Free Speech

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Free Speech

Post by Riggerjack »

He does long, and involved posts. That is just an excerpt from part 5 of the linked post.

It is rare to find someone talking about culture, strategy, and improving humanity, without just waving flags and pushing social signaling to it's limits.

Scott Alexander is perhaps the most persuasive writer for Rationals I have run across. As I said, his politics is not my politics, yet I rarely find I disagree with him, even when he is writing about politics.

pukingRainbows
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:56 pm

Re: Free Speech

Post by pukingRainbows »

Riggerjack wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:56 am
It is rare to find someone talking about culture, strategy, and improving humanity,
I've been itching to ask you all about your thoughts on Jordan Peterson and this seems like an excellent segue way.
In regards to the quote above, his perspective is that religion is the deep psychological framework for humanity that has allowed us to survive.
He's currently embroiled in a gender pronoun debate in Canada and free speech is a re-occurring theme in his lectures and podcasts. I highly recommend them.

I find the entire situation fascinating and worrisome.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Free Speech

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Riggerjack: Good link. Great analysis.
"Two things about the Americans," Dr. Song said. "First, their minds are fast, and they puzzle over everything. You must give them a riddle to redirect those minds. So we offer them the Minister. Second, they must have moral superiority. They don't know how to negotiate without it. Always their talks open with human rights, personal freedoms, and so on. But the tiger changes all of that. Their horror at the notion that we would casually eat an endangered species will immediately put them on high ground. Then we can get down to business."

One thing that concerns me is that it seems highly likely that "racist" = "tiger-eater." The other thing that concerns me is the puzzle (since I am American) which goes something like "malaria outbreak" is to "water shortage" as "racist behavior" is to "???" If you isolate the racists, maybe you hinder the spread and dampen the tinder, but what about the mosquitoes and the misappropriation of the aquifer? When the air-conditioning in the classroom is broken and the temperature rises, it's pretty much a given that the least well-behaved, lowest-functioning student will be the first to act out, but that doesn't mean that he is the one who broke the air-conditioner, or that everybody else is going to stay cool as the day goes on.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Free Speech

Post by Chad »

This could not be more true.
Riggerjack wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:56 am
He does long, and involved posts.

OTCW
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:55 am

Re: Free Speech

Post by OTCW »

Tech companies are probably too powerful (different argument), but they are not violating any free speech rights per se. They are private companies and can run their business within the law any way they choose. If every one (or vast majority) of them got together and decided who could say what, there is probably an anti trust lawsuit there, but I don't pretend to be a lawyer.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Free Speech

Post by Riggerjack »

Well, there is free speech, as defined legally, in that the Constitution stops at government enforcement. Then there is free speech as a cultural norm, which is a completely different thing. It relates to the society we wish to live in and expectations of tolerance.

Clearly, this is being suppressed by our current self appointed nannies.

When I was younger, those nannies were old and Christian, and openly hostile to change and variety in lifestyle choices. My reaction was to go full, trenchcoat wearing, blue Mohawk, punk.

Now, just when the age of oldster nannies are on their way out, the new, younger, angrier nannies are here to tell us to conform to their expectations. That their constraints are different, in no way decreases their constriction.

I'm old enough to be caught a little flat footed by the call to conformity from the young'uns. And idealistic enough to feel betrayed.

But given what the science tells us of the neediness of authoritarians in both wings of the political spectrum, I guess I shouldn't expect anything better.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Free Speech

Post by Riggerjack »

I've been itching to ask you all about your thoughts on Jordan Peterson
Um. So far, no thoughts. I first heard of him here. I did a quick search, and came up with Twitter and other social media links. I don't play much with social media, so I will look further and get back to you.

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Free Speech

Post by GandK »

Riggerjack wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:55 pm
... My reaction was to go full, trenchcoat wearing, blue Mohawk, punk.
:shock: I'm now picturing your old avatar with a blue mohawk. 8-)

Agree... when most people talk about freedom of speech, they're not speaking from a law school perspective. They mean that they want to freely speak their mind without impediment from any entity... culturally is the right word. I guess maybe we're just all feeling more constrained today than we did 30 years ago? In fairness, that feeling may be BS, though. 30 years ago, American society was a lot more homogeneous, and a lot of us had to either read widely or travel widely to bump into people/ideas that were way different than the ones we were raised with. Now they're everywhere, online and off. How would people have reacted then to widely differing norms in their face wherever they went? How many would have moralized instead of tolerated?

Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Free Speech

Post by Riggerjack »

I found the Jordan Peterson website, eh. Read his wikipedia page, and while I can't find anything I disagree with in his arguments, he also had a tone I didn't like. This is a wiki, not his actual writing, so that may be what is throwing me. For the most part, I distrust people speaking of something modern as being Marxist. It is usually a sign that they don't know much about their subject, or Marxism.

Then I read his Quora page. It seemed like good answers to the kind of questions I would expect from teenagers. Like this response to "Can you have freedom without peace?" that almost seems written for this subject:
Absolutely. But you can't have peace without freedom.

Freedom is frequently the freedom to produce conflict. While conflict is not a good, in and of itself, it is very often necessary in the short term to prepare the ground for medium to long term peace. People who avoid necessary conflict don't get peace. They just save up more trouble for the future.

Peace is impossible without freedom, because people who are not free become resentful, and then they become underhanded and manipulative, and then they become vicious. And then things get worse.
And I think that is the crux of our issue here. Those who value peace above all else, and those who understand conflict to be inevitable, and that constant, low intensity conflict is far better than the explosion at the end of a period of suppressed conflict.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Free Speech

Post by Riggerjack »

30 years ago, American society was a lot more homogeneous, and a lot of us had to either read widely or travel widely to bump into people/ideas that were way different than the ones we were raised with. Now they're everywhere, online and off.
Where did you grow up?!?

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6845
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Free Speech

Post by jennypenny »

Yes, I mean culturally more than legally. It scares me that we've been so eager to give up what I consider fundamental tenets of our culture -- first our privacy and now our freedom to speak our minds -- all in the name of making the world 'safer'. It also bothers me (and admittedly makes my tinfoil hat twitch) that tech companies have been so intimately involved in both issues.

I remember everyone in the entertainment industry jumping to the defense of 2 Live Crew back in the day. They all defended their right to sing whatever they wanted even if it was personally offensive. Now the left is playing the moral majority role. Strange.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 65a19b23f4

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Free Speech

Post by GandK »

Riggerjack wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:49 pm
Where did you grow up?!?
Kentucky. :) One of the many places that voted Trump by a wide margin.

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Free Speech

Post by GandK »


BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Free Speech

Post by BRUTE »

Dragline wrote:
Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:23 pm
The idea that people can just "get along" in some amorphous way without structure has come up repeatedly since Rousseau and has always ended pretty ugly.
ah, good old confusing "structure" with "gun to the head"... collectivists ;)

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Free Speech

Post by BRUTE »

hurr, this post gave brute such a raging intellectual boner he'll have to call his doctor in 4 hours.

SO MUCH THIS!

plz y liberals no stop destroying liberalism?! staaawwwp!!!

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 1610
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Free Speech

Post by fiby41 »

pukingRainbows wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:51 am
I've been itching to ask you all about your thoughts on Jordan Peterson and this seems like an excellent segue way.
Disagree with him on some topics but great guy

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Free Speech

Post by ThisDinosaur »

So jennypenny is concerned about TechCo influence on free speech. I'd point out that you should also be paranoid about any attempt of the government to intervene there. Let's say certain viewpoints or narratives are being selectively omitted from the public. As a journalist, you (jennypenny) are in a unique position to find what pieces of information are being misrepresented, and tell the stories that no one else is telling. Seems like that approach would be profitable, even. #FreeMarketFixesEverything

Re:Jordan Peterson,
I think his main free speech issue is the gender pronouns thing. I haven't heard him say anything I disagree with. One group trying to police the speech of everyone else, and crying oppression when they refuse.

Wrt his Monomyth=Truth stuff, its fascinating. But I can't decide how much of that has anything to do with reality.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Free Speech

Post by ThisDinosaur »

Also, it might be against the First Amendment for the government to tell ISPs what they can and can't publish.

Locked