5 ms·

History is written by the victors. The fact that the winning side can say "this is what happened, and any discussion about it shall land you in jail" should rai

by eznzt 6y ago

History is written by the victors. The fact that the winning side can say "this is what happened, and any discussion about it shall land you in jail" should raise a few eyebrows.

cesaref 6y ago
Except that you are
spuz 6y ago
Perhaps, but using Germany's ban on holocaust denial is not a good example to prove the point. Ideally you'd find an example of a government of an otherwise free society actually rewriting history to hide actual real facts.
- garbagetime 6y ago
  What other examples are there of ostensibly free countries making it illegal to question the state's account of a historical event?
  - yoz-y 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      Other examples as in other than the Holocaust
- garmaine 6y ago
  All slippery slopes start from a pinnacle of reasonableness.
  - yoz-y 6y ago
    I find it terrifying that defending the truth always hits massive friction, whereas flooding all places with nonsense is barely an inconvenience. The whole point of protecting what we _know_ is true now, is that if we don't scholars in 100 years will not be able to discern fact from fiction because there will be more fake versions of history than any true records. At best we'll be able to say "we don't know". You see this all the time when discussing with, say, antivaxxers when a sufficient argument for them is to say "I read an article somewhere where a doctor said..." but when you try to raise your argument they suddenly need a whole lot of undeniable evidence + an ELI5 explanation of all biology. Maybe it's a slippery slope when platforms start arbitrating the truth, but at the same time not doing anything or doing little is a free fall and we are already in it.
    - garmaine 6y ago
      Because reality isn’t so stark as your neat examples of antivaxers and Holocaust deniers. Real issues are complex and multifaceted with room for multiple seemingly contradictory viewpoints. Allowing somebody to arbitrate truth will inevitably result in a corrupt or self-serving entity use that power for purposes not in the public interest. Having a scientific truth commission be the deciding authority about climate change, for example, is great until it gets stacked with oil industry representatives. Read up on your Orwell. Controlling “truth” is the autocrats playbook. If having some nutjobs voicing scientifically illiterate nonsense is the price to pay for liberty, then so be it. The proper response is not to ban free expression of ideas deemed “wrong”, but to provide better education, mental health, and a social safety net free of charge. Rob the anti-intellectual virus of it’s host by treating the underlying causes.
      - yoz-y 6y ago
        > Because reality isn’t so stark as your neat examples of antivaxers and Holocaust deniers. However measures are taken only against those particular, clean-cut issues. In general I’m not fond of slippery slope arguments because the fact that even getting to arbitrate those basic facts is proof that the system is working. A few people yelling nonsense is a non issue, half of the country though, is a danger to democracy. I agree with your solution, however that is a decades long plan. We need to survive until then and also have government that could potentially pass laws to make this possible.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. Rewriting history doesn't just mean hiding undesirable facts, it can also include perpetuating false histories - Consider Kim Jong Il's famous round of golf. The holocaust may have happened, but there's no reason a genocide attributed to the enemy couldn't be invented and written in the history books of any particular nation. Once you carve out a category of thing, recreating that thing is as easy as adding to that category; or in this case (banning falsehoods), expanding the list.

by eznzt 6y ago

History is written by the victors. The fact that the winning side can say "this is what happened, and any discussion about it shall land you in jail" should raise a few eyebrows.

cesaref 6y ago

Except that you are

spuz 6y ago

Perhaps, but using Germany's ban on holocaust denial is not a good example to prove the point. Ideally you'd find an example of a government of an otherwise free society actually rewriting history to hide actual real facts.

garbagetime 6y ago
What other examples are there of ostensibly free countries making it illegal to question the state's account of a historical event?
- yoz-y 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    Other examples as in other than the Holocaust
garmaine 6y ago
All slippery slopes start from a pinnacle of reasonableness.
- yoz-y 6y ago
  I find it terrifying that defending the truth always hits massive friction, whereas flooding all places with nonsense is barely an inconvenience. The whole point of protecting what we _know_ is true now, is that if we don't scholars in 100 years will not be able to discern fact from fiction because there will be more fake versions of history than any true records. At best we'll be able to say "we don't know". You see this all the time when discussing with, say, antivaxxers when a sufficient argument for them is to say "I read an article somewhere where a doctor said..." but when you try to raise your argument they suddenly need a whole lot of undeniable evidence + an ELI5 explanation of all biology. Maybe it's a slippery slope when platforms start arbitrating the truth, but at the same time not doing anything or doing little is a free fall and we are already in it.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    Because reality isn’t so stark as your neat examples of antivaxers and Holocaust deniers. Real issues are complex and multifaceted with room for multiple seemingly contradictory viewpoints. Allowing somebody to arbitrate truth will inevitably result in a corrupt or self-serving entity use that power for purposes not in the public interest. Having a scientific truth commission be the deciding authority about climate change, for example, is great until it gets stacked with oil industry representatives. Read up on your Orwell. Controlling “truth” is the autocrats playbook. If having some nutjobs voicing scientifically illiterate nonsense is the price to pay for liberty, then so be it. The proper response is not to ban free expression of ideas deemed “wrong”, but to provide better education, mental health, and a social safety net free of charge. Rob the anti-intellectual virus of it’s host by treating the underlying causes.
    - yoz-y 6y ago
      > Because reality isn’t so stark as your neat examples of antivaxers and Holocaust deniers. However measures are taken only against those particular, clean-cut issues. In general I’m not fond of slippery slope arguments because the fact that even getting to arbitrate those basic facts is proof that the system is working. A few people yelling nonsense is a non issue, half of the country though, is a danger to democracy. I agree with your solution, however that is a decades long plan. We need to survive until then and also have government that could potentially pass laws to make this possible.
Chris2048 6y ago
Maybe, maybe not. Rewriting history doesn't just mean hiding undesirable facts, it can also include perpetuating false histories - Consider Kim Jong Il's famous round of golf. The holocaust may have happened, but there's no reason a genocide attributed to the enemy couldn't be invented and written in the history books of any particular nation. Once you carve out a category of thing, recreating that thing is as easy as adding to that category; or in this case (banning falsehoods), expanding the list.