4 ms·

>You do realize your comment perverts the very meaning of the word "freedom" to mean the opposite of its actual meaning, right? It's not a perversion at all; i

>You do realize your comment perverts the very meaning of the word "freedom" to mean the opposite of its actual meaning, right? It's not a perversion at all; in fact, this sense of freedom being more than raw ability to "do whatever you want" was recognized as early as Rousseau and possibly even earlier. This also led to the creation of the concepts of positive and negative liberty. "Freedom from" is absolutely a valid form of freedom, and a core one in our society. It's why things which aren't harms (and sometimes barely even hurts) are prohibited - public nudity, playing loud music on a bus, and other forms of nuisance. The canonical example is the fact that there is no harm-based reason to ban corpse desecration. In fact, it's a law based on the offence principle. There is some space in our society for laws like that, but we need to be careful with them, of course. This case is even more benign - we have here a company refusing to sell these items. You speak of 'information and ideas', but these ideas can still manifest even on Ebay. No 'unacceptable idea' has been 'banned'. I'm not sure who you're saying is using Newspeak. As was pointed out by Marcuse in the 60s we're well past Orwell - now the contradiction is hidden in the noun itself. What we describe as 'free societies' are full of restrictions on some freedom to ensure the development and use of greater freedoms. That's a core part of liberal society.

lumenwrites 6y ago
Well, it looks like soon we'll have many more freedoms like that. Freedom from saying forbidden words, freedom from thinking forbidden thoughts, freedom from all the people who write, research, or joke about controversial subjects, freedom from anything that could potentially offend or upset anyone ever, freedom from anything that doesn't comply with the dogma. Boy, I can't wait to be liberated from all the wrongthink!
f154hfds 6y ago
Ideas have generally been considered protected ground and the 'positive' freedom of ideas is the basis of scientific progression (tenure for example is a freedom to be contrarian, not a shackle toward rational self mastery). The fact that these books are oriented toward children is irrelevant, it is still an attack on the 'idea' that parents/teachers can use offensive works to a productive end. I would love to be a fly on the wall in Ebay or Amazon during their discussions on these bannings, because it seems their attempts to pacify certain audiences is so hopelessly naive it's hard for me to understand their motivation. Do we want to live in a society where certain corporations decide which training wheels to put on us? The discussion isn't about their legal right, but about what their policy should be when X group comes along saying Y is offensive. I doubt these decisions were made from a cynical bottom-line perspective. No one as far as I'm aware was boycotting these places because they sold offensive children's books. The most disturbing thing to me is they did it purely because they thought it was the right thing to do. Their policy is what we're saying is wrong.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >The fact that these books are oriented toward children is irrelevant, it is still an attack on the 'idea' that parents/teachers can use offensive works to a productive end. We 'attack' ideas all the time; in fact, that's what most of us are doing on HN. There's nothing wrong with such an 'attack' on an idea. In fact, if you open Ebay right now, you'll likely find works of philosophy and law debating whether parents and teachers can use offensive works to a productive end. >The discussion isn't about their legal right, but about what their policy should be when X group comes along saying Y is offensive. That's a good question, but it does not demand an answer culminating in an accusation that actually rather reasonable answers constitute an attack on the very idea of freedom. We recognize 'offense' even in law in every country on the planet, and it seems to me that so long as corporations have less power than governments, there is at least some room for reasoning from moral or practical principles that are not available (nor do we wish to be available) in law. The very fact that it's a not a legal question actually seems to tilt the scales towards reasons why a private entity should exercise moral autonomy in the market. >The most disturbing thing to me is they did it purely because they thought it was the right thing to do. Their policy is what we're saying is wrong. This isn't disturbing to me; the market is a big part of our social life, and with the law generally more restricted on dealing with moral issues, actors in the market can step in and make those decisions for themselves. There is nothing repugnant about acting on the basis of what you find wrong or right. There may be something wrong with the moral reasoning of Seuss' estate and Ebay (if it even is moral reasoning - to a consequentialist this wouldn't even matter). But the form of the decision (moral reasoning) and its content (the morality of facilitating the sale of racist caricatures, if the books really are that bad) are two different questions. I have zero problem with a stock exchange refusing to sell tobacco or even alcohol or strip club stocks. I may disagree with them - maybe I think alcohol and strip clubs are not morally wrong businesses. But I can't see any reason to disagree with their exercise of moral autonomy. Their exercise of moral autonomy is a contribution to the moral discourse, and censorship of that discourse is a bigger concern, and not merely from theoretical reasons.
  - f154hfds 6y ago
    Thank you for your response. It's funny, I think I agree with you on these points. We can agree that it is of critical importance that this is a private policy decision, not mandated by the state. That doesn't make it right. To me these externally imposed training wheels hurt our ability to move forward. The _policy_ is misguided, and hiding the past destines us to repeat it. These companies are entering the business of vigilante thought police, there's really no other way to explain what's happening here.
whynaut 6y ago
> we have here a company refusing to sell these items What's funny is that it's the publishing house themselves that decided to stop selling the book. Shouldn't they have the freedom to decide that?
NeverFade 6y ago
Yes, there are views of "freedom" that are paradoxical. In fact, that's precisely the view that 1984 presents, with the party's second motto: "Freedom is Slavery". What the woke mob is doing right now is to extend this paradoxical definition of "freedom" to the extent that nobody will have any (real) freedom at all. In a nutshell, the woke argument is: "I should have the 'freedom' from being offended, and this 'freedom' overrides and cancels all your freedoms." For example, in this case: "I am offended by the idea that someone, somewhere, will read a book containing ideas I dislike, therefore your very important rights to publish and read such books are hereby revoked". This is the same line of reasoning that led to the establishment of totalitarian utopias (favored by Marcuse) which inevitably end up as 1984-style dystopia.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >Yes, there are views of "freedom" that are paradoxical. All views of freedom are paradoxical other than the most basic view, which is that everyone has the freedom to do anything to anyone. The law provides freedom from armed bandits, or the worry of armed bandits, attacking you at night. At least, it aims to. Property rights provide freedom from your things being appropriated by others (including a government). The right to representation at trial provides freedom to fair judgements in the legal system. This isn't a dystopia. >In a nutshell, the woke argument is: "I should have the 'freedom' from being offended, and this 'freedom' overrides and cancels all your freedoms." Nobody has made that argument, but as I mentioned, the canonical case is corpse desecration. People in general desire freedom from that offense, and this freedom overrides and cancels the freedom to desecrate corpses. >For example, in this case: "I am offended by the idea that someone, somewhere, will read a book containing ideas I dislike, therefore your very important rights to publish and read such books are hereby revoked". I don't think we should do that, and I don't think the "woke mob" in general really thinks that either. Political philosophy consists of more than a worrisome story written eighty years ago.
  - NeverFade 6y ago
    > All views of freedom are paradoxical other than the most basic view, which is that everyone has the freedom to do anything to anyone. No, there is a valid view of individual freedom that is limited by other people's freedom. In fact, that's the traditional American view of freedom. I have the freedom to do anything that doesn't actively restrict the freedom of others. I can walk into an empty space. I can't walk into a space you occupy. > Political philosophy consists of more than a worrisome story written eighty years ago. If only 1984 was just "a worrisome story written eighty years ago". Instead, it describes the totalitarian regime created by Marxist takeover of the Soviet union. We are now experiencing an attempted Marxist takeover of our own society. Books are being banned. Ideas are becoming unacceptable, shunned, erased from public discourse, and from our memories. President Obama praised, quoted, and recommended Dr. Seuss's books in official press releases throughout his presidency, all the way to his last year as president - 2015: https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-praised-dr-seuss-during-presidency/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-prai... But now, barely 6 years later, the Leftist Mob has come for Dr. Seuss, and we're all bullied to recite that Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist. And his books are, accordingly, being erased. Cancelled. To quote Orwell: "The past was alterable. The past never had been altered." The real point isn't that Dr. Seuss is actually racist (he never was), but to condition us to reject, ban, and shun "unacceptable" ideas, thoughts, and expressions - on social command. The overarching theme here is control: in the leftist vision, society must control and regulate the consciousness of all its members, in order to create a perfect Utopian centrally-controlled society.

