Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 69

Thread: Politically Correct and Free Speech

  1. #1
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,193
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Politically Correct and Free Speech

    On Free Speech. New video. 7 minutes, 17 seconds!

    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 03-15-2021 at 10:18 PM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  2. #2
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    1,851
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are there any particular points you want talked about? I’m not really willing to spend 30 minutes listening to JP for no particular reason besides the fact you posted the video, and I suspect most people aren’t either.
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 03-13-2021 at 06:59 PM.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,193
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Who wants to cancel free speech?

    [1hour, 47 min.] That's long, but you can start it about anywhere and you will want to keep listening.
    The canceling of free speech is covered from every direction in this talk. Including the silly students outside trying to cancel this speaking engagement.
    Some random quotes:

    "We are getting to the point where a certain kind of language, a certain kind of dialog is approved and alright, and a certain kind is not."

    "Why do people wish to destroy?", asks Petersons, a therapist, among other things. He explains: "It's because they are hurt by life, and they're resentful. And resentful people become - vengeful. And vengeful people become dangerous..." He concludes, "It's destruction that motivates it... masquerading as compassion."

    Also discussion on the "...pathological elements of left wing thought."


    The Q& A, more than half of this video, is super interesting. Two in particular stand out, one at 1:18:53 (perspective of a thoughtful Muslim student, and great advice and encouragement to him from Peterson in response), and another at one at 1:33:53 (Peterson's response to his leftist viewpoint question).

    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  5. #5
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,193
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Are there any particular points you want talked about? I’m not really willing to spend 30 minutes listening to JP for no particular reason besides the fact you posted the video, and I suspect most people aren’t either.
    Good question. I will have to circle back to it! (I am past due for a soak in the bath with a good book).
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  6. #6
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,815
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Remember the kids in cages and the migrant women being given forced hysterectomies at the border?

    The best way they'd get any attention today would be by calling someone a r3tard on Twitter, getting their accounts banned, and getting Tucker Carlson to point out the hypocrisy of political correctness. Remember: the real human rights violation is getting yelled at by obese, pink-haired feminists, not having your uterus pulled out by Don the Ripper (or is it Joe the Ripper now?).

  7. #7
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,815
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In the year 2050:

    > Hey granddad, during the era of global climate change, pandemics, domestic terrorism, and the rise of surveillance states, how were you active politically?

    > Well grandson, I was fighting for your right to call someone a r3tard.

  8. #8
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,938
    Mentioned
    398 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Straight white people whining about not being able to "speak their mind" (aka not having to give a shit about others) are so 2020.
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  9. #9
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,557
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    Straight white people whining about not being able to "speak their mind" (aka not having to give a shit about others) are so 2020.
    Ad hominem

  10. #10
    the16reddits.info MrInternet42069's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Monte Carlo
    TIM
    ESI-Fi 461 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,374
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ******

  11. #11
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,449
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    Ad hominem


    This is the comment you are looking for



  12. #12

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    11,729
    Mentioned
    359 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like Eliza but I agree I don't really know where this victim racket is coming from- I don't see Christians as some oppressed group who can't speak their minds. There's a lot of you- you have power. In my home town alone- it's fairly conservative and I see pro-religious billboards and banners all the time. But it's like you get so upset that not everybody is into religion like you are.

    We're both against the Deep State Reptilian government mind control thing- but that is often actually mixed in with religion and Christianity. Many people working for the government and governmental agencies are also religious- so how do you explain that? lol at Kim Davis. But <3 forum @Kim

  13. #13

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    11,729
    Mentioned
    359 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    And I agree there is definitely "dark nefarious forces" trying to control and Thought Police what people say or whatever but I don't think they are against Christians specifically or it's about a war on religion - I think it's how they pretty much treat everybody no matter who you are. They treat Satanists the same way really...

  14. #14
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,193
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BandD View Post
    [this won't let me "mention" so I am quoting]
    I didn't make this thread to say that Christians in particular are a victim of censorship, though I do think we are common targets, among many others. Free speech is fundamental to ALL of us, and to give a legal foothold to its loss is a serious threat. Peterson is a HERO to us all for defending it.

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    [this won't let me "mention" so I am quoting]
    I agree that there are many things that are more obviously, frighteningly wrong. Also the slaughter of abortion is an intrinsic evil. All three of these things matter, even though two of them (the slaughters we both mention) take less thought to arrive at the conclusion that they matter. But I know I need to limit the time of thinking on this to five minutes, so I will do that below. Peterson makes it a very succinct case for free speech in the 27 min. video at the top of this thread, though. Very satisfyingly and frighteningly clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    Straight white people whining about not being able to "speak their mind" (aka not having to give a shit about others) are so 2020.
    Thank you Kim for Exhibit A. This is EXACTLY what Peterson explained in the 27 minute clip above, the one you commented on without listening to. (It doesn't make for intelligent discussion when you don't read/listen to what you comment on.)

