16 ms·

> If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one pers

> If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. >…the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. —John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Truth is not determined by a list of approved opinions, it can only be revealed by rigorously disproving everything that opposes it. All these calls for censorship make me think we really are doomed to repeat history forever.

mcguire 5y ago
What happens if nobody listens to your proofs? What happens if they prefer the lie?
- WillPostForFood 5y ago
  What if only one truth is allowed, and it is wrong or a lie? You are putting all your eggs in one basket.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Marx was almost right: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." Postmodernism, the first time around, was the comedy.
- teakettle42 5y ago
  What you’re really asking is “What happens if people do not do what we tell them to do? What happens if they disagree with us?” Is it appropriate to force people to adhere to your strictures if they won’t do so voluntarily?
  - hermitdev 5y ago
    This is really prescient with the ongoing "debate" around vaccine mandates.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    (So we've already given up on "Truth is not determined by a list of approved opinions, it can only be revealed by rigorously disproving everything that opposes it" then. Fine. Truth is relative.) No, what I'm really asking is, "What happens if innocent people start being hurt by the lie?" What happens if you are seriously injured in an accident but cannot get medical help because the intensive care facilities are full of people who disagree with the truth? Thoughts and prayers? Does freedom come with any responsibility?
    - teakettle42 5y ago
      > No, what I'm really asking is, "What happens if innocent people start being hurt by the lie?" That would suggest we might benefit from a better mechanism for establishing the truth. The best mechanism we’ve come up with so far is open and vibrant debate. Do you have a better suggestion? > What happens if you are seriously injured in an accident but cannot get medical help because the intensive care facilities are full of people who disagree with the truth? The Rolling Stone story positing the above turned out to be entirely fabricated. How would you propose we stem misinformation like that Rolling Stone article? > Thoughts and prayers? Open and vibrant debate. > Does freedom come with any responsibility? Sure it does, though assessing culpability is often a nightmarish impossibility, especially a priori. Should we establish prior restraints on individual’s freedoms to enforce correct speech and beliefs? If not, then what exactly are you proposing?
      - mcguire 5y ago
        "The best mechanism we’ve come up with so far is open and vibrant debate. "Do you have a better suggestion?" I do not. But open and vibrant debate only works when people are capable of determining when the debate has been settled, at least for the moment. And are willing to accept the settled decision. Have you ever had a serious chat with a creationist? Of course, there is no positive evidence that can disprove the young earth theory, any more than you can disprove solipsism. The creationist argument ultimately fails because of the implications of its own flexibility. I've known people who claim that the faster they drive, the better they drive. Or that they are perfectly safe to drive stoned or drunk. fortunately, in those cases culpability is, as you point out, is easy. Anti-intellectualism comes in many varieties. Someone can be so skeptical that they do not accept any argument because, say, Big Media and The Man are out to oppress them...somehow. Someone else can be so un-skeptical as to believe the first comforting story that comes along in spite of any facts suggesting that reality is harsher. Open and vibrant debate is the only way to establish the truth, but truth is not established by popularity, nor by who yells the loudest. "The Rolling Stone story positing the above turned out to be entirely fabricated. "How would you propose we stem misinformation like that Rolling Stone article?" I have no idea what Rolling Stone article you are talking about. Is it one of these: https://www.kwch.com/2021/08/25/family-mcpherson-man-dies-waiting-icu-bed/ https://www.kwch.com/2021/08/25/family-mcpherson-man-dies-wa... https://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-covid-19-patient-unable-icu-bed-dies/story?id=79565124 https://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-covid-19-patient-unable-icu... https://abc13.com/us-army-veteran-daniel-wilkinson-michelle-puget-man-dies-waiting-icu/10983810/ https://abc13.com/us-army-veteran-daniel-wilkinson-michelle-... "Open and vibrant debate." Not really an answer to my question, but I'm sure it's very comforting to intensive care patients spending hours to days on gurneys in hospital hallways. https://www.wtvy.com/2021/08/18/alabamas-hospital-crisis-intensifies-29-now-waiting-icu-beds/ https://www.wtvy.com/2021/08/18/alabamas-hospital-crisis-int... https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/patients-being-transferred-halfway-across-the-us-as-icu-bed-shortage-nears-crisis-point/ar-AANRZ2W?li=BBoPJKU&srcref=rss&index=1&correct=1&answer=1 https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/patients-being-tran... Freedom is easy if it doesn't come with responsibility, precisely because culpability is often a nightmare to identify. How many people are you willing to injure or kill in the name of freedom? Should we just get used to the fact that there are no limits on lies and an idea just dreamed up by some rando on the internet is just as true as something from a so-called expert? If not, then what exactly are you proposing?