lumenwrites 6y ago

Well, it looks like soon we'll have many more freedoms like that. Freedom from saying forbidden words, freedom from thinking forbidden thoughts, freedom from all the people who write, research, or joke about controversial subjects, freedom from anything that could potentially offend or upset anyone ever, freedom from anything that doesn't comply with the dogma. Boy, I can't wait to be liberated from all the wrongthink!

f154hfds 6y ago

Ideas have generally been considered protected ground and the 'positive' freedom of ideas is the basis of scientific progression (tenure for example is a freedom to be contrarian, not a shackle toward rational self mastery). The fact that these books are oriented toward children is irrelevant, it is still an attack on the 'idea' that parents/teachers can use offensive works to a productive end. I would love to be a fly on the wall in Ebay or Amazon during their discussions on these bannings, because it seems their attempts to pacify certain audiences is so hopelessly naive it's hard for me to understand their motivation. Do we want to live in a society where certain corporations decide which training wheels to put on us? The discussion isn't about their legal right, but about what their policy should be when X group comes along saying Y is offensive. I doubt these decisions were made from a cynical bottom-line perspective. No one as far as I'm aware was boycotting these places because they sold offensive children's books. The most disturbing thing to me is they did it purely because they thought it was the right thing to do. Their policy is what we're saying is wrong.