    What you say here is an EXACT example of how we are being taught to think by universities, the media, and leftwing politics. We are not individuals. We are our tribal group. We don't have individual thoughts - so how can free speech be an issue?
    (That is why you didn't listen to the video, right? Because it is about free speech - and how can that matter? )

    We are NOT individuals, we are TRIBE MEMBERS. We are whites, blacks, gays, straights - and what we think is what our tribe thinks.
    (So you don't even have to ask! Just accuse! Because you already know!)

    So we see here exactly how people can so easily accuse us, so boldly tell us what we think, what is in our minds, what is in our thoughts and what our motivations are. They look at us not as an individual, but a tribe, so they can tell us what we think. You are white, so you think this. Etc.

    It's very racist. And it's uncivilized, it's unkind, it's false, and it leads to resentment, to hate and to violence. That is what that kind of thinking does. I think we all know that after 2020, too.

    As Peterson explains clearly in the video, at the top of this thread, that very mindset you show us here, which is being foisted on us in our times, will be the rapid and violent ruin of our country.

    [@FreelancePoliceman, here are some summarized points you asked for. Points briefly made. For anyone who wants more moderate, vs. brief, explanation, there is the clip at the top of this thread. for long explanations, see the whole videos].

    Five minutes of points on this topic:

    Why is it that the ideologues of our day won't consider the individual (so naturally, free speech doesn't matter):
    2 minutes, 24 seconds: 18:01 -20:25
    https://youtu.be/dOmJx8mTnm8?t=1081 (link is set to start at 18:01)


    What you learn at university (and the media, and leftwing politics): The appalling view of tribal belonging, to the sacrifice of the individual.:
    2 minutes 29 seconds! 17:06-18:35

    https://youtu.be/UZMIbo_DxJk?t=1026 (link is set to start at 17:06)
    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 03-15-2021 at 04:52 AM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  15. #15
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,193
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Why Identity Politics Lead to Totalitarian Oppression

    3 minutes!

    Why Identity Politics Lead to Totalitarian Oppression


    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  16. #16
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,193
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What's wrong with Identity politics

    Tribes. Whites, Blacks. Gays, Straights. Etc. Etc.

    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  17. #17
    thought criminal shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ୧༼ಠ益ಠ╭∩╮༽
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    2,010
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Real free speech: having to put up with gore on 4chan

    What people mean by free speech: Free speech for me but not for thee.

    most people hate free speech even free speech advocates. Even conservatives are politically correct according to their own standards, they won't tolerate gore, dick pics, and whatever else trash lol.

    : DDDD Brove me wrong, you gand!! Benis..


  18. #18
    scientist donkey BrightDemonSheep96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On a toilet, right above you
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF/omnibeta
    Posts
    6,339
    Mentioned
    267 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    So has he actually said anything new since he first came out? He did say something about cleaning your room and being a personal dictator to yourself afterwards but he sounds like a broken record nowadays. Rinse, repeat and connect the dangling thingys.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type

    Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.

  19. #19
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    In the year 2050:

    > Hey granddad, during the era of global climate change, pandemics, domestic terrorism, and the rise of surveillance states, how were you active politically?

    > Well grandson, I was fighting for your right to call someone a r3tard.
    You can't speak out against anything if you're not allowed to speak. Freedom of speech takes priority, because so many other things depend on it.

    What I see is a corralling of viewpoints, a "disinformation" crusade, and a silencing of some voices while amplifying others, all towards one state-sanctioned, big-tech approved, Hollywood cheered viewpoint, and anything else is "wrongthink," to be crushed immediately. We need dissent to even have any other freedoms at all. You need to be able to speak against your government, against tyrants in all forms, to have opposing viewpoints aired. Otherwise you end up marching everyone silently towards totalitarianism.

  20. #20
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,193
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default a voice of reason

    "There is a difference between ideas that are hateful and ideas that make us uncomfortable."

    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  21. #21
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,815
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    You can't speak out against anything if you're not allowed to speak. Freedom of speech takes priority, because so many other things depend on it.

    What I see is a corralling of viewpoints, a "disinformation" crusade, and a silencing of some voices while amplifying others, all towards one state-sanctioned, big-tech approved, Hollywood cheered viewpoint, and anything else is "wrongthink," to be crushed immediately. We need dissent to even have any other freedoms at all. You need to be able to speak against your government, against tyrants in all forms, to have opposing viewpoints aired. Otherwise you end up marching everyone silently towards totalitarianism.
    Squark, I agree with a number of your points.

    * I also don't like the political correctness coming from the left, which has all the qualities of a newfangled middle class moralism --- one which imposes form over substance, like all moralism; and which is really an attempt to fill the void of polite manners created by the 1960's cultural upheavals, upheavals which kick-started this unending renegotiation of our social contract.

