3 ms·

Assuming one believes your argument, a more charitable conclusion is that some people may be misguided, and a reexamination of their stance may be warranted. C

Assuming one believes your argument, a more charitable conclusion is that some people may be misguided, and a reexamination of their stance may be warranted. Calling people idiots isn’t going to change people’s minds, and people hold bad opinions about things all the time for reasons that aren’t as simplistic as “they’re an idiot”.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
I think the disparagement is warranted. Not because it will be effective. But because it helps focus attention away from unproductive comments.
colonCapitalDee 4y ago
Idiot is me being charitable. People who believe that speech should be limited specifically because that speech may engender beliefs in others that they disagree with are idiots at best, and malicious authoritarians at worst. This isn't free speech absolutism, I'm not advocating for unrestricted misinformation, propaganda, or calls to violence. I'm stating that people who believe that "wrongthink" is not permissible are idiots, and I have zero interest in trying to change their minds (at least over the internet). As an example, I've encountered feminists who think that the very real issues men struggle with in America should not be discussed because the very act of discussing those issues might make some people think "hey, in some ways men are worse off then women" and this would influence those people to not support feminism. I'm not trying to pick on feminism here, it's just an example. If these feminists thought that the issues men face aren't real, or that the issues women face are so immeasurably worse as to make men's issue immaterial, that would be one thing and I would be happy to explain to them why I think they're wrong (and listen to their rebuttals). But I have no interest in engaging with someone who thinks that rhetoric can be suppressed and ignored just because it's inconvenient for them and their cause.
- krageon 4y ago
  You say it is not free speech absolutism, but in the same paragraph you say that any sort of limitation of speech or belief that some thoughts are simply bad is something only idiots want or have. It doesn't read as a well-rounded belief that came about from measured, reasonable thinking. It just reads as if you're angry.
  - colonCapitalDee 4y ago
    You failed to understand my comment and then made an ad hominem attack, how impressive
    - krageon 4y ago
      How is asserting that you're angry an ad hominem attack? Has it somehow become a crime to have emotions, or to express them instead of pure cold logic? There was no ad hominem.
  - mihaic 4y ago
    Did you maybe skim the comment and not actually read it? My interpretation was that not letting people even voice some state-of-the-world opinions is an excessive speach limitation. I do read the anger though, but I feel it's not the destructive kind, more the disappointed at the state of public discourse.
  - kragen 4y ago
    i have no relationship to the parent poster, who has unfortunately chosen a name confusingly similar to my own
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pjc50 4y ago
There's an entire subsection of politics that's appeared, made entirely from the worst possible misreadings of sensible boring policy wonkery. The most recent example is people going bananas about "15-minute cities", as if being able to walk to the shops is some sort of communist plot.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  Peoples lifelihood is under attack, by the ever openening wage gap, by ai replacing jobs and the elites just ignoring it, over even worse propelling the change. Any wounded animal crawls to safety and snarls at anything coming close. Its idiotic, but understandable, actually for this sort of prolonged hostility by the environment, the resistance has been quite gentle.
- corbulo 4y ago
  People aren't afraid of the convenience. The 15 minute cities project comes with movement restrictions (in the name of climate) a la China in some areas like Oxford, I recall heated debate over that part.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

I think the disparagement is warranted. Not because it will be effective. But because it helps focus attention away from unproductive comments.

colonCapitalDee 4y ago

Idiot is me being charitable. People who believe that speech should be limited specifically because that speech may engender beliefs in others that they disagree with are idiots at best, and malicious authoritarians at worst. This isn't free speech absolutism, I'm not advocating for unrestricted misinformation, propaganda, or calls to violence. I'm stating that people who believe that "wrongthink" is not permissible are idiots, and I have zero interest in trying to change their minds (at least over the internet). As an example, I've encountered feminists who think that the very real issues men struggle with in America should not be discussed because the very act of discussing those issues might make some people think "hey, in some ways men are worse off then women" and this would influence those people to not support feminism. I'm not trying to pick on feminism here, it's just an example. If these feminists thought that the issues men face aren't real, or that the issues women face are so immeasurably worse as to make men's issue immaterial, that would be one thing and I would be happy to explain to them why I think they're wrong (and listen to their rebuttals). But I have no interest in engaging with someone who thinks that rhetoric can be suppressed and ignored just because it's inconvenient for them and their cause.

krageon 4y ago
You say it is not free speech absolutism, but in the same paragraph you say that any sort of limitation of speech or belief that some thoughts are simply bad is something only idiots want or have. It doesn't read as a well-rounded belief that came about from measured, reasonable thinking. It just reads as if you're angry.
- colonCapitalDee 4y ago
  You failed to understand my comment and then made an ad hominem attack, how impressive
  - krageon 4y ago
    How is asserting that you're angry an ad hominem attack? Has it somehow become a crime to have emotions, or to express them instead of pure cold logic? There was no ad hominem.
- mihaic 4y ago
  Did you maybe skim the comment and not actually read it? My interpretation was that not letting people even voice some state-of-the-world opinions is an excessive speach limitation. I do read the anger though, but I feel it's not the destructive kind, more the disappointed at the state of public discourse.
- kragen 4y ago
  i have no relationship to the parent poster, who has unfortunately chosen a name confusingly similar to my own
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pjc50 4y ago

There's an entire subsection of politics that's appeared, made entirely from the worst possible misreadings of sensible boring policy wonkery. The most recent example is people going bananas about "15-minute cities", as if being able to walk to the shops is some sort of communist plot.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
Peoples lifelihood is under attack, by the ever openening wage gap, by ai replacing jobs and the elites just ignoring it, over even worse propelling the change. Any wounded animal crawls to safety and snarls at anything coming close. Its idiotic, but understandable, actually for this sort of prolonged hostility by the environment, the resistance has been quite gentle.
corbulo 4y ago
People aren't afraid of the convenience. The 15 minute cities project comes with movement restrictions (in the name of climate) a la China in some areas like Oxford, I recall heated debate over that part.