4 ms·

I did not follow your reasoning about 5 years old debating the merits of segregation, can you elaborate? Many topics are introduced at young age, and can take m

by ptero 6y ago

I did not follow your reasoning about 5 years old debating the merits of segregation, can you elaborate? Many topics are introduced at young age, and can take many years until they become a part of the person's worldview that they person can meaningfully defend. But it better reach that state for key topics before the person is out of school. > segregation, fascism, etc aren’t “bad” per se. We don’t reject them because there’s some inherent logical fallacy — we do it because they’re morally wrong. Ouch! Fascism and segregation are morally wrong, but just as important they produce systems and societies that exhibit horrible features and, time and again, crumble and fail. Morality is pliable -- many things considered good two generations ago can now seen as morally wrong and vice versa. When your grandkids ask "grandpa, why did you break/prohibit/deplatform/cancel X?" you may want something better to stand on than "because we had that power and we could". Because that is how your argument reads to me.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
> I did not follow your reasoning about 5 years old debating the merits of segregation, can you elaborate? Sure. We teach five year olds about Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement because it’s an important part of our history. Children are going to have questions about why things happened, and what the “right” side of it was. What are we going to tell them? At that age, they’ll basically believe whatever we say. So we have to either decide that segregation will be the “fringe” view, or that kids will grow up thinking that it’s acceptable. > Fascism and segregation are morally wrong, but just as important they produce systems and societies that exhibit horrible features and, time and again, crumble and fail. Who’s to say what features in a system are horrible? If we’re truly neutral here, should we not implement those features too so as not to ostracize people who think they’re good? :) My point is that for literally every “horrible” feature, there are people who want it in earnest — and they often want it because it benefits them, not because they haven’t been won over by the merits of the alternative. Like, how are you gonna convince the dude wearing the Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt? It’s not like he’s never been exposed to the argument that genocide is wrong. At some point we just have to draw the line and say “this is bad” rather than wringing our hands about how we can really decide not to listen to people advocating segregation or fascism or genocide or whatever.
- ptero 6y ago
  > We teach five year olds about Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement because it’s an important part of our history. Children are going to have questions about why things happened, and what the “right” side of it was. What are we going to tell them? I hope you have a good answer. And if they question it, because it is natural for kids to question the world around them, you have a great chance to explain and reinforce that message with arguments. But if instead we shut down the questioner that chance will be lost, and they will likely revisit it later as they grow up, not inclined to take your priors anymore. And yes, a few will always stay unconvinced. That is the price of freedom. But the country where the majority holds their opinions because they were allowed to think them through, consider alternatives and were not demonized for disagreement is much more resistant to sellers of next Auschwitz than the country where the majority parrots what a talking head on TV/Twitter/Facebook tells them. > Like, how are you gonna convince the dude wearing the Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt? A dude or a gal wearing the Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt is, as I said, the price you pay for freedom. In a society where the majority would like to live, the predominant reaction on the street would be "Yuck". In a society that is told what is right it is much easier for the ruling party to bring the next extermination camp to a site next to you.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I think we are talking past each other. No one is saying that we shouldn't allow people to question why things are right and wrong, or that we shouldn't explain our reasoning. Let me repeat the original comment to which I responded: > The problem is - who decides what should be fringe and ostracized? At different times in history, women's rights, abolition, etc were all heretical ideas that the majority would want to squish if they could. Rephrased: "since there is no omniscient referee to determine which ideas are good and which are bad, we should treat all ideas as equal." But of course, not all ideas are equal. You and I have acknowledged as much in this conversation. One of the points of society — indeed, the very thing that lets us progress — is figuring out which ones are good and which are bad. And in the case of racial equality, genocide, etc, we've put in the work and mostly agreed that these are bad things. The reason I reach for the teaching example is that it basically forces that choice. We either design the lesson so they learn that racial equality is good, and why it's good… or we throw our hands up and say "who decides that segregation should be a fringe view?" and teach them Jim Crow propaganda and race science as well. And of course, despite all that, there will always be Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt guy. But if he wants to eat in our restaurants, or socialize on our networks, or host websites on our servers, we should have no qualms telling him to take it off first.

by ptero 6y ago

jakelazaroff 6y ago

> I did not follow your reasoning about 5 years old debating the merits of segregation, can you elaborate? Sure. We teach five year olds about Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement because it’s an important part of our history. Children are going to have questions about why things happened, and what the “right” side of it was. What are we going to tell them? At that age, they’ll basically believe whatever we say. So we have to either decide that segregation will be the “fringe” view, or that kids will grow up thinking that it’s acceptable. > Fascism and segregation are morally wrong, but just as important they produce systems and societies that exhibit horrible features and, time and again, crumble and fail. Who’s to say what features in a system are horrible? If we’re truly neutral here, should we not implement those features too so as not to ostracize people who think they’re good? :) My point is that for literally every “horrible” feature, there are people who want it in earnest — and they often want it because it benefits them, not because they haven’t been won over by the merits of the alternative. Like, how are you gonna convince the dude wearing the Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt? It’s not like he’s never been exposed to the argument that genocide is wrong. At some point we just have to draw the line and say “this is bad” rather than wringing our hands about how we can really decide not to listen to people advocating segregation or fascism or genocide or whatever.

ptero 6y ago
> We teach five year olds about Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement because it’s an important part of our history. Children are going to have questions about why things happened, and what the “right” side of it was. What are we going to tell them? I hope you have a good answer. And if they question it, because it is natural for kids to question the world around them, you have a great chance to explain and reinforce that message with arguments. But if instead we shut down the questioner that chance will be lost, and they will likely revisit it later as they grow up, not inclined to take your priors anymore. And yes, a few will always stay unconvinced. That is the price of freedom. But the country where the majority holds their opinions because they were allowed to think them through, consider alternatives and were not demonized for disagreement is much more resistant to sellers of next Auschwitz than the country where the majority parrots what a talking head on TV/Twitter/Facebook tells them. > Like, how are you gonna convince the dude wearing the Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt? A dude or a gal wearing the Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt is, as I said, the price you pay for freedom. In a society where the majority would like to live, the predominant reaction on the street would be "Yuck". In a society that is told what is right it is much easier for the ruling party to bring the next extermination camp to a site next to you.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  I think we are talking past each other. No one is saying that we shouldn't allow people to question why things are right and wrong, or that we shouldn't explain our reasoning. Let me repeat the original comment to which I responded: > The problem is - who decides what should be fringe and ostracized? At different times in history, women's rights, abolition, etc were all heretical ideas that the majority would want to squish if they could. Rephrased: "since there is no omniscient referee to determine which ideas are good and which are bad, we should treat all ideas as equal." But of course, not all ideas are equal. You and I have acknowledged as much in this conversation. One of the points of society — indeed, the very thing that lets us progress — is figuring out which ones are good and which are bad. And in the case of racial equality, genocide, etc, we've put in the work and mostly agreed that these are bad things. The reason I reach for the teaching example is that it basically forces that choice. We either design the lesson so they learn that racial equality is good, and why it's good… or we throw our hands up and say "who decides that segregation should be a fringe view?" and teach them Jim Crow propaganda and race science as well. And of course, despite all that, there will always be Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt guy. But if he wants to eat in our restaurants, or socialize on our networks, or host websites on our servers, we should have no qualms telling him to take it off first.