    * Hollywood's representation of previously sequestered groups is, in principle, positive, and the desire to correct their marginalization is natural. One does, however, get the impression that good storytelling sometimes takes a backseat to bland, itemized checklists of carefully curated, politicized themes. The message (that all human beings are equal) is fundamentally good but is presented as instruction, with the intent to indoctrinate the audience, rather than through dialogue and realization.

    * Your point about the intolerance (by activists and social media monopolies) of dissenting voices is also well-taken. There is a nascent authoritarianism here which deserves to be fought.


    So, what's the issue? The counter-crusade against political correctness is being led by worse authoritarians than what Hollywood has produced. No one who supports forced hysterectomies isn't an authoritarian. No one who supports the removal of net neutrality isn't an authoritarian. The importance of net neutrality cannot be overstated, and its removal, by the Trump administration, dwarfs social media's threat to freedom of speech.

    But there's a deeper issue that I wanted to draw attention to, which is that freedom can itself be stifled by irreverence. Freedom of speech isn't about flapping your lips. Speech is a tool that's intended to convey thought, and irreverence (alongside propaganda and conspiracy theorizing, or any other form of speech that assaults the senses rather than appeal to reason) is a form of loud speech that drowns out careful, considerate, and well-researched speech. How much freedom do you really have to discuss serious issues on the Jerry Springer Show? You can turn off the Jerry Springer show when it's on TV. You can't turn it off when it inundates the public square and becomes your democracy.

    There's a time and place for vulgarity (and I'm certainly a fan of it), but this discussion has overshadowed more important discussions. Politics is serious business about issues of life and death; it is trivialized by the the fact that saying "r3tard" is the leading controversy of our time.
    Last edited by xerxe; 03-16-2021 at 02:54 AM. Reason: slight reword

  22. #22
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,815
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    People demand freedom of speech as a substitute for freedom of thought, which they avoid.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,533
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You use your "freedom of speech" to talk about conspiracy theories, and have "debates" about whether the Earth is really flat or not. They probably do more harm than good, or at the very least they're just useless noise that drown out more important matters. And then squark is agreeing with you for political reasons. And then you go on about how this is all "tribal". You're not defending freedom of speech for the sake of it, but you just don't want certain speech that is affiliated with certain political positions to be criticized. Or you're just going along with people like Jordan Peterson, whom also does not want his speech to be criticized by anyone.

    FWIW, "freedom of speech" is about not having any speech by citizens censored by the government. Private corporations not allowing whatever that they don't like on their own platform is fair game. These days "freedom of speech" is twisted into meaning "I have the right to say whatever that I want without being criticized or having any consequences".

  24. #24
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Squark, I agree with a number of your points.

    * I also don't like the political correctness coming from the left, which has all the qualities of a newfangled middle class moralism --- one which imposes form over substance, like all moralism; and which is really an attempt to fill the void of polite manners created by the 1960's cultural upheavals, upheavals which kick-started this unending renegotiation of our social contract.

    * Hollywood's representation of previously sequestered groups is, in principle, positive, and the desire to correct their marginalization is natural. One does, however, get the impression that good storytelling sometimes takes a backseat to bland, itemized checklists of carefully curated, politicized themes. The message (that all human beings are equal) is fundamentally good but is presented as instruction, with the intent to indoctrinate the audience, rather than through dialogue and realization.

    * Your point about the intolerance (by activists and social media monopolies) of dissenting voices is also well-taken. There is a nascent authoritarianism here which deserves to be fought.


    So, what's the issue? The counter-crusade against political correctness is being led by worse authoritarians than what Hollywood has produced. No one who supports forced hysterectomies isn't an authoritarian. No one who supports the removal of net neutrality isn't an authoritarian. The importance of net neutrality cannot be overstated, and its removal, by the Trump administration, dwarfs social media's threat to freedom of speech.
    I agree with you on net neutrality, and did not want to see it removed. I doubt anyone is supporting forced hysterectomies though. This article suggests that there's very little information about what might be going on there so far, and it warrants further investigation. Human rights aren't a partisan issue, and shouldn't be, no matter who we're talking about, or how much of "an enemy" someone thinks they are. (I'd do away with parties entirely if it was up to me. They are useful tools to keep people divided enough that either party can pass through all kinds of atrocities and have nearly half the country nodding away on it refusing to acknowledge how bad it really is, just a mindless yay red! yay blue! ) Likewise our individual rights under the constitution extend to everyone, not just the favored party.

    No matter how much you disagree with a person or how despicable you find them, they should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. You can't just decide that because you don't like a group of people that they don't get freedom of speech, or assembly, or right to bear arms, or anything else. But unfortunately, that's the mindset a lot of people seem to have. That some people are so "deplorable" that they shouldn't be allowed to speak. What they don't seem to realize is that those rights are for all of us, and as soon as you start removing them from one set of people, you're giving permission to have them removed from you too.

