Freedom of thought and speech vs morality - Page 3
Register

User Tag List

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 261
  1. #41

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I feel like this topic has covered the issue from the wrong angle.

    The purpose of freedom of speech is just a pre-requisite for cultivating free throught and allowing for those ideas to propagate through a society. Its not the objective but rather just something necessary to achieve the objective that is 'freedom of the mind.'

    I feel that this objective is critically threatened by large scale efforts to control perspective. In a model of realism objective reality exists and we interact with it through our perception. With this in mind our perception of reality defines our reality. We live in a sociological meta-cognitive age where for the first time in human history we are able to understand how we make decisions as a society and influence that process. Sure as societies we still have 'freedom of speech' but we have lost our ability to correlate our beliefs to create action.

    Consider the term 'Grass-Roots.' It was just how things worked forever but then it became a term to represent a society getting together to push for needed change. The fact this even became a definition is telling but what came later was astro-turfing. Social campaigns that were tailored to generate movement for change by a society for private profit. This not only acts directly against public interest but also simultaneously devalues potential pushes we can make to influence changes in our society (hurting our real ability to influence the structure that frames our society) while also creating a method to circumvent the protections offered by a free society with the facade of progress.

    I feel that this is true evil.

    On the micro level anyone can justify whatever action but on the macro level morals show through. I could very literally make ethical arguments for Nazi ideology under utilitarianism that would be irrefutable but any moral person could not call such an argument anything other than immoral.

    In politics all you hear is the 'Right vs the Left' which forces people into a mode of thought that is a false dichotomy. We keep fighting ourselves while the true evil progressively encompasses us. We debate sources of ideas without looking at the methods of propagation that actually establish our freedom as living entities within our society.

    I feel that our freedom of speech is nothing without the propagation that gives it value. Its harrowing for me to ruminate about the limited scope people even consider on this subject.

    Sometimes I regret the sacrifices I made in my life for a society that is so hellbent on anti intellectualism.
    +1
    This man knows what's up.
    Couldn't have said it better myself.

    Many people that have sacrificed so much for western society, would be rolling in their graves if they were aware of how bastardized and contorted the idea of "freedom" has been stretched, by those that are either grasping at straws, or intentionally, and maliciously attempting to subvert said freedoms afforded to them, by those they condemn as "racists/bigots".

  2. #42

  3. #43

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I feel like this topic has covered the issue from the wrong angle.

    The purpose of freedom of speech is just a pre-requisite for cultivating free throught and allowing for those ideas to propagate through a society. Its not the objective but rather just something necessary to achieve the objective that is 'freedom of the mind.'

    I feel that this objective is critically threatened by large scale efforts to control perspective. In a model of realism objective reality exists and we interact with it through our perception. With this in mind our perception of reality defines our reality. We live in a sociological meta-cognitive age where for the first time in human history we are able to understand how we make decisions as a society and influence that process. Sure as societies we still have 'freedom of speech' but we have lost our ability to correlate our beliefs to create action.

    Consider the term 'Grass-Roots.' It was just how things worked forever but then it became a term to represent a society getting together to push for needed change. The fact this even became a definition is telling but what came later was astro-turfing. Social campaigns that were tailored to generate movement for change by a society for private profit. This not only acts directly against public interest but also simultaneously devalues potential pushes we can make to influence changes in our society (hurting our real ability to influence the structure that frames our society) while also creating a method to circumvent the protections offered by a free society with the facade of progress.

    I feel that this is true evil.

    On the micro level anyone can justify whatever action but on the macro level morals show through. I could very literally make ethical arguments for Nazi ideology under utilitarianism that would be irrefutable but any moral person could not call such an argument anything other than immoral.

    In politics all you hear is the 'Right vs the Left' which forces people into a mode of thought that is a false dichotomy. We keep fighting ourselves while the true evil progressively encompasses us. We debate sources of ideas without looking at the methods of propagation that actually establish our freedom as living entities within our society.