claudiawerner 6y ago
>The fact that these books are oriented toward children is irrelevant, it is still an attack on the 'idea' that parents/teachers can use offensive works to a productive end. We 'attack' ideas all the time; in fact, that's what most of us are doing on HN. There's nothing wrong with such an 'attack' on an idea. In fact, if you open Ebay right now, you'll likely find works of philosophy and law debating whether parents and teachers can use offensive works to a productive end. >The discussion isn't about their legal right, but about what their policy should be when X group comes along saying Y is offensive. That's a good question, but it does not demand an answer culminating in an accusation that actually rather reasonable answers constitute an attack on the very idea of freedom. We recognize 'offense' even in law in every country on the planet, and it seems to me that so long as corporations have less power than governments, there is at least some room for reasoning from moral or practical principles that are not available (nor do we wish to be available) in law. The very fact that it's a not a legal question actually seems to tilt the scales towards reasons why a private entity should exercise moral autonomy in the market. >The most disturbing thing to me is they did it purely because they thought it was the right thing to do. Their policy is what we're saying is wrong. This isn't disturbing to me; the market is a big part of our social life, and with the law generally more restricted on dealing with moral issues, actors in the market can step in and make those decisions for themselves. There is nothing repugnant about acting on the basis of what you find wrong or right. There may be something wrong with the moral reasoning of Seuss' estate and Ebay (if it even is moral reasoning - to a consequentialist this wouldn't even matter). But the form of the decision (moral reasoning) and its content (the morality of facilitating the sale of racist caricatures, if the books really are that bad) are two different questions. I have zero problem with a stock exchange refusing to sell tobacco or even alcohol or strip club stocks. I may disagree with them - maybe I think alcohol and strip clubs are not morally wrong businesses. But I can't see any reason to disagree with their exercise of moral autonomy. Their exercise of moral autonomy is a contribution to the moral discourse, and censorship of that discourse is a bigger concern, and not merely from theoretical reasons.
- f154hfds 6y ago
  Thank you for your response. It's funny, I think I agree with you on these points. We can agree that it is of critical importance that this is a private policy decision, not mandated by the state. That doesn't make it right. To me these externally imposed training wheels hurt our ability to move forward. The _policy_ is misguided, and hiding the past destines us to repeat it. These companies are entering the business of vigilante thought police, there's really no other way to explain what's happening here.

whynaut 6y ago

> we have here a company refusing to sell these items What's funny is that it's the publishing house themselves that decided to stop selling the book. Shouldn't they have the freedom to decide that?

NeverFade 6y ago

Yes, there are views of "freedom" that are paradoxical. In fact, that's precisely the view that 1984 presents, with the party's second motto: "Freedom is Slavery". What the woke mob is doing right now is to extend this paradoxical definition of "freedom" to the extent that nobody will have any (real) freedom at all. In a nutshell, the woke argument is: "I should have the 'freedom' from being offended, and this 'freedom' overrides and cancels all your freedoms." For example, in this case: "I am offended by the idea that someone, somewhere, will read a book containing ideas I dislike, therefore your very important rights to publish and read such books are hereby revoked". This is the same line of reasoning that led to the establishment of totalitarian utopias (favored by Marcuse) which inevitably end up as 1984-style dystopia.

claudiawerner 6y ago
>Yes, there are views of "freedom" that are paradoxical. All views of freedom are paradoxical other than the most basic view, which is that everyone has the freedom to do anything to anyone. The law provides freedom from armed bandits, or the worry of armed bandits, attacking you at night. At least, it aims to. Property rights provide freedom from your things being appropriated by others (including a government). The right to representation at trial provides freedom to fair judgements in the legal system. This isn't a dystopia. >In a nutshell, the woke argument is: "I should have the 'freedom' from being offended, and this 'freedom' overrides and cancels all your freedoms." Nobody has made that argument, but as I mentioned, the canonical case is corpse desecration. People in general desire freedom from that offense, and this freedom overrides and cancels the freedom to desecrate corpses. >For example, in this case: "I am offended by the idea that someone, somewhere, will read a book containing ideas I dislike, therefore your very important rights to publish and read such books are hereby revoked". I don't think we should do that, and I don't think the "woke mob" in general really thinks that either. Political philosophy consists of more than a worrisome story written eighty years ago.
- NeverFade 6y ago
  > All views of freedom are paradoxical other than the most basic view, which is that everyone has the freedom to do anything to anyone. No, there is a valid view of individual freedom that is limited by other people's freedom. In fact, that's the traditional American view of freedom. I have the freedom to do anything that doesn't actively restrict the freedom of others. I can walk into an empty space. I can't walk into a space you occupy. > Political philosophy consists of more than a worrisome story written eighty years ago. If only 1984 was just "a worrisome story written eighty years ago". Instead, it describes the totalitarian regime created by Marxist takeover of the Soviet union. We are now experiencing an attempted Marxist takeover of our own society. Books are being banned. Ideas are becoming unacceptable, shunned, erased from public discourse, and from our memories. President Obama praised, quoted, and recommended Dr. Seuss's books in official press releases throughout his presidency, all the way to his last year as president - 2015: https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-praised-dr-seuss-during-presidency/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-prai... But now, barely 6 years later, the Leftist Mob has come for Dr. Seuss, and we're all bullied to recite that Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist. And his books are, accordingly, being erased. Cancelled. To quote Orwell: "The past was alterable. The past never had been altered." The real point isn't that Dr. Seuss is actually racist (he never was), but to condition us to reject, ban, and shun "unacceptable" ideas, thoughts, and expressions - on social command. The overarching theme here is control: in the leftist vision, society must control and regulate the consciousness of all its members, in order to create a perfect Utopian centrally-controlled society.