    But there's a deeper issue that I wanted to draw attention to, which is that freedom can itself be stifled by irreverence. Freedom of speech isn't about flapping your lips. Speech is a tool that's intended to convey thought, and irreverence (alongside propaganda and conspiracy theorizing, or any other form of speech that assaults the senses rather than appeal to reason) is a form of loud speech that drowns out careful, considerate, and well-researched speech. How much freedom do you really have to discuss serious issues on the Jerry Springer Show? You can turn off the Jerry Springer show when it's on TV. You can't turn it off when it inundates the public square and becomes your democracy.
    I've made that argument myself regarding hecklers when I was on the receiving end of them. There are some people who are only around to cause a disturbance and interrupt other people sharing ideas. They aren't trying to have a discussion, they're just trying to shut other people down. It's like playing loud or disruptive music in the middle of someone trying to give a speech, it's all an attempt to drown someone else out rather than letting them be heard. The hecklers and disruptors are against others having free speech the way I see it. I'm for allowing everyone to have their say, and you may need to remove the trolls to do so.

    Conspiracy theorizing isn't in that same category in my opinion. I know enough conspiracy theorists to know that they are usually trying to make sense of something with whatever tools they have available, and if you shut them out of discussion it feeds those conspiracies and makes them spread more. Open discussion is far better imo.

    There's a time and place for vulgarity (and I'm certainly a fan of it), but this discussion has overshadowed more important discussions. Politics is serious business about issues of life and death; it is trivialized by the the fact that saying "r3tard" is the leading controversy of our time.
    Except I don't think that's the actual controversy. Pretending people are up-in-arms just because they can't say "retard" is the trivialization. Maybe a few fringe people are, but that's not really the meat of the issue.

  25. #25
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,815
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    I agree with you on net neutrality, and did not want to see it removed. I doubt anyone is supporting forced hysterectomies though. This article suggests that there's very little information about what might be going on there so far, and it warrants further investigation. Human rights aren't a partisan issue, and shouldn't be, no matter who we're talking about, or how much of "an enemy" someone thinks they are. (I'd do away with parties entirely if it was up to me. They are useful tools to keep people divided enough that either party can pass through all kinds of atrocities and have nearly half the country nodding away on it refusing to acknowledge how bad it really is, just a mindless yay red! yay blue! ) Likewise our individual rights under the constitution extend to everyone, not just the favored party.

    No matter how much you disagree with a person or how despicable you find them, they should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. You can't just decide that because you don't like a group of people that they don't get freedom of speech, or assembly, or right to bear arms, or anything else. But unfortunately, that's the mindset a lot of people seem to have. That some people are so "deplorable" that they shouldn't be allowed to speak. What they don't seem to realize is that those rights are for all of us, and as soon as you start removing them from one set of people, you're giving permission to have them removed from you too.

    I've made that argument myself regarding hecklers when I was on the receiving end of them. There are some people who are only around to cause a disturbance and interrupt other people sharing ideas. They aren't trying to have a discussion, they're just trying to shut other people down. It's like playing loud or disruptive music in the middle of someone trying to give a speech, it's all an attempt to drown someone else out rather than letting them be heard. The hecklers and disruptors are against others having free speech the way I see it. I'm for allowing everyone to have their say, and you may need to remove the trolls to do so.

    Conspiracy theorizing isn't in that same category in my opinion. I know enough conspiracy theorists to know that they are usually trying to make sense of something with whatever tools they have available, and if you shut them out of discussion it feeds those conspiracies and makes them spread more. Open discussion is far better imo.
    Removing net neutrality is worse than what social media companies are doing. Yet that act was one of the Trump administration's first acts. At a minimum, Trump is equally open to censorship. He, alongside his political party, threaten freedom of speech and motivate right-wing 'cancel culture'.

    WRT. to the ICE detention facilities: the source you quoted seems rather partisan, and I didn't read it. But I did take a look at a BBC article which downplays the certainty we have about the claim. It's too soon to say that 'mass hysterectomies' were performed. I looked for the results of the congressional investigation (which was launched last September), but I couldn't find it. If it's still ongoing, then I'll wait for the final confirmation before doubling down on the claim.

    Except I don't think that's the actual controversy. Pretending people are up-in-arms just because they can't say "retard" is the trivialization. Maybe a few fringe people are, but that's not really the meat of the issue.
    I *vehemently* disagree. All I hear from conservatives (and some liberals) is about "leftist" political correctness WRT to vulgarity and racial slurs (including the n-word). Policing is wrong, but this stuff gets more attention than it deserves. Speech policing of genuine political opinions, that's different.

  26. #26
    💩 Nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    TIM
    POOP™
    Posts
    441
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    You use your "freedom of speech" to talk about conspiracy theories, and have "debates" about whether the Earth is really flat or not. They probably do more harm than good, or at the very least they're just useless noise that drown out more important matters. And then squark is agreeing with you for political reasons. And then you go on about how this is all "tribal". You're not defending freedom of speech for the sake of it, but you just don't want certain speech that is affiliated with certain political positions to be criticized. Or you're just going along with people like Jordan Peterson, whom also does not want his speech to be criticized by anyone.

