6 ms·

Sam is very clearly in the wrong here, but is your argument for why he sucks seriously that he said “we should not brand people as heretics for disagreeing with

Sam is very clearly in the wrong here, but is your argument for why he sucks seriously that he said “we should not brand people as heretics for disagreeing with my point of view?”

ethbr1 2y ago
[flagged]
Barrin92 2y ago
we should not brand people who make qualified and substantive points as heretics, but his framing is wrong and a common abuse of the notion of the 'marketplace of ideas'. Inherent to the functioning of debate is that debates are settled, just like exchanges in a market. That's their only function. Constant debate of an ever-increasing number of talking points, by definition, renders any notion of progress impossible. So when Sam draws on Galileo as a figure, the conclusion is not, we need to listen to him because he's a human being but, we needed to listen to him because he made a substantiated point. The reverse is obviously silly, nobody in physics argues that we need to debate geocentrism in the year 2024 to advance modern physics. Likewise not debating someone who just makes random homophobic remarks doesn't impede the progress of the sciences, it doesn't even impede the progress in ethics. Even the reverse is true, horrible regimes with no free exchange whatsoever still produced a lot of novel physics.
- tpmoney 2y ago
  >Inherent to the functioning of debate is that debates are settled, just like exchanges in a market. That's their only function. Constant debate of an ever-increasing number of talking points, by definition, renders any notion of progress impossible. Some debates might be settled for some time, but I don't think "settled" is inherent in the functioning of a debate, and certainly not any sense of permanence even if they are "settled" at the moment. Were that the case, we wouldn't right here and now be debating what is clearly "settled" free speech policy of "you have to allow shitty people to say shitty things" (see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). Or maybe I have that wrong and the settled policy is "socialist aren't allowed to tell you to resist the draft" (see Schenck v. United States). I imagine if we went further back in time, plenty of people thought the debate over the legal status of slaves was "settled". Similarly the divine right of kings was "settled" as well. Or back to more modern times, I imagine the "settled" rightful disposition of say Palestine, Taiwan or the Ukraine to depends an awful lot on where you live.
  - Barrin92 2y ago
    >plenty of people thought the debate over the legal status of slaves was "settled" Are you saying plenty of people don't consider it to be settled now? Not knowing you personally I'd be willing to bet almost any amount you are not genuinely open to be persuaded by a pro-slavery or divine monarchy debate. People weren't argued into their shackles and neither were they argued out of them. Just look at the US DoI. It says "we hold those truths to be self-evident.." not "we invite you to make a pro and con list of everything every so often" and hash it out again. When debate is productive the most important qualifier is never free, it's always reasoned and on shared moral principles. Borders are so violent exactly because they're truly "up for debate". Geopolitics is in a real state of anarchy. The logical endpoint of which is might makes right physical conflict. Mind you European borders today are not "debated" that way, and we consider that a win. If someone said "All European borders must be up for debate!" you'd be somewhat concerned. I mean, that is precisely why US domestic debate is increasingly breaking down and violent. Not because it's not free enough but because it's too free. Because there's no ethical or rational ground underpinning it. So Sam has it exactly wrong. A community that has no shared conception of the fundamental rights of its people is likely in no condition to debate anything.
    - tpmoney 2y ago
      >Are you saying plenty of people don't consider it to be settled now? Clearly some people don't, or the modern slave trade would not exist. Never mind that the US depending on your point of view continues to have slavery in the form of prison labor. And then we can get into what I personally consider hyperbolic descriptions of wage "slavery" that others I'm sure do not consider it so hyperbolic. > Mind you European borders today are not "debated" that way, and we consider that a win. Up until very very recently I suspect quite a few Irish and British nationals would have disagreed very strongly on that front. Even today I imagine there are some that don't consider it settled. 1998-1999 brought us the war in Kosovo. Famously there are still protests surrounding Basque independence in Spain, and similarly in 2017 there was the Catalan declaration of independence. Heck a good portion of the readers on this site are probably older than the current unified borders of Germany (34 years). I would also remind you that the Ukraine is a European country whose borders and independence are actively and violently up for debate currently. And none of that counts any of the various European colonies that were divested (in sometimes quite violent ways) in the last century, regardless of the border stability of the home country. >I mean, that is precisely why US domestic debate is increasingly breaking down and violent. Not because it's not free enough but because it's too free. Because there's no ethical or rational ground underpinning it. And I see it as almost the exact opposite. I see the breakdown as an increasing unwillingness to ascribe any ethical or rational ground to the opposing side. I think it's compounded by an unwillingness to debate the starting axioms before trying to debate the higher level topics as well, but conveniently if you just assume your opponents have no "ethical or rational ground underpinning" their debate, you also don't have to bother with debating those baseline axioms.

