4 ms·

> In a world where conservative opinions are considered to be controversial In my opinion controversy and political incorrectness are Okay. I don't think peopl

> In a world where conservative opinions are considered to be controversial In my opinion controversy and political incorrectness are Okay. I don't think people should be too concerned about hurting others' feelings when discussing objective phenomena or expressing their own opinion (as long as they acknowledge their subjectivity) . Nevertheless obvious (although not to everyone) absurd, blatant lies and manipulations shouldn't be covered by the free speech umbrella. I wish people could correctly judge what they read themselves, taking what they read and what they feel critically, but many apparently can not.

luckylion 4y ago
> Nevertheless obvious (although not to everyone) absurd, blatant lies and manipulations shouldn't be covered by the free speech umbrella. "Capitalism is the problem", "modern employment is wage slavery". These are absurd, blatant lies meant to manipulate. Would you have statements like that removed?
- qwerty456127 4y ago
  These are opinions. And I lean to agreeing with them (except I don't think anybody knows a good solution to the problem). Blatant lies/absurd are things like all (or almost all) people of specific race are inherently evil or stupid, they control the state for their wicked aims and there is a gene for specific preferences which ought to be eradicated or we are doomed.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    That sounds to me like picking and choosing what's okay because "opinion" and what's not because "blatant lie".
    - qwerty456127 4y ago
      Is 2x2=7.21 an opinion or a simple absurd? I don't insist the lies I mentioned are as easy to identify. I understand they are easier for some people to believe. But the nature of the difference (as compared to complex, discussable philosophical ideas like "capitalism is a problem") seems to be the same. While abstract philosophical questions of the "life, universe and everything" category can be discussed infinitely and there is no simple right answer, there also are questions to which a simple answer exists, discoverable by any person who would care to exercise some logic (preferably alone, without being afraid to loose an argument).
    - elil17 4y ago
      "Capitalism is the problem" is a statement so broad an non-specific that it can not be a lie. Certainly any economic system has problems. Saying that a specific race is inherently evil is a specific factual claim (one that few people actually make).
      - luckylion 4y ago
        > Certainly any economic system has problems Sure, but there's a huge gap between "X has problems" and "X is _the_ problem", i.e. if only we removed X, everything would be fine. It's absurd.
        elil17 4y ago
        I do not assume that people mean "if we only removed capitalism, everything would be fine" when they say "capitalism is the problem." I assume they mean something more like "replacing capitalism with [y] would make things much better than marginal changes to capitalism" where [y] is probably democratic socialism, or that they mean something like "most problems can be traced back to capitalism and to fix these problems we need to fix capitalism" where "fixing capitalism" means enacting whatever policies the speaker happens to advocate for. Someone saying "it would be better if the US adopted a government closer to the USSR's" is a pretty out there statement and I'm not going to assume that someone means that unless they're pretty clear about it.
    - bckr 4y ago
      There's a conversation of some depth to be had here. I think it might simply devolve into "rhetoric is part of a struggle for power", but I am not ready to be that cynical yet. "Capitalism is the problem". Let's take this as untrue (ironic laughter from the peanut gallery). Could "capitalism is the problem" be an opinion coming from one person and a blatant lie coming from another? Is it fundamentally different from "ethnicity X is the problem"?
      - luckylion 4y ago
        That's an interesting point, and it seems correct. You need to consider the context and background to get an idea whether someone doesn't know better or actively tells the truth. That's often hard for me with a lot of the "out there" medical advice, where it's not immediately obvious to me that they're just scams where the person goes home to laugh at the fools giving them money, but rather themselves believe in whatever theory they're advocating. I don't think it becomes an opinion (it's still a statement claiming to be factual), but it's not a lie, and certainly not blatant, though some of it is absurd (but again not to everyone, obviously).
  - poopnugget 4y ago
- _djo_ 4y ago
  But how can you seriously compare a statement like 'capitalism is the problem', which is an opinion about how society chooses to organise itself, to bigotry and prejudice against what people were born as, including anti-semitism? It's self evident that there should be separate standards for that.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    It's absurd to call capitalism the problem for e.g. pollution (which is a typical example of 'capitalism is the problem' statements), which every economic system faced (and the communist systems handled much worse than the capitalist), not to mention comparing slavery to 21st century employment in the West. The people uttering those statements know that, they're neither stupid nor children who haven't yet gotten an education, so they're lying, and they're doing so to manipulate. A similar absurd lie that is intended to manipulate: Russia is being attacked by NATO and only defends itself against the fascists in Ukraine. > It's self evident that there should be separate standards for that. Sure, but they shouldn't be based on whether something is true or wrong, absurd or plausible, or said with intent to manipulate or inform. Better criteria are required, or we'll be back to Twitter's stance of "this instance is against TOS, and that same thing isn't, because we feel like the author didn't mean it the same way", which comes down to "there are no rules other than don't do something/be someone I dislike".
    - macintux 4y ago
      Pollution is an example of an externality which unregulated <anything>ism fails to address, but since capitalism is the dominant economic model and many capitalists advocate for less regulation, it’s not a dramatic leap of logic to say capitalism is the problem.
      - luckylion 4y ago
        Again, we've had something very not capitalist to compare it to (which those people tend to love) and boy, was that worse. But the past tends to be forgotten and on the internet nobody knows that the Soviet Union existed, so why not claim that it didn't. Or that it does, but is being attacked by NATO. Or, my favorite, that Russia doesn't exist, but is just a mirage used by NATO countries to pretend there's an external enemy so their population will follow orders more easily. "It's just an opinion" after all.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jccalhoun 4y ago
  Being wrong is not lying. To be a lie the person has to know it isn't true. Whether those statements are untrue or not, I think that most people that say those things believe them to be true and so they are not lies.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
npteljes 4y ago
>when discussing objective phenomena This would be a good rule, but there's no objective, especially no objective phenomena. So what remains is that we can strive to be truthful, while trying not to be hurtful. Assertive communication, I-messages (communicating one's own account, instead of putting the other in focus), studying fallacies and trying to avoid them, things like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message

luckylion 4y ago

> Nevertheless obvious (although not to everyone) absurd, blatant lies and manipulations shouldn't be covered by the free speech umbrella. "Capitalism is the problem", "modern employment is wage slavery". These are absurd, blatant lies meant to manipulate. Would you have statements like that removed?