    FWIW, "freedom of speech" is about not having any speech by citizens censored by the government. Private corporations not allowing whatever that they don't like on their own platform is fair game. These days "freedom of speech" is twisted into meaning "I have the right to say whatever that I want without being criticized or having any consequences".
    Lol, 100% agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Just rename this place Beta Central lmao
    Quote Originally Posted by MidnightWilderness View Post
    The only problem socionics has given me is a propensity to analyze every relationship from the lens of socionics and I also see that it is worse in my boyfriend. Nothing makes any sense that way and it does not really solve any problems.





  27. #27
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,193
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    You use your "freedom of speech" to talk about conspiracy theories,
    So, is this a bad thing? Anything that the media or politicians label as a "conspiracy theory" - and that is a LOT of things - should all these so-labeled things be disallowed from speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    and have "debates" about whether the Earth is really flat or not.
    Oh, really? well you have not read that thread, or put thought and discernment into what I wrote before you accused.

    You may be trained to never dare to listen or consider anything said to be a conspiracy theory, but not me. (Yes, I know, there are two groups only! The ones who would consider the claims of a conspiracy - and they are CRAZY, and everyone else, who is not).

    I looked into flat earth theory because I thought it would be interesting to consider the claims of the most ridiculous conspiracy theory that exists. I posted here the day after I began to think about it, and got pounced on.

    I simply shared that I was quite surprised that in these arguments for flat earth there are some really interesting and very real puzzles to consider. Like why can no one measure earth's curvature? We can theorize what the curvature is, but no one can actually measure it. If anyone scientifically does measure it, it reads as flat. My husband was quite disinterested in the topic until this impossible assertion peaked his interest, and he decided to check out this claim for himself, in his way, by going right to the original sources of the scientists who did the actual scientific measuring. It is QUITE interesting for the truly science-minded.

    But the purpose of that round earth thread was just to share my interesting finds, while I sought to unearth just WHERE these flat earth folks went crazy with their crazy idea. For that purpose I gave the theory a listen to. I never called myself a flat earther, but people like to label people, as for some reason they are compelled to put people in groups or tribes, so that is what they do. But I kept telling the accusers I was just interested in learning. I just reported my surprise that there are some pretty strange scientific realities in some of the arguments. But no one wanted to know. The media tells them that conspiracy theorists are all crazy! Anything they say can be discounted with the first thing that pops in your head in response! No consideration or clarification necessary! Because you know everything already, there is nothing new out there! And everything the media or the government or our wonderful education system tells us we are supposed to think of a thing is ALL TRUE!!

    But I instead dared to consider a conspiracy theory. That curiosity was my goal is obvious to anyone who read the thread seeking my actually-stated intentions. But real intentions and real motives is not what interests folks. They see a thread like that and are SO EXCITED for the chance to explain everything they know about what they learned in high school science class - as if everyone else didn't also learn the exact same things in school. They can't wait to tell someone that they are stupid, instead of smart, like themselves. Well, I became bored with that a long time ago and most of the pages [after those first ones, where I wasted hours foolishly responding to folks of genuine ILL WILL] are pages and pages folks grabbing an easy opportunity to show how smart they are.

    But thanks for being yet another person anxious to express your superiority becasue it made me just now remember that since I started that thread, I can close it, and I just did. Now someone else can start their own flat earth thread, and if they can goad someone to come on it they will have a new place of their own to mock and pose. Have at it. I don't care any more about the topic. There are a lot more important things to care about. Like Home Decoration! See my thread in the Lifestyle sub forum!


    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    They probably do more harm than good, or at the very least they're just useless noise that drown out more important matters.
    Yes! It is harmful for people to talk out loud about just any old thing, instead of things we deem as more important! We need to control this terrible problem! Lets make laws disallowing conspiracy theorists to speak! And if people don't like our laws and become conscientious objectors, we can disembowel them and farm their organs out to more worthy, obedient people, like they do in China! Communism is good. What a fine example for us!

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    And then squark is agreeing with you for political reasons. And then you go on about how this is all "tribal". You're not defending freedom of speech for the sake of it, but you just don't want certain speech that is affiliated with certain political positions to be criticized.
    Oh really? Is that what I think? I never said anything such thing. But you say you know ulterior motives. Wow, you are so AMAZING that you can do that!

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Or you're just going along with people like Jordan Peterson, whom also does not want his speech to be criticized by anyone.
    A fine judge you are! 5000 people must be pretty stupid when they all showup for a two hour lecture on his lecture tour.