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  Conversely, what if your assumed truth is false and you successfully censor any attempt to disprove it?
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Conversely, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a great way to drum up an evening's entertainment.
    - ZWoz 5y ago
      Yelling "Fire!" in theatre is miscontructed-misunderstood idea and probably legal: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
      - mcguire 5y ago
        Excellent nit! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#Historical_instances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-i/interps/266 https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte...
- artificialLimbs 5y ago
  Then they will learn hard lessons.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Or their victims.
a_c 5y ago
Much debate in the society stems from unfalsifiability
causi 5y ago
Everyone always seems happy to carve out their own exceptions to freedom of expression. Freedom, except for racism. Freedom, except for transgenderism. Freedom, except for porn. Freedom, except for violence. Freedom, except for political dissent or mis-gendering or the promotion or criticism of a religion. As someone who falls near the middle on most issues I probably detest a larger percentage of speakers than anyone who's solidly on the Left or the Right, but I have no issue understanding that my freedom depends on their freedom. If the people I despise are not free to speak then neither am I.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  The privilege to broadcast thoughts to billions of people at no cost is one that we just invented in the last twenty years. It is not a right.
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    Then it should be either: a) removed from everybody or b) removed from nobody.
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
    In that case lets apply your principal evenly to all rights. Freedom of movement: heading somewhere we don’t agree with, ok but you aren’t allowed to use public roads since we own those. Good luck getting to the voting station. Freedom of assembly: we don’t support your protests cause, stay off public property, go hold your protest at your own house. Freedom of conscience: fine think whatever you want but if you attempt to record it in any way we’ll block you. A right without the means to act on it is nothing at all. You’re arguing for a society built like a prison. You should be ashamed.
    - BizarroLand 5y ago
      This is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because you can see a flaw with a system does not mean there is a flaw. Sometimes the flaw is with you & or your line of thought. In this case, equating "not being allowed to post far-right propaganda on every concourse of communication" is not the same as being harassed at your own home because people are allowed to protest.
sanderjd 5y ago
People have a right to speak, but they don't have a right to have their speech amplified by others. There is no right to broadcast. Mill would agree with this, assuming you could explain to him how broadcast media works, which didn't exist in his time.
- teakettle42 5y ago
  Mill wasn’t talking about rights; he was talking about the propensity to suppress unpopular speech, why that’s dangerous, and accordingly, and the moral necessity (and implications) of open discourse.
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    Yes. And he's right about that. But I'm also right that private entities shouldn't be forced to broadcast things they don't want to.
wintermutestwin 5y ago
>All these calls for censorship Isn't the root problem here is the near monopoly held by god-tier corporations? Shouldn't FB/Goog have the right to moderate their content as they see fit? Shouldn't their network effect de facto monopolies be regulated so that there is room for other voices?
gmadsen 5y ago
What I've come to realize is this asks far too much of the average person. Ideas do not win on their logical merits. Rationality is not the driving force of opinion for the majority of people. The alternative is probably worse, as some sort of totalitarian regime, but I just don't think billions of humans are capable of ensuring their own survival as a species
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  A billion minds are better than one.
starfallg 5y ago
>Truth An illusion of truth can be created by repeatedly stating falsehoods by agents with an agenda to push. The question isn't about censorship, but rather how we can make our liberal democratic societies resistant to this type of manipulation, which inevitably results in terminal decline.
bradknowles 5y ago
You are free to hold whatever opinions you want. You are not free to force me to listen to them.

mcguire 5y ago

What happens if nobody listens to your proofs? What happens if they prefer the lie?

