3 ms·

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 repu

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.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  I don’t really know what you’re talking about I guess. I don’t know if man is rational. But I do know for the history of man we have had (and still do) societies of knowledge-authority that have ultimately cumulated in fundamentalist authoritarians. This ends up in violence. You have an opinion to be sure but why on Earth should I believe it as truth? What evidence do you have and what are you leaving out? Why is your observation so important as to restrict what others should see, hear, say, etc? Be rigorous. What gives you the right to limit this? You can express your opinion but why do you think you know what’s best for everyone? I can only trust you know what is best for you. You are but a single voice - as much as anyone else. Which lies and half truths do you acknowledge and which ones do you ignore or are oblivious to? Which ones are you victim to? You can’t possibly know. But it’s a rather big ask for me, more so the rest of people, to just take your word for it. No one is the authority or has the final say. If your ideas are right then prove it or persuade people of it. It’s the only way. The other ways involve oppression and possibly violence. What if people decide that you’re just not viable anymore because of your ideas and just sort of publicly execute you as a warning? What happens when the classical liberal epistemology is thrown away because it is inconvenient? Are you SURE your side will be in control?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    I'm not proposing any idea other than acting as if people are rational and not subject to manipulation is demonstrably madness. I'm not arguing any course of action, merely pointing out that a course of action based on the idea that people are rational will not work, because they demonstrably are not.
    - nemo44x 6y ago
      I agree - people are probably not always rational and people are indeed subject to manipulation. But it changes nothing. If anything it’s BECAUSE of this that we need to agree all ideas are fallible and subject to debate and that no one owns the truth. An appeal to a fundamental authority cant work precisely because we are not rational and are subject to manipulation. We just don’t know. We have a right to opinion, beliefs, and debate but not much more. No one is above this. No one is an oracle. The thought that came from The Enlightenment to philosophers like Karl Popper to modern authors like Johnathan Rausch explain this better than I can here. I’d read “Kindly Inquisitors” if you have a bit of time (pretty short overall) to get a better understanding of these ideas. We have a series of liberal democracies in the West for a reason and it isn’t a fluke. Countless wars, inquisitions, and pointless suffering led to it. We are still struggling to fulfill the potential today and have to constantly fight off regressive philosophy but that’s the price.
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
Truth doesn't need an authority other than a standard, and sometimes it doesn't even need that. For example, you have cancer. You may believe you don't, but you're going to die anyway. When you die, things have happened according to your truth and not your belief. Now, if you accepted a belief on the basis of say, medical authority that you had cancer, you could have done things like chemo, etc. to prolong your life. Either way, you're still going to die, the truth is unaffected. In this way, authorities and beliefs can be helpful. Or harmful if they aren't resulting in people benefiting. But they aren't synonymous with the truth. This illustrates how there can be authorities and beliefs that are not beneficial, that they are incapable of modifying truth in any way, and if society is a group of people that stay together for mutual benefit, it benefits them to suppress harmful authorities and beliefs. How and to what extent is up to the society itself.

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.

nemo44x 6y ago
I don’t really know what you’re talking about I guess. I don’t know if man is rational. But I do know for the history of man we have had (and still do) societies of knowledge-authority that have ultimately cumulated in fundamentalist authoritarians. This ends up in violence. You have an opinion to be sure but why on Earth should I believe it as truth? What evidence do you have and what are you leaving out? Why is your observation so important as to restrict what others should see, hear, say, etc? Be rigorous. What gives you the right to limit this? You can express your opinion but why do you think you know what’s best for everyone? I can only trust you know what is best for you. You are but a single voice - as much as anyone else. Which lies and half truths do you acknowledge and which ones do you ignore or are oblivious to? Which ones are you victim to? You can’t possibly know. But it’s a rather big ask for me, more so the rest of people, to just take your word for it. No one is the authority or has the final say. If your ideas are right then prove it or persuade people of it. It’s the only way. The other ways involve oppression and possibly violence. What if people decide that you’re just not viable anymore because of your ideas and just sort of publicly execute you as a warning? What happens when the classical liberal epistemology is thrown away because it is inconvenient? Are you SURE your side will be in control?
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  I'm not proposing any idea other than acting as if people are rational and not subject to manipulation is demonstrably madness. I'm not arguing any course of action, merely pointing out that a course of action based on the idea that people are rational will not work, because they demonstrably are not.
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    I agree - people are probably not always rational and people are indeed subject to manipulation. But it changes nothing. If anything it’s BECAUSE of this that we need to agree all ideas are fallible and subject to debate and that no one owns the truth. An appeal to a fundamental authority cant work precisely because we are not rational and are subject to manipulation. We just don’t know. We have a right to opinion, beliefs, and debate but not much more. No one is above this. No one is an oracle. The thought that came from The Enlightenment to philosophers like Karl Popper to modern authors like Johnathan Rausch explain this better than I can here. I’d read “Kindly Inquisitors” if you have a bit of time (pretty short overall) to get a better understanding of these ideas. We have a series of liberal democracies in the West for a reason and it isn’t a fluke. Countless wars, inquisitions, and pointless suffering led to it. We are still struggling to fulfill the potential today and have to constantly fight off regressive philosophy but that’s the price.

tenebrisalietum 6y ago

Truth doesn't need an authority other than a standard, and sometimes it doesn't even need that. For example, you have cancer. You may believe you don't, but you're going to die anyway. When you die, things have happened according to your truth and not your belief. Now, if you accepted a belief on the basis of say, medical authority that you had cancer, you could have done things like chemo, etc. to prolong your life. Either way, you're still going to die, the truth is unaffected. In this way, authorities and beliefs can be helpful. Or harmful if they aren't resulting in people benefiting. But they aren't synonymous with the truth. This illustrates how there can be authorities and beliefs that are not beneficial, that they are incapable of modifying truth in any way, and if society is a group of people that stay together for mutual benefit, it benefits them to suppress harmful authorities and beliefs. How and to what extent is up to the society itself.