    I feel that our freedom of speech is nothing without the propagation that gives it value. Its harrowing for me to ruminate about the limited scope people even consider on this subject.

    Sometimes I regret the sacrifices I made in my life for a society that is so hellbent on anti intellectualism.
    I’ve heard many of those arguments before. I think the use of language is a good indicator of this as well; euphemisms adoptee because the proper term was (unpleasant?). And I agree it’s pretty deplorable how objective reality is being undermined as of now (your comment about the nazis for instance).

    One other thing I find completely detestable is the idea that morality is subjective - and taking this idea to mean that e.g. murder may be moral in some cultures. I think this is a very dangerous idea and yet it doesn’t seem to be very unpopular (do correct me if I’m wrong).

    Do you have some examples of attempts to control perspective btw? And what do you mean by that exactly?

    I could cite things like, for instance, Women’s studies or gender studies as some efforts to control perspective, and I feel this is what you had in mind, but I am not certain.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  4. #44

  5. #45

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I feel that this objective [freedom of the mind] is critically threatened by large scale efforts to control perspective.

    he fact this even became a definition is telling but what came later was astro-turfing. Social campaigns that were tailored to generate movement for change by a society for private profit. This not only acts directly against public interest but also simultaneously devalues potential pushes we can make to influence changes in our society (hurting our real ability to influence the structure that frames our society) while also creating a method to circumvent the protections offered by a free society with the facade of progress.

    I feel that this is true evil.

    On the micro level anyone can justify whatever action but on the macro level morals show through. I could very literally make ethical arguments for Nazi ideology under utilitarianism that would be irrefutable but any moral person could not call such an argument anything other than immoral.
    I agree that our freedom in the mind is being hurt by such large scale efforts to control perspective. I'm thinking that you're referring to political groups, companies, activists, and major religions as those behind those efforts. If that is the case, then the solutions would be to either get a stronger or bigger organization to control the bad ones (macro level?), or to run another grass-roots campaign or education system to convince the followers to not support the major groups (micro level?). I think this makes the solution kind of circular.

    In the end, it's one thing to open your own mind, but inviting others to do the same is quite a bit harder.
    ::

    Could you really make an ethical argument for Nazis under utilitarianism? I thought utilitarianism is about saying the moral thing to do is to maximize benefit for the greatest amount of people. Perhaps you could make one is limited in consideration. For example, a movement of the greatest benefit to Germans, but I don't think the Nazi movement benefited mankind.

  6. #46

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    secondpassing, I’m not helz, but thinking about it eugenics used to be fairly popular around that period. I believe it was seen as moral because it ensured that future generations would be stronger (and thus less troubled) if one would force the ‘infit’ not to procreate. I can only imagine something along those lines could be said of the nazis.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  7. #47

  8. #48

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    @SJ when are you hosting smiths 2.0
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  9. #49

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I basically posted the same thing Ganelon did. My bad.
    It's also kinda funny how similar words come out of someone right-center and someone politically non-involved.

    For reference though, I guess I'm an politically neutral utilitarian divine command theorist, that believes morals are universal and absolute.

  10. #50

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by SCP View Post
    This is flawed logic in a lot of ways, and indicative of very little life experience; considering you're more or less arguing with a slippery-slope fallacy.
    What's the point of a law if it's not to be used?
    The whole premise of the law is to incite a type of self-censorship, and to intimidate those via force to use said pronouns.

    Answer me this: What's the point of said law, if it's not intended to be used eventually?

    Sure no one may have been arrested over it yet, but if the whole point is it's not meant to be used to arrest anyone anyway, then it shouldn't exist in the first place.
    An example demonstrating my point is 'The Patriot Act'.
    No one was against the idea initially because they didn't think it would actually be used against those domestically; however after it existed for some time, no one was arrested under it, and people forgot that it was something passed relatively recently, that they resigned it as being a new reality.

