7 ms·

Quotation (related only because it's from Russell): "The fundamental argument for freedom of opinion is the doubtfulness of all our belief... when the State in

Quotation (related only because it's from Russell): "The fundamental argument for freedom of opinion is the doubtfulness of all our belief... when the State intervenes to ensure the indoctrination of some doctrine, it does so because there is no conclusive evidence in favour of that doctrine .. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to make a living." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

malwarebytess 6y ago
This is from, at least partially, "Free Thought and Official Propaganda." https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/br-free-thought.html https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/br-free-thought.html
- feurio 6y ago
  "Both these obstacles exist in every large country known to me, except China, which is the last refuge of freedom." Good to see how well that worked out ;-)
  - andrepd 6y ago
    It's depressing how bad early 20th century China fucked it up
    - coldtea 6y ago
      Compared to some paradise that was 19th century China? If anything, they improved a lot, in sovereignity, wealth, education, infrastructure, commerce, science, and tons of other fields besides...
      - ta988 6y ago
        As well as concentration camps.
        coldtea 6y ago
        If we are to believe the same "enemy of the day" embedded reporting that gave us WMDs, the Nayirah testimony, the Steele Dossier, and other such truths...
        andrepd 6y ago
        The evidence is overwhelming, unlike the case with Iraq's WMDs.
        coldtea 6y ago
        "Evidence" like satellite photos of school complexes, markets, and such being reported (in mainstream media nonetheless) as "concentration camps" and debunked by on-the-field checks?
        andrepd 6y ago
        I'd love to see that "debunked" evidence, sadly there's more than sattelite imagery, such as survivor's testimonies and on-the-field images. The most incontrovertible evidence is: if there's no genocide, why don't you allow a team of reporters free unmolested access to Xianjing. Of course, you know this. Why you seek to deny it it's anyone's guess.
      - andrepd 6y ago
        I hear that a lot. Wealth, science, infrastructure are better ergo the political system and decisions were good. I hear that from such diverse sides as Bill Gates and capitalism apologists as well as Soviet apologists. The truth is things improved in general in the last century because technology improved in the entire world in the last century. More efficient production, better medicide, massively more know-how in all fields of human endeavour. Yeah things got better in the entire world, but probably despite the system, not because of it.
        Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        Not saying I agree with it, but: A frequent answer to that from proponents of a strong unitary state (e.g. China, but also Russia and a few other countries) is that society there is too divided for the state to survive without a heavy hand. And then, once the state breaks down and the country splits into fiefdoms ruled by warlords, the collapse of infrastructure and violence means that the average person wouldn't be getting much benefit from modern technology. Just look at Somalia.
        coldtea 6y ago
        Or states where the strongmen were toppled by "democracy by bombing (and get their resources)" operations, that turned half a century stable places like Iraq, Libya, etc. into civil-war hellholes...
        coldtea 6y ago
        >The truth is things improved in general in the last century because technology improved in the entire world in the last century. Available level of technology doesn't magically improve things, and doesn't make you #2 global economy from a distant developing world one. Just check other developing world countries that had 1/1000 the success, regardless of 20 and 21st century technology being what it is. >More efficient production, better medicide, massively more know-how in all fields of human endeavour. Yeah things got better in the entire world, but probably despite the system, not because of it. There are tons of countries that don't even have running water and stable electricity, never mind "more efficient production and better medicine". Technology and infrastructure improvements don't apply magically by themselves.
bckr 6y ago
And that will be used by shrill persons to claim censorship, etc, etc. However, I claim that the profession of certain opinions should make it impossible to make a living. EDIT: for certain values of "profess", which I'll expand as "go around telling everyone you frequently converse with"
- caspper69 6y ago
  What happens when it's your opinions that are unpopular?
  - sneak 6y ago
    Opinions are not innate, can shift, and are often wrong.
    - ithkuil 6y ago
      Sure opinions are often wrong. However their correctness is often uncorrelated with their popularity. What we should do though, is to learn to distinguish holding opinions that some people may find offensive, from offending people with the excuse of just voicing our opinions.
    - raffraffraff 6y ago
      Yes, but when somebody has an unpopular opinion that is "wrong", silencing them isn't the way to change their minds. The best thing in the whole world is hearing a debate between two people, and having your mind change as a result of the arguments given.
      - sneak 6y ago
        Declining to continue to employ someone, or be associated with them in public, is not silencing them.
        jokethrowaway 6y ago
perl4ever 6y ago
conclusive evidence
- chmod600 6y ago
  Can you please expand on your point?
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    Has there ever been any evidence for anything that has ended debate on the topic for everyone, universally? Of course not. Russell meant "conclusive" with respect to a small group of right minded people, that should be deciding things. He wasn't against an arbitrary group of elites deciding what is true, he was just against the wrong group vaguely identified as "the State". I'm not saying I'm pro or con anyone censoring things, my point is that people who talked about censorship traditionally took for granted that someone responsible was in control if the people they didn't like weren't.
    - chmod600 6y ago
      Your analysis doesn't seem to affect the most important part of the quotation, which is that free thought is impossible when some opinions too dangerous to express.