Sam is very clearly in the wrong here, but is your argument for why he sucks seriously that he said “we should not brand people as heretics for disagreeing with my point of view?”

ethbr1 2y ago

[flagged]

Barrin92 2y ago

we should not brand people who make qualified and substantive points as heretics, but his framing is wrong and a common abuse of the notion of the 'marketplace of ideas'. Inherent to the functioning of debate is that debates are settled, just like exchanges in a market. That's their only function. Constant debate of an ever-increasing number of talking points, by definition, renders any notion of progress impossible. So when Sam draws on Galileo as a figure, the conclusion is not, we need to listen to him because he's a human being but, we needed to listen to him because he made a substantiated point. The reverse is obviously silly, nobody in physics argues that we need to debate geocentrism in the year 2024 to advance modern physics. Likewise not debating someone who just makes random homophobic remarks doesn't impede the progress of the sciences, it doesn't even impede the progress in ethics. Even the reverse is true, horrible regimes with no free exchange whatsoever still produced a lot of novel physics.

tpmoney 2y ago
>Inherent to the functioning of debate is that debates are settled, just like exchanges in a market. That's their only function. Constant debate of an ever-increasing number of talking points, by definition, renders any notion of progress impossible. Some debates might be settled for some time, but I don't think "settled" is inherent in the functioning of a debate, and certainly not any sense of permanence even if they are "settled" at the moment. Were that the case, we wouldn't right here and now be debating what is clearly "settled" free speech policy of "you have to allow shitty people to say shitty things" (see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). Or maybe I have that wrong and the settled policy is "socialist aren't allowed to tell you to resist the draft" (see Schenck v. United States). I imagine if we went further back in time, plenty of people thought the debate over the legal status of slaves was "settled". Similarly the divine right of kings was "settled" as well. Or back to more modern times, I imagine the "settled" rightful disposition of say Palestine, Taiwan or the Ukraine to depends an awful lot on where you live.
- Barrin92 2y ago
  >plenty of people thought the debate over the legal status of slaves was "settled" Are you saying plenty of people don't consider it to be settled now? Not knowing you personally I'd be willing to bet almost any amount you are not genuinely open to be persuaded by a pro-slavery or divine monarchy debate. People weren't argued into their shackles and neither were they argued out of them. Just look at the US DoI. It says "we hold those truths to be self-evident.." not "we invite you to make a pro and con list of everything every so often" and hash it out again. When debate is productive the most important qualifier is never free, it's always reasoned and on shared moral principles. Borders are so violent exactly because they're truly "up for debate". Geopolitics is in a real state of anarchy. The logical endpoint of which is might makes right physical conflict. Mind you European borders today are not "debated" that way, and we consider that a win. If someone said "All European borders must be up for debate!" you'd be somewhat concerned. I mean, that is precisely why US domestic debate is increasingly breaking down and violent. Not because it's not free enough but because it's too free. Because there's no ethical or rational ground underpinning it. So Sam has it exactly wrong. A community that has no shared conception of the fundamental rights of its people is likely in no condition to debate anything.
  - tpmoney 2y ago
    >Are you saying plenty of people don't consider it to be settled now? Clearly some people don't, or the modern slave trade would not exist. Never mind that the US depending on your point of view continues to have slavery in the form of prison labor. And then we can get into what I personally consider hyperbolic descriptions of wage "slavery" that others I'm sure do not consider it so hyperbolic. > Mind you European borders today are not "debated" that way, and we consider that a win. Up until very very recently I suspect quite a few Irish and British nationals would have disagreed very strongly on that front. Even today I imagine there are some that don't consider it settled. 1998-1999 brought us the war in Kosovo. Famously there are still protests surrounding Basque independence in Spain, and similarly in 2017 there was the Catalan declaration of independence. Heck a good portion of the readers on this site are probably older than the current unified borders of Germany (34 years). I would also remind you that the Ukraine is a European country whose borders and independence are actively and violently up for debate currently. And none of that counts any of the various European colonies that were divested (in sometimes quite violent ways) in the last century, regardless of the border stability of the home country. >I mean, that is precisely why US domestic debate is increasingly breaking down and violent. Not because it's not free enough but because it's too free. Because there's no ethical or rational ground underpinning it. And I see it as almost the exact opposite. I see the breakdown as an increasing unwillingness to ascribe any ethical or rational ground to the opposing side. I think it's compounded by an unwillingness to debate the starting axioms before trying to debate the higher level topics as well, but conveniently if you just assume your opponents have no "ethical or rational ground underpinning" their debate, you also don't have to bother with debating those baseline axioms.