    The whole point I'm making here is that humans are very susceptible to normalization of new horrific realities, given enough exposure, repetition, and conditioning.
    Hence what underlines the whole concept of the 'Stockholm Syndrome'.



    Because there literally is an organized effort to shame europeans out of a culture, and heritage.
    See the statues of famous Europeans being torn down, the revision of history, and current guilt-complex being thrusted unto current-day "white" people, shaming them for "colonizing" and "slavery" that they had no part or benefit from in current day.
    Even the concept of "white privilege" is indicative of this very fact, that "white" people are being shamed for a contrived 'original sin' to otherwise erode cohesion, and promote race-mixing agendas.

    I'm curious (((shill))), how many shekels were you paid for this post?



    Oh it's "your" country now?
    It's ironic and hypocritical that you take this stance.
    You seem to imply disdain those that claim ownership of something, yet do the same yourself.

    Furthermore; stop acting like such a victim, and misrepresenting the state of affairs in the grand scheme of things.
    Objectively speaking: Canada is considered (as a whole) a very leftist country, with laws pertaining to taxation, gun control, social issues, etc...
    You know this just as well as anyone else, but you're attempting to gaslight, and make a mountain over a mole-hole because you KNOW you don't have a leg to stand on to make such a haphazard argument.

    With all due respect, you're a disgrace; you claim to morally grand-stand about "muh objectivity" or "muh critical thinking skills" yet you then betray your emotional stake, and confirmation bias by the hostile connotations therein.
    The cognitive dissonance is so real within your post, if only you took a second to re-read the nonsense you're spewing, you would see you contradict yourself in the very same paragraph.

    I could continue to list the rife hypocrisies within your crude attempt at a point, however I believe I've already made it rather clear how you come off as a triggered, bleeding-heart leftist; as it's already rather apparent without my comments detailing such.

    ./thread
    lmao ok
    Last edited by oops_ur_dead; May 13th, 2020 at 02:55 PM.

  11. #51

  12. #52

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by SCP View Post
    This is flawed logic in a lot of ways, and indicative of very little life experience; considering you're more or less arguing with a slippery-slope fallacy.
    What's the point of a law if it's not to be used?
    The whole premise of the law is to incite a type of self-censorship, and to intimidate those via force to use said pronouns.

    Answer me this: What's the point of said law, if it's not intended to be used eventually?

    Sure no one may have been arrested over it yet, but if the whole point is it's not meant to be used to arrest anyone anyway, then it shouldn't exist in the first place.
    An example demonstrating my point is 'The Patriot Act'.
    No one was against the idea initially because they didn't think it would actually be used against those domestically; however after it existed for some time, no one was arrested under it, and people forgot that it was something passed relatively recently, that they resigned it as being a new reality.

    The whole point I'm making here is that humans are very susceptible to normalization of new horrific realities, given enough exposure, repetition, and conditioning.
    Hence what underlines the whole concept of the 'Stockholm Syndrome'.



    Because there literally is an organized effort to shame europeans out of a culture, and heritage.
    See the statues of famous Europeans being torn down, the revision of history, and current guilt-complex being thrusted unto current-day "white" people, shaming them for "colonizing" and "slavery" that they had no part or benefit from in current day.
    Even the concept of "white privilege" is indicative of this very fact, that "white" people are being shamed for a contrived 'original sin' to otherwise erode cohesion, and promote race-mixing agendas.

    I'm curious (((shill))), how many shekels were you paid for this post?



    Oh it's "your" country now?
    It's ironic and hypocritical that you take this stance.
    You seem to imply disdain those that claim ownership of something, yet do the same yourself.

    Furthermore; stop acting like such a victim, and misrepresenting the state of affairs in the grand scheme of things.
    Objectively speaking: Canada is considered (as a whole) a very leftist country, with laws pertaining to taxation, gun control, social issues, etc...
    You know this just as well as anyone else, but you're attempting to gaslight, and make a mountain over a mole-hole because you KNOW you don't have a leg to stand on to make such a haphazard argument.