malwarebytess 6y ago

This is from, at least partially, "Free Thought and Official Propaganda." https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/br-free-thought.html https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/br-free-thought.html

feurio 6y ago
"Both these obstacles exist in every large country known to me, except China, which is the last refuge of freedom." Good to see how well that worked out ;-)
- andrepd 6y ago
  It's depressing how bad early 20th century China fucked it up
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Compared to some paradise that was 19th century China? If anything, they improved a lot, in sovereignity, wealth, education, infrastructure, commerce, science, and tons of other fields besides...
    - ta988 6y ago
      As well as concentration camps.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        If we are to believe the same "enemy of the day" embedded reporting that gave us WMDs, the Nayirah testimony, the Steele Dossier, and other such truths...
        andrepd 6y ago
        The evidence is overwhelming, unlike the case with Iraq's WMDs.
        coldtea 6y ago
        "Evidence" like satellite photos of school complexes, markets, and such being reported (in mainstream media nonetheless) as "concentration camps" and debunked by on-the-field checks?
        andrepd 6y ago
        I'd love to see that "debunked" evidence, sadly there's more than sattelite imagery, such as survivor's testimonies and on-the-field images. The most incontrovertible evidence is: if there's no genocide, why don't you allow a team of reporters free unmolested access to Xianjing. Of course, you know this. Why you seek to deny it it's anyone's guess.
    - andrepd 6y ago
      I hear that a lot. Wealth, science, infrastructure are better ergo the political system and decisions were good. I hear that from such diverse sides as Bill Gates and capitalism apologists as well as Soviet apologists. The truth is things improved in general in the last century because technology improved in the entire world in the last century. More efficient production, better medicide, massively more know-how in all fields of human endeavour. Yeah things got better in the entire world, but probably despite the system, not because of it.
      - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        Not saying I agree with it, but: A frequent answer to that from proponents of a strong unitary state (e.g. China, but also Russia and a few other countries) is that society there is too divided for the state to survive without a heavy hand. And then, once the state breaks down and the country splits into fiefdoms ruled by warlords, the collapse of infrastructure and violence means that the average person wouldn't be getting much benefit from modern technology. Just look at Somalia.
        coldtea 6y ago
        Or states where the strongmen were toppled by "democracy by bombing (and get their resources)" operations, that turned half a century stable places like Iraq, Libya, etc. into civil-war hellholes...
      - coldtea 6y ago
        >The truth is things improved in general in the last century because technology improved in the entire world in the last century. Available level of technology doesn't magically improve things, and doesn't make you #2 global economy from a distant developing world one. Just check other developing world countries that had 1/1000 the success, regardless of 20 and 21st century technology being what it is. >More efficient production, better medicide, massively more know-how in all fields of human endeavour. Yeah things got better in the entire world, but probably despite the system, not because of it. There are tons of countries that don't even have running water and stable electricity, never mind "more efficient production and better medicine". Technology and infrastructure improvements don't apply magically by themselves.

bckr 6y ago

And that will be used by shrill persons to claim censorship, etc, etc. However, I claim that the profession of certain opinions should make it impossible to make a living. EDIT: for certain values of "profess", which I'll expand as "go around telling everyone you frequently converse with"

caspper69 6y ago
What happens when it's your opinions that are unpopular?
- sneak 6y ago
  Opinions are not innate, can shift, and are often wrong.
  - ithkuil 6y ago
    Sure opinions are often wrong. However their correctness is often uncorrelated with their popularity. What we should do though, is to learn to distinguish holding opinions that some people may find offensive, from offending people with the excuse of just voicing our opinions.
  - raffraffraff 6y ago
    Yes, but when somebody has an unpopular opinion that is "wrong", silencing them isn't the way to change their minds. The best thing in the whole world is hearing a debate between two people, and having your mind change as a result of the arguments given.
    - sneak 6y ago
      Declining to continue to employ someone, or be associated with them in public, is not silencing them.
      - jokethrowaway 6y ago

perl4ever 6y ago

conclusive evidence

chmod600 6y ago
Can you please expand on your point?
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Has there ever been any evidence for anything that has ended debate on the topic for everyone, universally? Of course not. Russell meant "conclusive" with respect to a small group of right minded people, that should be deciding things. He wasn't against an arbitrary group of elites deciding what is true, he was just against the wrong group vaguely identified as "the State". I'm not saying I'm pro or con anyone censoring things, my point is that people who talked about censorship traditionally took for granted that someone responsible was in control if the people they didn't like weren't.
  - chmod600 6y ago
    Your analysis doesn't seem to affect the most important part of the quotation, which is that free thought is impossible when some opinions too dangerous to express.