    No. You know nothing. Not a single interviewer would say that of him. But you do, so it's clear you haven't listened to a single one of his lectures. You know nothing of the man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    FWIW, "freedom of speech" is about not having any speech by citizens censored by the government.
    No. There is much more to it than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Private corporations not allowing whatever that they don't like on their own platform is fair game.
    So you say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    These days "freedom of speech" is twisted into meaning "I have the right to say whatever that I want without being criticized or having any consequences".
    Twisting by you, but that is not what happens with thinking people. You should listen to some thinking people discuss the matter.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  28. #28
    💩 Nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    TIM
    POOP™
    Posts
    441
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lmao
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Just rename this place Beta Central lmao
    Quote Originally Posted by MidnightWilderness View Post
    The only problem socionics has given me is a propensity to analyze every relationship from the lens of socionics and I also see that it is worse in my boyfriend. Nothing makes any sense that way and it does not really solve any problems.





  29. #29
    Outlier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    कलियुग
    TIM
    ILI-C
    Posts
    2,450
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    People demand freedom of speech as a substitute for freedom of thought, which they avoid.
    It's through freedom of speech that freedom of thought acquire it's value.
    "The society that separates it's scholars from it's warriors will have it's thinking done by cowards and it's fighting by fools." ―Thucydides

  30. #30

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,533
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Eliza Thomason

    Yes. Well. You obviously have some kind of an ability in properly understanding things in a logical way. It's just that you have a tendency to believe in weird things and strange people with strange theories. You should put that ability to good use, instead of delving into "alternative" sources. Maybe squark can help you with that.

  31. #31
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,425
    Mentioned
    364 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    If this is about @Eliza Thomason protesting about some of her threads being locked:

    Her argument should mean that I am also free to say whatever I like in her own home.

    Also, I get the impression that she has put me on ignore: this does not strictly limit my freedom of speech, but it is a form of censure all the same.

    I'm not American, so I'm probably not as inclined to see "freedom of speech" as an absolute right. Certainly, if it infringes on the freedoms of other people, then I disagree with it. Shouting "FIRE!!!" when there is no fire, or spreading lies about coronavirus vaccinations are actions that are liable to be harmful to other people.

  32. #32
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,425
    Mentioned
    364 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    So, is this a bad thing? Anything that the media or politicians label as a "conspiracy theory" - and that is a LOT of things - should all these so-labeled things be disallowed from speech?


    Oh, really? well you have not read that thread, or put thought and discernment into what I wrote before you accused.

    You may be trained to never dare to listen or consider anything said to be a conspiracy theory, but not me. (Yes, I know, there are two groups only! The ones who would consider the claims of a conspiracy - and they are CRAZY, and everyone else, who is not).

    I looked into flat earth theory because I thought it would be interesting to consider the claims of the most ridiculous conspiracy theory that exists. I posted here the day after I began to think about it, and got pounced on.

    I simply shared that I was quite surprised that in these arguments for flat earth there are some really interesting and very real puzzles to consider. Like why can no one measure earth's curvature? We can theorize what the curvature is, but no one can actually measure it. If anyone scientifically does measure it, it reads as flat. My husband was quite disinterested in the topic until this impossible assertion peaked his interest, and he decided to check out this claim for himself, in his way, by going right to the original sources of the scientists who did the actual scientific measuring. It is QUITE interesting for the truly science-minded.

    But the purpose of that round earth thread was just to share my interesting finds, while I sought to unearth just WHERE these flat earth folks went crazy with their crazy idea. For that purpose I gave the theory a listen to. I never called myself a flat earther, but people like to label people, as for some reason they are compelled to put people in groups or tribes, so that is what they do. But I kept telling the accusers I was just interested in learning. I just reported my surprise that there are some pretty strange scientific realities in some of the arguments. But no one wanted to know. The media tells them that conspiracy theorists are all crazy! Anything they say can be discounted with the first thing that pops in your head in response! No consideration or clarification necessary! Because you know everything already, there is nothing new out there! And everything the media or the government or our wonderful education system tells us we are supposed to think of a thing is ALL TRUE!!

    But I instead dared to consider a conspiracy theory. That curiosity was my goal is obvious to anyone who read the thread seeking my actually-stated intentions. But real intentions and real motives is not what interests folks. They see a thread like that and are SO EXCITED for the chance to explain everything they know about what they learned in high school science class - as if everyone else didn't also learn the exact same things in school. They can't wait to tell someone that they are stupid, instead of smart, like themselves. Well, I became bored with that a long time ago and most of the pages [after those first ones, where I wasted hours foolishly responding to folks of genuine ILL WILL] are pages and pages folks grabbing an easy opportunity to show how smart they are.

    But thanks for being yet another person anxious to express your superiority becasue it made me just now remember that since I started that thread, I can close it, and I just did. Now someone else can start their own flat earth thread, and if they can goad someone to come on it they will have a new place of their own to mock and pose. Have at it. I don't care any more about the topic. There are a lot more important things to care about. Like Home Decoration! See my thread in the Lifestyle sub forum!



    Yes! It is harmful for people to talk out loud about just any old thing, instead of things we deem as more important! We need to control this terrible problem! Lets make laws disallowing conspiracy theorists to speak! And if people don't like our laws and become conscientious objectors, we can disembowel them and farm their organs out to more worthy, obedient people, like they do in China! Communism is good. What a fine example for us!