    With all due respect, you're a disgrace; you claim to morally grand-stand about "muh objectivity" or "muh critical thinking skills" yet you then betray your emotional stake, and confirmation bias by the hostile connotations therein.
    The cognitive dissonance is so real within your post, if only you took a second to re-read the nonsense you're spewing, you would see you contradict yourself in the very same paragraph.

    I could continue to list the rife hypocrisies within your crude attempt at a point, however I believe I've already made it rather clear how you come off as a triggered, bleeding-heart leftist; as it's already rather apparent without my comments detailing such.

    ./thread
    And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  13. #53

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I feel like this topic has covered the issue from the wrong angle.

    The purpose of freedom of speech is just a pre-requisite for cultivating free throught and allowing for those ideas to propagate through a society. Its not the objective but rather just something necessary to achieve the objective that is 'freedom of the mind.'

    I feel that this objective is critically threatened by large scale efforts to control perspective. In a model of realism objective reality exists and we interact with it through our perception. With this in mind our perception of reality defines our reality. We live in a sociological meta-cognitive age where for the first time in human history we are able to understand how we make decisions as a society and influence that process. Sure as societies we still have 'freedom of speech' but we have lost our ability to correlate our beliefs to create action.

    Consider the term 'Grass-Roots.' It was just how things worked forever but then it became a term to represent a society getting together to push for needed change. The fact this even became a definition is telling but what came later was astro-turfing. Social campaigns that were tailored to generate movement for change by a society for private profit. This not only acts directly against public interest but also simultaneously devalues potential pushes we can make to influence changes in our society (hurting our real ability to influence the structure that frames our society) while also creating a method to circumvent the protections offered by a free society with the facade of progress.

    I feel that this is true evil.

    On the micro level anyone can justify whatever action but on the macro level morals show through. I could very literally make ethical arguments for Nazi ideology under utilitarianism that would be irrefutable but any moral person could not call such an argument anything other than immoral.

    In politics all you hear is the 'Right vs the Left' which forces people into a mode of thought that is a false dichotomy. We keep fighting ourselves while the true evil progressively encompasses us. We debate sources of ideas without looking at the methods of propagation that actually establish our freedom as living entities within our society.

    I feel that our freedom of speech is nothing without the propagation that gives it value. Its harrowing for me to ruminate about the limited scope people even consider on this subject.

    Sometimes I regret the sacrifices I made in my life for a society that is so hellbent on anti intellectualism.
    This is very wise. Indeed, tolerance and freedom of speech is only one of the steps to freedom of thoughts. Although tolerance and freedom of speech are not to be seen as the final goal, they have to be goals and they must be achieved for freedom of thought to be possible, which is why it is very important to discuss it.

    Right vs Left is outdated, so to speak, and is obviously wrong when taken as the "whole picture". They are, at best, part of a bigger system; the way extreme right and extreme left join together in the end shows that it's not "versus" nor is it an axis. The ideology compass that includes authoritarianism and political liberalism as a vertical axis already improves the idea. Sadly, the public is generally unaware of such a distinction, and politics shown on the media are cultivating the false dichotomy and cynicism that destroys the willpower of citizens, making them unwilling to fulfill their democratic role, and eventually just not care about things such as actual "freedom of the mind", to use your wording.

    ~~

    What is the "propagation" you are talking about, and why is it so important? I don't understand that part of your post, sorry.
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  14. #54

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    I've only just now read the thread. I'll puke a few thoughts I've had about this topic. Several distinctions can be made about how discourse can be regulated or controlled. For the sake of conversation, I'll contrive some terms for these distinctions:

    -There is hard/reactionary control of discourse: This is when certain points or ideas are suppressed by some kind of punishment, either by a population or a state. For example, a state imprisoning you for espousing an opinion. A group of people getting you fired from your job via PR backlash.

