4 ms·

There is a troubling and growing anti-intellectual, anti-scientific movement I have seen which seeks to make certain questions verboten. The idea that because

There is a troubling and growing anti-intellectual, anti-scientific movement I have seen which seeks to make certain questions verboten. The idea that because somebody is or claims to be offended by another person's curiosity about the world, that we must stop asking questions ("or else") is, to me, offensive. Keep questioning everything. Social theories and traditions and status quo should be no safer from questioning than anything else. Stand up to those stuck in their ways or feel their position in the status quo is threatened by people's curiosity. In my experience, people who claim a line of questioning is offensive are usually not offended but scared and probably unwilling or unable to provide answers or defend their position with reason. Your question isn't a rhetorical trap at all, it was actually very interesting and thoughtful, and possibly exposes some inconsistencies in the way these kinds of historical right to ownership are thought about in different cases, which I had not previously thought about.

leto_ii 5y ago
> There is a troubling and growing anti-intellectual, anti-scientific movement I have seen which seeks to make certain questions verboten. The question was offensive, yet I didn't try to cancel the author in any way. I didn't flag the comment, I didn't email dang to have the author's account blocked etc. I instead offered an explanation of my position in polite but firm terms, with some argumentation. The question had nothing scientific in it, so there's no need to worry about opposition to science btw. > Social theories and traditions and status quo should be no safer from questioning than anything else. Definitely agreed, freedom of speech should be sacrosanct in any civilized placed. You should have the right to, for example, claim that the Holocaust didn't happen and I should have the right to tell you that you're wrong and that your position is deeply offensive. That's how free speech works. > unwilling or unable to provide answers or defend their position with reason. I did provide arguments for my position. > inconsistencies in the way these kinds of historical right to ownership are thought about in different cases In general I think the first thing to ask is: did the majority of the people living in that place at that time freely consented with the removal of their artifacts? I'm curious btw, do you think what Elgin did with the Parthenon is fair game too?
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Everything is offensive to somebody. I don't know what you mean by "cancel the author". You clearly don't want the questions being asked or the issue discussed, don't try to play innocent about it. And there has never been greater need to worry about opposition to science. > Definitely agreed, freedom of speech should be sacrosanct in any civilized placed. You should have the right to, for example, claim that the Holocaust didn't happen Bully. > I did provide arguments for my position. You didn't. "I'm offended" is not an argument. > In general I think the first thing to ask is: did the majority of the people living in that place at that time freely consented with the removal of their artifacts? This is not an argument either, it does not address the question asked and now apparently you don't find it offensive to discuss the issue anymore it seems like it's something you've just made up without thinking much. The issues in question go a lot deeper -- if one group of people displaces another, how do the artifacts become "theirs". An interesting question (note that I did not take the position one way or the other whether this was the case in Egypt). > I'm curious btw, do you think what Elgin did with the Parthenon is fair game too? Define "fair game". This is not some gotcha, I never said I thought removing Egyptian artifacts was "fair game". And as to the current discussion, modern Greeks clearly have strong ancestral lineages to ancient Greeks.
  - leto_ii 5y ago
    Based on the virulence of your comments, as well as their ad hominem and non sequitur nature I have decided to consider you a troll. This conversation is not productive and it pollutes the fine forum of HN, therefore I'm unilaterally ending it.

leto_ii 5y ago

> There is a troubling and growing anti-intellectual, anti-scientific movement I have seen which seeks to make certain questions verboten. The question was offensive, yet I didn't try to cancel the author in any way. I didn't flag the comment, I didn't email dang to have the author's account blocked etc. I instead offered an explanation of my position in polite but firm terms, with some argumentation. The question had nothing scientific in it, so there's no need to worry about opposition to science btw. > Social theories and traditions and status quo should be no safer from questioning than anything else. Definitely agreed, freedom of speech should be sacrosanct in any civilized placed. You should have the right to, for example, claim that the Holocaust didn't happen and I should have the right to tell you that you're wrong and that your position is deeply offensive. That's how free speech works. > unwilling or unable to provide answers or defend their position with reason. I did provide arguments for my position. > inconsistencies in the way these kinds of historical right to ownership are thought about in different cases In general I think the first thing to ask is: did the majority of the people living in that place at that time freely consented with the removal of their artifacts? I'm curious btw, do you think what Elgin did with the Parthenon is fair game too?

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Everything is offensive to somebody. I don't know what you mean by "cancel the author". You clearly don't want the questions being asked or the issue discussed, don't try to play innocent about it. And there has never been greater need to worry about opposition to science. > Definitely agreed, freedom of speech should be sacrosanct in any civilized placed. You should have the right to, for example, claim that the Holocaust didn't happen Bully. > I did provide arguments for my position. You didn't. "I'm offended" is not an argument. > In general I think the first thing to ask is: did the majority of the people living in that place at that time freely consented with the removal of their artifacts? This is not an argument either, it does not address the question asked and now apparently you don't find it offensive to discuss the issue anymore it seems like it's something you've just made up without thinking much. The issues in question go a lot deeper -- if one group of people displaces another, how do the artifacts become "theirs". An interesting question (note that I did not take the position one way or the other whether this was the case in Egypt). > I'm curious btw, do you think what Elgin did with the Parthenon is fair game too? Define "fair game". This is not some gotcha, I never said I thought removing Egyptian artifacts was "fair game". And as to the current discussion, modern Greeks clearly have strong ancestral lineages to ancient Greeks.
- leto_ii 5y ago
  Based on the virulence of your comments, as well as their ad hominem and non sequitur nature I have decided to consider you a troll. This conversation is not productive and it pollutes the fine forum of HN, therefore I'm unilaterally ending it.