qwerty456127 4y ago
These are opinions. And I lean to agreeing with them (except I don't think anybody knows a good solution to the problem). Blatant lies/absurd are things like all (or almost all) people of specific race are inherently evil or stupid, they control the state for their wicked aims and there is a gene for specific preferences which ought to be eradicated or we are doomed.
- luckylion 4y ago
  That sounds to me like picking and choosing what's okay because "opinion" and what's not because "blatant lie".
  - qwerty456127 4y ago
    Is 2x2=7.21 an opinion or a simple absurd? I don't insist the lies I mentioned are as easy to identify. I understand they are easier for some people to believe. But the nature of the difference (as compared to complex, discussable philosophical ideas like "capitalism is a problem") seems to be the same. While abstract philosophical questions of the "life, universe and everything" category can be discussed infinitely and there is no simple right answer, there also are questions to which a simple answer exists, discoverable by any person who would care to exercise some logic (preferably alone, without being afraid to loose an argument).
  - elil17 4y ago
    "Capitalism is the problem" is a statement so broad an non-specific that it can not be a lie. Certainly any economic system has problems. Saying that a specific race is inherently evil is a specific factual claim (one that few people actually make).
    - luckylion 4y ago
      > Certainly any economic system has problems Sure, but there's a huge gap between "X has problems" and "X is _the_ problem", i.e. if only we removed X, everything would be fine. It's absurd.
      - elil17 4y ago
        I do not assume that people mean "if we only removed capitalism, everything would be fine" when they say "capitalism is the problem." I assume they mean something more like "replacing capitalism with [y] would make things much better than marginal changes to capitalism" where [y] is probably democratic socialism, or that they mean something like "most problems can be traced back to capitalism and to fix these problems we need to fix capitalism" where "fixing capitalism" means enacting whatever policies the speaker happens to advocate for. Someone saying "it would be better if the US adopted a government closer to the USSR's" is a pretty out there statement and I'm not going to assume that someone means that unless they're pretty clear about it.
  - bckr 4y ago
    There's a conversation of some depth to be had here. I think it might simply devolve into "rhetoric is part of a struggle for power", but I am not ready to be that cynical yet. "Capitalism is the problem". Let's take this as untrue (ironic laughter from the peanut gallery). Could "capitalism is the problem" be an opinion coming from one person and a blatant lie coming from another? Is it fundamentally different from "ethnicity X is the problem"?
    - luckylion 4y ago
      That's an interesting point, and it seems correct. You need to consider the context and background to get an idea whether someone doesn't know better or actively tells the truth. That's often hard for me with a lot of the "out there" medical advice, where it's not immediately obvious to me that they're just scams where the person goes home to laugh at the fools giving them money, but rather themselves believe in whatever theory they're advocating. I don't think it becomes an opinion (it's still a statement claiming to be factual), but it's not a lie, and certainly not blatant, though some of it is absurd (but again not to everyone, obviously).
- poopnugget 4y ago
_djo_ 4y ago
But how can you seriously compare a statement like 'capitalism is the problem', which is an opinion about how society chooses to organise itself, to bigotry and prejudice against what people were born as, including anti-semitism? It's self evident that there should be separate standards for that.
- luckylion 4y ago
  It's absurd to call capitalism the problem for e.g. pollution (which is a typical example of 'capitalism is the problem' statements), which every economic system faced (and the communist systems handled much worse than the capitalist), not to mention comparing slavery to 21st century employment in the West. The people uttering those statements know that, they're neither stupid nor children who haven't yet gotten an education, so they're lying, and they're doing so to manipulate. A similar absurd lie that is intended to manipulate: Russia is being attacked by NATO and only defends itself against the fascists in Ukraine. > It's self evident that there should be separate standards for that. Sure, but they shouldn't be based on whether something is true or wrong, absurd or plausible, or said with intent to manipulate or inform. Better criteria are required, or we'll be back to Twitter's stance of "this instance is against TOS, and that same thing isn't, because we feel like the author didn't mean it the same way", which comes down to "there are no rules other than don't do something/be someone I dislike".
  - macintux 4y ago
    Pollution is an example of an externality which unregulated <anything>ism fails to address, but since capitalism is the dominant economic model and many capitalists advocate for less regulation, it’s not a dramatic leap of logic to say capitalism is the problem.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      Again, we've had something very not capitalist to compare it to (which those people tend to love) and boy, was that worse. But the past tends to be forgotten and on the internet nobody knows that the Soviet Union existed, so why not claim that it didn't. Or that it does, but is being attacked by NATO. Or, my favorite, that Russia doesn't exist, but is just a mirage used by NATO countries to pretend there's an external enemy so their population will follow orders more easily. "It's just an opinion" after all.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jccalhoun 4y ago
Being wrong is not lying. To be a lie the person has to know it isn't true. Whether those statements are untrue or not, I think that most people that say those things believe them to be true and so they are not lies.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

npteljes 4y ago

>when discussing objective phenomena This would be a good rule, but there's no objective, especially no objective phenomena. So what remains is that we can strive to be truthful, while trying not to be hurtful. Assertive communication, I-messages (communicating one's own account, instead of putting the other in focus), studying fallacies and trying to avoid them, things like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message