7 ms·

But in actual intellectual discourse, if someone presents a point of view which is founded on a discredited idea, then we just ignore them. We do not show up at

by waqf 5y ago

But in actual intellectual discourse, if someone presents a point of view which is founded on a discredited idea, then we just ignore them. We do not show up at their talks and try to prevent them from communicating with others. Firstly because life's too short for that, and secondly because who knows, one day they might turn out to have been right or mostly right.

ss108 5y ago
> But in actual intellectual discourse, if someone presents a point of view which is founded on a discredited idea, then we just ignore them. We do not show up at their talks and try to prevent them from communicating with others. I (for the most part) agree; like I said, I am not generally a fan of contemporary cancel culture. Are you Muslim btw, or is your username a coincidence?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
giraffe_lady 5y ago
> But in actual intellectual discourse Well, where is that? I live my life surrounded by "discredited" ideas with much popularity and power. I don't know shit about intellectual discourse, can it get the police to stop killing my friends? Can it get a doctor for my impoverished mother in law? If not then I'm afraid I must oppose some ideas in ways other than ignoring them.
- mwcampbell 5y ago
  > If not then I'm afraid I must oppose some ideas in ways other than ignoring them. True. But trying to prevent further expression of those ideas, or retaliating against those who express them ("cancel culture" IIUC), isn't necessarily the best type of opposition. For example, disability rights isn't an academic issue for me and some of my friends. But when someone expresses opposition to the idea that websites should be required to be accessible, I don't try to silence them; I try to engage with them for the purpose of changing either their mind or mine.
  - ss108 5y ago
    I'm more on your side here, but in the typical "cancel culture" scenario, the type of stuff people are trying to silence (e.g. re illegal immigrants) is much less nuanced and much more aggressive. The analogue would not be "websites shouldn't be required to be accessible", it's more often something like "websites shouldn't be accessible".
  - danielheath 5y ago
    > I don't try to silence them; I try to engage with them for the purpose of changing either their mind or mine. To strong-man "Cancel culture" - trying to remove people from decision-making roles after they have signaled they intend to make harmful decisions is not - on the face of it - a ridiculous idea. > expresses opposition to the idea that websites should be required to be accessible If someone openly holding this view applies for a job in charge of your website, are you going to seriously consider their application? The point of cancel culture isn't to convince the person being cancelled, or to coerce those who agree with them by threat of losing their job. The point is to remove perceived political opponents from positions of influence.
UncleMeat 5y ago
Being wrong is not absolute proof that nobody will follow or agree with these wrong beliefs. Climate scientists, for example, have spent a lot of time arguing in public about the merits of climate science and the lies of deniers. That is important work because the deniers do convince some people and denialism causes real harm.
- imgabe 5y ago
  Being popular is not absolute proof that ideas are right either. That’s why we need to leave room for the unpopular ideas too.
  - krainboltgreene 5y ago
    How much room do we leave for phrenology?
    - imgabe 5y ago
      Should we fire anyone who thinks phrenology is real? How about flat earthers? Should they be unable to feed or shelter themselves because they’re wrong about something? Are you right about everything?
      - krainboltgreene 5y ago
        I've already decided you're right, now we just need to find out how much room we leave for these topics.
        imgabe 5y ago
        The whole idea of free speech is that there is no “we” who decides what topics are allowed and “how much room” particular topics get. Free speech means it’s free, and people can talk about whatever they want, however much they want. If you don’t like what people are saying, you can use your free speech to explain why your ideas are better.

by waqf 5y ago

ss108 5y ago

> But in actual intellectual discourse, if someone presents a point of view which is founded on a discredited idea, then we just ignore them. We do not show up at their talks and try to prevent them from communicating with others. I (for the most part) agree; like I said, I am not generally a fan of contemporary cancel culture. Are you Muslim btw, or is your username a coincidence?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

giraffe_lady 5y ago

> But in actual intellectual discourse Well, where is that? I live my life surrounded by "discredited" ideas with much popularity and power. I don't know shit about intellectual discourse, can it get the police to stop killing my friends? Can it get a doctor for my impoverished mother in law? If not then I'm afraid I must oppose some ideas in ways other than ignoring them.

mwcampbell 5y ago
> If not then I'm afraid I must oppose some ideas in ways other than ignoring them. True. But trying to prevent further expression of those ideas, or retaliating against those who express them ("cancel culture" IIUC), isn't necessarily the best type of opposition. For example, disability rights isn't an academic issue for me and some of my friends. But when someone expresses opposition to the idea that websites should be required to be accessible, I don't try to silence them; I try to engage with them for the purpose of changing either their mind or mine.
- ss108 5y ago
  I'm more on your side here, but in the typical "cancel culture" scenario, the type of stuff people are trying to silence (e.g. re illegal immigrants) is much less nuanced and much more aggressive. The analogue would not be "websites shouldn't be required to be accessible", it's more often something like "websites shouldn't be accessible".
- danielheath 5y ago
  > I don't try to silence them; I try to engage with them for the purpose of changing either their mind or mine. To strong-man "Cancel culture" - trying to remove people from decision-making roles after they have signaled they intend to make harmful decisions is not - on the face of it - a ridiculous idea. > expresses opposition to the idea that websites should be required to be accessible If someone openly holding this view applies for a job in charge of your website, are you going to seriously consider their application? The point of cancel culture isn't to convince the person being cancelled, or to coerce those who agree with them by threat of losing their job. The point is to remove perceived political opponents from positions of influence.

UncleMeat 5y ago

Being wrong is not absolute proof that nobody will follow or agree with these wrong beliefs. Climate scientists, for example, have spent a lot of time arguing in public about the merits of climate science and the lies of deniers. That is important work because the deniers do convince some people and denialism causes real harm.

imgabe 5y ago
Being popular is not absolute proof that ideas are right either. That’s why we need to leave room for the unpopular ideas too.
- krainboltgreene 5y ago
  How much room do we leave for phrenology?
  - imgabe 5y ago
    Should we fire anyone who thinks phrenology is real? How about flat earthers? Should they be unable to feed or shelter themselves because they’re wrong about something? Are you right about everything?
    - krainboltgreene 5y ago
      I've already decided you're right, now we just need to find out how much room we leave for these topics.
      - imgabe 5y ago
        The whole idea of free speech is that there is no “we” who decides what topics are allowed and “how much room” particular topics get. Free speech means it’s free, and people can talk about whatever they want, however much they want. If you don’t like what people are saying, you can use your free speech to explain why your ideas are better.