    Oh really? Is that what I think? I never said anything such thing. But you say you know ulterior motives. Wow, you are so AMAZING that you can do that!

    A fine judge you are! 5000 people must be pretty stupid when they all showup for a two hour lecture on his lecture tour.

    No. You know nothing. Not a single interviewer would say that of him. But you do, so it's clear you haven't listened to a single one of his lectures. You know nothing of the man.

    No. There is much more to it than that.

    So you say.


    Twisting by you, but that is not what happens with thinking people. You should listen to some thinking people discuss the matter.
    You had a rather different response when I doubted the historical and supernatural Jesus, as well as other claims relating to the religion you follow. You insulted me repeatedly too. Also, you have written disparaging comments about other religions, which makes you hypocritical to not allow analysis of the religion you follow.

    And you probably won't even read this unless someone happens to quote it because it seems you put me on ignore when I voiced my displeasure at your insults.

  33. #33
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Removing net neutrality is worse than what social media companies are doing. Yet that act was one of the Trump administration's first acts. At a minimum, Trump is equally open to censorship. He, alongside his political party, threaten freedom of speech and motivate right-wing 'cancel culture'.
    I have no intention of defending Trump or his administration. I already said that freedom of speech is for everyone, meaning I don't want to see ANYONE's speech limited. This means regardless of who is doing it. I'm not on a team lol, and I'm not going to argue for one. I want you to be able to speak freely whatever you have to say even if it's in direct opposition to what I think. Both reds and blues are giant hypocrites - and we can sit around pointing out their hypocrisies all day, but it solves nothing.

    I *vehemently* disagree. All I hear from conservatives (and some liberals) is about "leftist" political correctness WRT to vulgarity and racial slurs (including the n-word). Policing is wrong, but this stuff gets more attention than it deserves. Speech policing of genuine political opinions, that's different.
    Maybe that's all you're hearing because it's all you're paying attention to. It's not just conservatives who are seeing what's happening regarding speech. There are a number of liberal voices onboard as well. Bret Weinstein, Bari Weiss, Glenn Greenwald, etc etc etc. It's not just social media where it's happening either, it's old school media, it's government, it's schools, it's businesses. If you haven't noticed it's because you're not looking. Much like the way you didn't read the article I posted because you didn't like the source. This is part of the corralling of information I mentioned in my other post. You get people to look in only one direction, ignore the rest and feed them just the morsels that will lead them to the conclusions you want - even better if you can get them to outright reject other sources without even looking.

    A small personal anecdote -- the cultish church I was raised in warned its members all the time about "dissidents" and how you shouldn't talk to them or read any of the literature they print. It would sway you from the truth and etc. That's exactly what mainstream media/tech etc is doing now in it's "war on disinformation." It's trying to keep everyone reading the approved propaganda and preventing them from looking at the scary "right-wing disinformation." In other words, it doesn't want dissidents swaying you from the cult. If you think about it, if something is true, it's true, and it doesn't matter where it came from. You can judge for yourself, and you don't need a church or a news station or a giant tech overlord to protect you from the ability to judge for yourself.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,262
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    exactly.

  35. #35
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,815
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    I have no intention of defending Trump or his administration. I already said that freedom of speech is for everyone, meaning I don't want to see ANYONE's speech limited. This means regardless of who is doing it. I'm not on a team lol, and I'm not going to argue for one. I want you to be able to speak freely whatever you have to say even if it's in direct opposition to what I think. Both reds and blues are giant hypocrites - and we can sit around pointing out their hypocrisies all day, but it solves nothing.

    Maybe that's all you're hearing because it's all you're paying attention to. It's not just conservatives who are seeing what's happening regarding speech. There are a number of liberal voices onboard as well. Bret Weinstein, Bari Weiss, Glenn Greenwald, etc etc etc. It's not just social media where it's happening either, it's old school media, it's government, it's schools, it's businesses. If you haven't noticed it's because you're not looking. Much like the way you didn't read the article I posted because you didn't like the source. This is part of the corralling of information I mentioned in my other post. You get people to look in only one direction, ignore the rest and feed them just the morsels that will lead them to the conclusions you want - even better if you can get them to outright reject other sources without even looking.
    I didn't read the article because it came from a partisan newspaper. I found a more objective source (the BBC) which confirmed what you were saying: that the hysterectomy story is currently unclear. I retracted my statement and believe that I acted perfectly responsibly.

    While being biased doesn't make someone's reporting wrong per se, it does raise the probability that their reports contain propaganda, and it would have been a waste of my time to read your article in lieu of a more objective source. Unless someone is an expert in a given topic, interested in reading editorials, can't find another source or has nothing else to read, conservative sources have low value for the same reason that liberal sources have low value.

    If someone has the time (I don't at the moment), then reading and comparing different sources, from a variety of political backgrounds, is a fine ambition. But, one would have to be knowledgeable enough to correctly identify biases and errors in reporting.

