successful in achieving these objectives (e.g. defeating an insurrection and effectively criminalizing public Catholicism during the Protectorate) is the aberration. Cromwell was competent and that was his actual sin. He also happened to believe that self-directed (i.e. not dogmatic to a foreign power, e.g. Rome) conscience was a virtue to be established and maintained and for that should be seen as another facet of him as a human being. That said, I don't disagree that the ethnically Irish have every reason to be livid that it happened, or that comparable events preceded and succeeded it through history, but to act as if Cromwell was categorically evil for what he did to the Irish is like saying America is categorically evil for firebombing Dresden in 1945. Yes, it was an atrocity given the perspective that distance and the luxury of time and peace provide, but it doesn't capture the whole provenance of the situation.

elisbce 6y ago

> The foundation of Liberalism (I’m not saying left wing here) is that no one owns knowledge This is complete BS to begin with. "No one owns knowledge" is a typical ideological statement without any merits or proof. It is an idea that you want to believe, that is based on nothing factual. Yes, you can have opinions. Tastes. Ideologies. Beliefs. And they could be true, or false, or changing, depending on where you are and how you look at it. They are all subjective. However, there are things in this world that are neutral to opinions and stands the test of time. Facts that happened in the physical world and mathematical knowledge, are two examples of such objects. They are the truth. They are absolutely correct. There is no room for "disagreement" because they are not subjective opinions. They are facts that can't and won't be changed. Math is always correct. 100% correct. From day 1 they are discovered / invented till forever. Explicit assumptions and theorems that followed by rigorous proof are absolutely correct. You can expand it later, you can discover more, you can enrich math. But as long as it is correct, it stands forever. Every single second you are using technologies based on mathematical knowledge that was proved thousands of years ago. They never failed, and will never fail. Facts, in the physical world, are objective as well. You can argue whether a killer is a good person or not, or how good/bad he is, but you can't alter the fact if he did pull the trigger and killed someone. That is a fact. Physics, based on a wider set of physical assumptions, can be viewed as close to truth, because they have stood the test of time by physical experiments and phenomena. There is a chance that they are not completely true and will be subsumed by more advanced theories, just like Newton's Laws, however, they are close approximations to reality. That's how we get the rockets into the space. By science. Now comes to my point. You have the right to express your opinions, even if they are harsh criticisms. But you don't have the right to spread false information that can be proved false by facts. You don't have the right to spread lies. You don't have the right to say whatever you want, however you want it. Why? Because statements against facts are false, are lies, and spreading lies can hurt and cost others' lives, sometimes millions or more. This is why there is law against spreading hate speech, against spreading extremist ideology against human race, against fraud and scams. Free speech is about being free expressing your opinions within the framework. Outside these boundaries, your speech becomes a weapon that can hurt others and that is not allowed by law and society. The fundamental rule in the society is simple. You have every right about yourself, but you don't have the right to hurt others.