WillPostForFood 5y ago
What if only one truth is allowed, and it is wrong or a lie? You are putting all your eggs in one basket.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Marx was almost right: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." Postmodernism, the first time around, was the comedy.
teakettle42 5y ago
What you’re really asking is “What happens if people do not do what we tell them to do? What happens if they disagree with us?” Is it appropriate to force people to adhere to your strictures if they won’t do so voluntarily?
- hermitdev 5y ago
  This is really prescient with the ongoing "debate" around vaccine mandates.
- mcguire 5y ago
  (So we've already given up on "Truth is not determined by a list of approved opinions, it can only be revealed by rigorously disproving everything that opposes it" then. Fine. Truth is relative.) No, what I'm really asking is, "What happens if innocent people start being hurt by the lie?" What happens if you are seriously injured in an accident but cannot get medical help because the intensive care facilities are full of people who disagree with the truth? Thoughts and prayers? Does freedom come with any responsibility?
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    > No, what I'm really asking is, "What happens if innocent people start being hurt by the lie?" That would suggest we might benefit from a better mechanism for establishing the truth. The best mechanism we’ve come up with so far is open and vibrant debate. Do you have a better suggestion? > What happens if you are seriously injured in an accident but cannot get medical help because the intensive care facilities are full of people who disagree with the truth? The Rolling Stone story positing the above turned out to be entirely fabricated. How would you propose we stem misinformation like that Rolling Stone article? > Thoughts and prayers? Open and vibrant debate. > Does freedom come with any responsibility? Sure it does, though assessing culpability is often a nightmarish impossibility, especially a priori. Should we establish prior restraints on individual’s freedoms to enforce correct speech and beliefs? If not, then what exactly are you proposing?
    - mcguire 5y ago
      "The best mechanism we’ve come up with so far is open and vibrant debate. "Do you have a better suggestion?" I do not. But open and vibrant debate only works when people are capable of determining when the debate has been settled, at least for the moment. And are willing to accept the settled decision. Have you ever had a serious chat with a creationist? Of course, there is no positive evidence that can disprove the young earth theory, any more than you can disprove solipsism. The creationist argument ultimately fails because of the implications of its own flexibility. I've known people who claim that the faster they drive, the better they drive. Or that they are perfectly safe to drive stoned or drunk. fortunately, in those cases culpability is, as you point out, is easy. Anti-intellectualism comes in many varieties. Someone can be so skeptical that they do not accept any argument because, say, Big Media and The Man are out to oppress them...somehow. Someone else can be so un-skeptical as to believe the first comforting story that comes along in spite of any facts suggesting that reality is harsher. Open and vibrant debate is the only way to establish the truth, but truth is not established by popularity, nor by who yells the loudest. "The Rolling Stone story positing the above turned out to be entirely fabricated. "How would you propose we stem misinformation like that Rolling Stone article?" I have no idea what Rolling Stone article you are talking about. Is it one of these: https://www.kwch.com/2021/08/25/family-mcpherson-man-dies-waiting-icu-bed/ https://www.kwch.com/2021/08/25/family-mcpherson-man-dies-wa... https://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-covid-19-patient-unable-icu-bed-dies/story?id=79565124 https://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-covid-19-patient-unable-icu... https://abc13.com/us-army-veteran-daniel-wilkinson-michelle-puget-man-dies-waiting-icu/10983810/ https://abc13.com/us-army-veteran-daniel-wilkinson-michelle-... "Open and vibrant debate." Not really an answer to my question, but I'm sure it's very comforting to intensive care patients spending hours to days on gurneys in hospital hallways. https://www.wtvy.com/2021/08/18/alabamas-hospital-crisis-intensifies-29-now-waiting-icu-beds/ https://www.wtvy.com/2021/08/18/alabamas-hospital-crisis-int... https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/patients-being-transferred-halfway-across-the-us-as-icu-bed-shortage-nears-crisis-point/ar-AANRZ2W?li=BBoPJKU&srcref=rss&index=1&correct=1&answer=1 https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/patients-being-tran... Freedom is easy if it doesn't come with responsibility, precisely because culpability is often a nightmare to identify. How many people are you willing to injure or kill in the name of freedom? Should we just get used to the fact that there are no limits on lies and an idea just dreamed up by some rando on the internet is just as true as something from a so-called expert? If not, then what exactly are you proposing?
throwaway316943 5y ago
Conversely, what if your assumed truth is false and you successfully censor any attempt to disprove it?
- mcguire 5y ago
  Conversely, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a great way to drum up an evening's entertainment.
  - ZWoz 5y ago
    Yelling "Fire!" in theatre is miscontructed-misunderstood idea and probably legal: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
    - mcguire 5y ago
      Excellent nit! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#Historical_instances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-i/interps/266 https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte...
artificialLimbs 5y ago
Then they will learn hard lessons.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Or their victims.