    A small personal anecdote -- the cultish church I was raised in warned its members all the time about "dissidents" and how you shouldn't talk to them or read any of the literature they print. It would sway you from the truth and etc. That's exactly what mainstream media/tech etc is doing now in it's "war on disinformation." It's trying to keep everyone reading the approved propaganda and preventing them from looking at the scary "right-wing disinformation." In other words, it doesn't want dissidents swaying you from the cult. If you think about it, if something is true, it's true, and it doesn't matter where it came from. You can judge for yourself, and you don't need a church or a news station or a giant tech overlord to protect you from the ability to judge for yourself.
    But disinformation is just as bad as outright censorship. Censorship is a nineteenth century problem, from a time when governments could shut down all newspapers, whereas the profusion of fake information is the problem we have today. It's naive to believe that everyone (and I do mean everyone, including experts) has all the information they need to correctly identify misinformation.

    Other than that, I think that we're mostly on the same page regarding censorship.
    Last edited by xerxe; 03-18-2021 at 06:25 AM. Reason: trimmed

  36. #36
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe
    But disinformation is just as bad as outright censorship.
    The problem with this mindset is who is deciding it is disinformation? I've watched time and again verifiable info be labeled "disinformation" while outright lies are passed off as fact. But because it's some official sanctioned approved source nobody bothers to check. They just believe.

    You can't allow a specific group (who are extremely biased themselves, even if they pretend not to be) to be the filters and decide for you what is true and not. This war on disinformation is a propaganda war - it's a fight to get their own message out to people, and make them believe that no other sources are worth even looking at. And it's apparently working on those that trust them. They are the church, you are the believers in that church, and their goal is to shut down all dissent.

    I think it's better not to fully trust any media. Know that all of them are propaganda, and cross-check all of them. Look into things for yourself, and don't allow anyone to do the thinking for you.

  37. #37
    Socionics is a spook ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    15,439
    Mentioned
    867 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    asdfasfj

    how do you know anything?

  38. #38
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha View Post
    asdfasfj

    how do you know anything?
    faith (Fi), evidence (Te), logic (Ti), your own eyes (Se), the emotional effect it has (Fe), how you feel physically (Si), patterns (Ni), or by what is possible (Ne)

    Some of those don't seem right. I don't want to put faith as Fi for example when that could be interpreted as Ni, since Fi is more like Trust/Distrust while Ni is more like belief . . . kind of.

    But whatever, not perfect, but you get the idea lol.

  39. #39
    cunnilingus epilepsy inducer
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,574
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I used to believe that free speech advocates were simply people wanted to pollute the public discord with unsavory opinions and I kind of still do.

    But current trends in policing speech is turning out to limit peoples scope for thought, which will in turn cause a simplification of discussion and policy/political action.

    I hope we get out of this dumb little trap we've created for ourselves before it is too late.
    Last edited by leckysupport; 03-19-2021 at 03:21 PM.
    ἀταραξία

  40. #40
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,815
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    The problem with this mindset is who is deciding it is disinformation? I've watched time and again verifiable info be labeled "disinformation" while outright lies are passed off as fact. But because it's some official sanctioned approved source nobody bothers to check. They just believe.

    You can't allow a specific group (who are extremely biased themselves, even if they pretend not to be) to be the filters and decide for you what is true and not. This war on disinformation is a propaganda war - it's a fight to get their own message out to people, and make them believe that no other sources are worth even looking at. And it's apparently working on those that trust them. They are the church, you are the believers in that church, and their goal is to shut down all dissent.

    I think it's better not to fully trust any media. Know that all of them are propaganda, and cross-check all of them. Look into things for yourself, and don't allow anyone to do the thinking for you.
    There is no solution except for better education. And not just for newspaper readers, but for the journalistic class as well. I'm not a journalist, and this is all theory and speculation, but my sense is that the oversimplification of news isn't always the result of carefully manufactured propaganda or biased editing. Although bias is a permanent feature of the news, as you'd know if you've payed even a little bit of attention over the past few centuries, a lot of misleading and unnuanced reporting probably boils down to mistakes made by journalists and editors.

    In the case of journalists considering writing deliberate propaganda, a better-educated class of colleagues would make it embarrassing to relay false or spin-doctored information. Wanting to avoid embarrassment can be a powerful motivator to be truthful and dilligent, and so can wanting to avoid the disappointment of former professors and mentors.

    Now when I say "education", I don't mean a few highschool or college civics courses. I believe that we should train 'professional citizens' in the same way that we train professional athletes. We need to to raise people to understand how their society works from an early age, which should also include routine participation in citizen committees that oversee social and economic activities. By the time someone is thirty, they should have the experience to identify questionable claims made by industry leaders and politicians. As a bonus, having to "work" as a citizen would make it easier to justify UBI.
    Last edited by xerxe; 03-21-2021 at 04:37 AM. Reason: fixed typo

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •