4 ms·

It's for those who know that they don't have a valid argument to make in the marketplace of ideas, and so they try to censor anyone who dares to have an opposin

It's for those who know that they don't have a valid argument to make in the marketplace of ideas, and so they try to censor anyone who dares to have an opposing viewpoint and label them as "harmful" or "spreading misinformation."

kelseyfrog 3y ago
On the other hand, if censorship is a bad idea, why is it winning in the marketplace of ideas? It kinda seems like free speech is losing, so why keep rooting for a failing idea? The rational answer is to look a step forward and update your position to match the winner, as it's empirically winning.
- jdsully 3y ago
  Because its sidestepping this market and using force instead of argumentation.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    It's realpolitik. If you think it's worth fight for then why choose a losing battleground? "I think the people I disagree with should limit themselves to this arena," is a guaranteed way of losing. It's like saying, "I think we should all line up and fight in a big field," when your opponents bring in the guns and artillery you say, "Yes, you overpowered us and won, but you did it in the wrong way so we didn't actually lose." Again, it seems that free speech is losing in the marketplace of ideas, why wouldn't that make you change your mind? Holding onto a losing idea is exactly how the marketplace of ideas is not supposed to work.
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      Nothing you say really makes any sense when you sit down and think about it. People fight for a position because they believe in it. It's like asking someone 'why don't you just support the football team that's most likely to win' People don't ask that question because they know it's a stupid question, yet here we are...
      - kelseyfrog 3y ago
        The point of the marketplace metaphor is that good ideas will outcompete bad ideas. That's only possible if people are willing to change their minds. How do you think the marketplace of ideas works if people don't do that? Also, it's a perfectly valid option to support a team that you think is going to win. Why would someone put themselves through losing? I think that's the position that requires more justification.
        15457345234 3y ago
        > The point of the marketplace metaphor The marketplace metaphor implies there are buyers and sellers. The sellers are the ones fighting to make their case for the ideas they are 'selling.' The 'buyers' are the audience, those as yet undecided. Once a buyer has 'bought' an idea he either becomes a seller or leaves the market. Generally the sellers aren't the ones changing their mind - you only care enough to 'sell' an idea if you believe in it strongly. The metaphor involves people entering the market undecided and being convinced of one idea or another. Generally people who've already made up their mind don't enter the market - unless they're motivated enough to become sellers. That's how the metaphor works. As to your 2nd - what's the point here? Both of us know why people support the football teams they support. What's the dumb act about?
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
        Sorry, but being unable or unwilling to change your mind is act of bad faith. Thanks for your time.
- polski-g 3y ago
  Testosterone is positively correlated with openness to differing opinions and average testosterone levels have dropped by one standard deviation from 2000 to 2017.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    T is also correlated to parochial altruism, so I don't think it's as clear cut as your argument suggests.
- xetplan 3y ago
  It is because what you view as normal is backwards. Free speech is the far from equilibrium state. The normal state is that when you talk shit about the rulers, the rulers put you in a cage. We are just returning to equilibrium. The marketplace of ideas is obviously a nonsense concept if you are assuming the best ideas have the most value. That is so obviously not true.

kelseyfrog 3y ago

On the other hand, if censorship is a bad idea, why is it winning in the marketplace of ideas? It kinda seems like free speech is losing, so why keep rooting for a failing idea? The rational answer is to look a step forward and update your position to match the winner, as it's empirically winning.

jdsully 3y ago
Because its sidestepping this market and using force instead of argumentation.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  It's realpolitik. If you think it's worth fight for then why choose a losing battleground? "I think the people I disagree with should limit themselves to this arena," is a guaranteed way of losing. It's like saying, "I think we should all line up and fight in a big field," when your opponents bring in the guns and artillery you say, "Yes, you overpowered us and won, but you did it in the wrong way so we didn't actually lose." Again, it seems that free speech is losing in the marketplace of ideas, why wouldn't that make you change your mind? Holding onto a losing idea is exactly how the marketplace of ideas is not supposed to work.
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    Nothing you say really makes any sense when you sit down and think about it. People fight for a position because they believe in it. It's like asking someone 'why don't you just support the football team that's most likely to win' People don't ask that question because they know it's a stupid question, yet here we are...
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      The point of the marketplace metaphor is that good ideas will outcompete bad ideas. That's only possible if people are willing to change their minds. How do you think the marketplace of ideas works if people don't do that? Also, it's a perfectly valid option to support a team that you think is going to win. Why would someone put themselves through losing? I think that's the position that requires more justification.
      - 15457345234 3y ago
        > The point of the marketplace metaphor The marketplace metaphor implies there are buyers and sellers. The sellers are the ones fighting to make their case for the ideas they are 'selling.' The 'buyers' are the audience, those as yet undecided. Once a buyer has 'bought' an idea he either becomes a seller or leaves the market. Generally the sellers aren't the ones changing their mind - you only care enough to 'sell' an idea if you believe in it strongly. The metaphor involves people entering the market undecided and being convinced of one idea or another. Generally people who've already made up their mind don't enter the market - unless they're motivated enough to become sellers. That's how the metaphor works. As to your 2nd - what's the point here? Both of us know why people support the football teams they support. What's the dumb act about?
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
        Sorry, but being unable or unwilling to change your mind is act of bad faith. Thanks for your time.
polski-g 3y ago
Testosterone is positively correlated with openness to differing opinions and average testosterone levels have dropped by one standard deviation from 2000 to 2017.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  T is also correlated to parochial altruism, so I don't think it's as clear cut as your argument suggests.
xetplan 3y ago
It is because what you view as normal is backwards. Free speech is the far from equilibrium state. The normal state is that when you talk shit about the rulers, the rulers put you in a cage. We are just returning to equilibrium. The marketplace of ideas is obviously a nonsense concept if you are assuming the best ideas have the most value. That is so obviously not true.