a_c 5y ago

Much debate in the society stems from unfalsifiability

causi 5y ago

Everyone always seems happy to carve out their own exceptions to freedom of expression. Freedom, except for racism. Freedom, except for transgenderism. Freedom, except for porn. Freedom, except for violence. Freedom, except for political dissent or mis-gendering or the promotion or criticism of a religion. As someone who falls near the middle on most issues I probably detest a larger percentage of speakers than anyone who's solidly on the Left or the Right, but I have no issue understanding that my freedom depends on their freedom. If the people I despise are not free to speak then neither am I.

sanderjd 5y ago
The privilege to broadcast thoughts to billions of people at no cost is one that we just invented in the last twenty years. It is not a right.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  Then it should be either: a) removed from everybody or b) removed from nobody.
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  In that case lets apply your principal evenly to all rights. Freedom of movement: heading somewhere we don’t agree with, ok but you aren’t allowed to use public roads since we own those. Good luck getting to the voting station. Freedom of assembly: we don’t support your protests cause, stay off public property, go hold your protest at your own house. Freedom of conscience: fine think whatever you want but if you attempt to record it in any way we’ll block you. A right without the means to act on it is nothing at all. You’re arguing for a society built like a prison. You should be ashamed.
  - BizarroLand 5y ago
    This is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because you can see a flaw with a system does not mean there is a flaw. Sometimes the flaw is with you & or your line of thought. In this case, equating "not being allowed to post far-right propaganda on every concourse of communication" is not the same as being harassed at your own home because people are allowed to protest.

sanderjd 5y ago

People have a right to speak, but they don't have a right to have their speech amplified by others. There is no right to broadcast. Mill would agree with this, assuming you could explain to him how broadcast media works, which didn't exist in his time.

teakettle42 5y ago
Mill wasn’t talking about rights; he was talking about the propensity to suppress unpopular speech, why that’s dangerous, and accordingly, and the moral necessity (and implications) of open discourse.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  Yes. And he's right about that. But I'm also right that private entities shouldn't be forced to broadcast things they don't want to.

wintermutestwin 5y ago

>All these calls for censorship Isn't the root problem here is the near monopoly held by god-tier corporations? Shouldn't FB/Goog have the right to moderate their content as they see fit? Shouldn't their network effect de facto monopolies be regulated so that there is room for other voices?

gmadsen 5y ago

What I've come to realize is this asks far too much of the average person. Ideas do not win on their logical merits. Rationality is not the driving force of opinion for the majority of people. The alternative is probably worse, as some sort of totalitarian regime, but I just don't think billions of humans are capable of ensuring their own survival as a species

throwaway316943 5y ago
A billion minds are better than one.

starfallg 5y ago

>Truth An illusion of truth can be created by repeatedly stating falsehoods by agents with an agenda to push. The question isn't about censorship, but rather how we can make our liberal democratic societies resistant to this type of manipulation, which inevitably results in terminal decline.

bradknowles 5y ago

You are free to hold whatever opinions you want. You are not free to force me to listen to them.