4 ms·

> "I've also seen instances of individuals defending free speech because they hold unpopular (or sometimes even hurtful) opinions and want to be taken seriously

by zo1 4y ago

> "I've also seen instances of individuals defending free speech because they hold unpopular (or sometimes even hurtful) opinions and want to be taken seriously, or want a megaphone – both of which they are free to demand but which no one is obligated to give them." Convenient that we're only doing that because "we have unpopular opinions". But did it ever occur to you that they're unpopular because we're not allowed to speak our minds fully and rationally convince others of our ideas' merits?

agalunar 4y ago
The observation has nothing to do with the correctness or goodness of the opinion. The intention of the comment was to point out that this is different from defending free speech; it's simply wanting people to listen to you. (And I don't think that's inherently a wrong desire!)
polygamous_bat 4y ago
> But did it ever occur to you that they're unpopular because we're not allowed to speak our minds fully and rationally convince others of our ideas' merits? Bold claims have a heavy burden of proof. One could quickly retort with the opposite, i.e. perhaps they are unpopular because they have been refuted many times but the proponents believe the 97th time will be the charm. Who's right?
- concordDance 4y ago
  It's possible, but if, say, pro-pinapple speech and reesearch is effectively and heavily suppressed, then even if the lone nutters who are pro-pinapple (and you'd have to be a bit of a nutter to be pro-pinapple in an anti-pinapple world, both due to lack of exposure to anti-pinapple resources and for social reasons) speak up they are probably not going to make a good case, not having had the opportunity to explore the idea with a large number of different people helping them figure out the arguments and doing the experiments.
- imtringued 4y ago
  That retort does not work when the suggested policies work every single time as promised when they have been implemented and their primary reason for failure is that they have been made illegal and brought to court. Also, the refutals that supposedly make them unpopular seemingly have no impact in reality. That kind of suggests that either the models used for refutal are grossly incomplete or big errors have been made due to political reasoning.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    If you believe you have the best ideas with the best evidence backing them and find you can’t reach and convince people with the plethora of modern communications tools, I’d spend at least as much time examining possible faults in your beliefs as I would the possible faults in communications.
yawpitch 4y ago
> But did it ever occur to you that they're unpopular because we're not allowed to speak our minds fully and rationally convince others of our ideas' merits? Notwithstanding my ignorance of the particular unpopular opinion you hold, did it ever occur to you that no matter how fully you express your mind, and no matter how rationally you believe your points, the popular resistance to your unpopular ideas may simply be proof that they do not have merit? If history shows us anything it’s that intelligent people can become convinced by unintelligent ideas.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Given the number of unusual beliefs we have today (e.g. equality, areligiosity), popularity seems like a very bad proxy for truth.
  - yawpitch 4y ago
    Those are, indeed, historically unusual beliefs… though the rise in their popularity being directly coincident with the spread of more-than-minimal literacy and the slow degradation of traditional and institutional obstacles to higher education does imply that inequality and religiosity are even worse proxies for “truth”.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- matt-attack 4y ago
  Sheesh it entirely works both ways. 70 years ago most didn’t want to hear about equal rights for homosexuals. But after 70 years of discussion, celebrity, pop culture, expiration of the issue, society has basically done a 180. The Majority is very often simply wrong. In fact is, look at all progressive movements (those that you’d have to be pretty insane to dispute today). They all began with the majority opposing them. Women’s suffrage, civil rights, homosexual rights, etc. Each of the movements responsible for those achievements went directly against the grain. You were crazy to side with any of those at certain dates in the past. The most fascinating part is to think which movements haven’t occurred yet. Which topics are we all collectively wrong about. Whatever they are it’s the first amendment that will enable them to be rectified. I have many ideas what these will turn out to be, but that’s another topic.

by zo1 4y ago

agalunar 4y ago

The observation has nothing to do with the correctness or goodness of the opinion. The intention of the comment was to point out that this is different from defending free speech; it's simply wanting people to listen to you. (And I don't think that's inherently a wrong desire!)

polygamous_bat 4y ago

> But did it ever occur to you that they're unpopular because we're not allowed to speak our minds fully and rationally convince others of our ideas' merits? Bold claims have a heavy burden of proof. One could quickly retort with the opposite, i.e. perhaps they are unpopular because they have been refuted many times but the proponents believe the 97th time will be the charm. Who's right?

concordDance 4y ago
It's possible, but if, say, pro-pinapple speech and reesearch is effectively and heavily suppressed, then even if the lone nutters who are pro-pinapple (and you'd have to be a bit of a nutter to be pro-pinapple in an anti-pinapple world, both due to lack of exposure to anti-pinapple resources and for social reasons) speak up they are probably not going to make a good case, not having had the opportunity to explore the idea with a large number of different people helping them figure out the arguments and doing the experiments.
imtringued 4y ago
That retort does not work when the suggested policies work every single time as promised when they have been implemented and their primary reason for failure is that they have been made illegal and brought to court. Also, the refutals that supposedly make them unpopular seemingly have no impact in reality. That kind of suggests that either the models used for refutal are grossly incomplete or big errors have been made due to political reasoning.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  If you believe you have the best ideas with the best evidence backing them and find you can’t reach and convince people with the plethora of modern communications tools, I’d spend at least as much time examining possible faults in your beliefs as I would the possible faults in communications.

yawpitch 4y ago

> But did it ever occur to you that they're unpopular because we're not allowed to speak our minds fully and rationally convince others of our ideas' merits? Notwithstanding my ignorance of the particular unpopular opinion you hold, did it ever occur to you that no matter how fully you express your mind, and no matter how rationally you believe your points, the popular resistance to your unpopular ideas may simply be proof that they do not have merit? If history shows us anything it’s that intelligent people can become convinced by unintelligent ideas.

concordDance 4y ago
Given the number of unusual beliefs we have today (e.g. equality, areligiosity), popularity seems like a very bad proxy for truth.
- yawpitch 4y ago
  Those are, indeed, historically unusual beliefs… though the rise in their popularity being directly coincident with the spread of more-than-minimal literacy and the slow degradation of traditional and institutional obstacles to higher education does imply that inequality and religiosity are even worse proxies for “truth”.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
matt-attack 4y ago
Sheesh it entirely works both ways. 70 years ago most didn’t want to hear about equal rights for homosexuals. But after 70 years of discussion, celebrity, pop culture, expiration of the issue, society has basically done a 180. The Majority is very often simply wrong. In fact is, look at all progressive movements (those that you’d have to be pretty insane to dispute today). They all began with the majority opposing them. Women’s suffrage, civil rights, homosexual rights, etc. Each of the movements responsible for those achievements went directly against the grain. You were crazy to side with any of those at certain dates in the past. The most fascinating part is to think which movements haven’t occurred yet. Which topics are we all collectively wrong about. Whatever they are it’s the first amendment that will enable them to be rectified. I have many ideas what these will turn out to be, but that’s another topic.