    -There is soft/functional control of discourse: This is when certain points or ideas are suppressed in a more functional sense - nothing is done to your person, but you are excluded from expressing the ideas in key spaces or reaching key audiences. For example, you prevented from going on a news channel and listing your top ten favourite Nazi officials, or getting kicked off of social media.

    Hard control gets far more attention, because it can even (and occasionally does) apply to individuals making casual conversation. Imagine saying the wrong thing with the wrong eavesdropper and getting your job stripped from you by a twitter mob within 24 hours. The thought evokes a new kind of a social anxiety which has captured the public's imagination in recent years with "cancel culture" and the like. It's a terrifying case study in humanity's natural mob mentality that this happens.

    However, in western countries, in terms of wider societal effect, soft control of discourse is much more relevant to the "freedom of mind" Helz describes. Twitter mobs ultimately only affect a handful of individuals, and attempts in developed countries by the state to imprison or fine people for speech have been unilaterally goofy in recent decades and only given sympathy to the victims of such actions. Far greater control has been exerted in developed countries through functional control - through cable news and major websites.

    Within functional suppression, I will also make another distinction:

    -Points can be suppressed through direct omission. This is, for example, when the principal decides they don't want a top ten Nazi Officials event at their university, so the principal cancels the event.

    -Points can be suppressed through replacement. Perhaps you don't oppose freedom of speech in principle, and you would happily allow a top ten Nazi Officials segment on your news channel. However, you only have a finite number of slots in the day for segments so you decide to remove the top ten Nazi Officials segment for a segment on something more... informative. In theory you permit top ten Nazi Officials segments, but in practice you will never actually have one on your channel.

    Now, again, the former gains much more attention than the latter. Because the former is a direct middle finger while the latter is more of an "oops sorry" kind of deal. Cases of college students getting speakers deplatformed for example. However, even if the latter is much more benign than the former, they both have the same effect - no top ten Nazi Officials segments =(.

    So, on the subject of functional replacement, obviously a lot of it is happening in our cable news. Not just in what news stories are covered, but who is actually hired to cover the news stories. People who are complacent and don't question the wider narrative are hired / promoted in favour of those who are critical, so that discourse only happens within a permissible overton window. In practice, we end up with a cable news which does the bidding of big corporations and the state nearly just as much as a propaganda network in another country, but the population is far less cognizant / angry about it because it feels so much less aggressive.

    Functional replacement also happens on social media, through the use of algorithms. In recent years, social media companies have started trying to twist their algorithms to show perspectives and news stories approved by the status quo. If you watch 10 youtube videos from some independent political commentator, your recommendations will still be flooded by BBC/CNN/Fox/exc. because youtube is trying to show you "authoritative sources".

    Frankly, I also find "freedom of speech" to be a kind of crude entry-point into the larger issues. If the government were to force youtube to adopt a politically neutral algorithm and not take down political videos, that could arguably be a violation of free speech, in the same way forcing a small forum to allow people to discuss Nazism freely would be a form of authoritarianism in and of itself. The Koch brothers have spent billions funding propaganda that downplays or outright denies climate change. However, if the government were to forbid individuals or massive corporations from funding advertisement / propaganda campaigns larger than a certain financial limit, that could also arguably be an infringement of their freedom of speech. I find "freedom of mind" or "discourse control" or whatever you want to be better talking points, imo.

    Anyway, hopefully this post has more value than just a slightly more concrete version of what Helz is describing lol.
    Last edited by yzb25; May 19th, 2020 at 07:16 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  15. #55

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    I've only just now read the thread. I'll puke a few thoughts I've had about this topic. Several distinctions can be made about how discourse can be regulated or controlled. For the sake of conversation, I'll contrive some terms for these distinctions:

    -There is hard/reactionary control of discourse: This is when certain points or ideas are suppressed by some kind of punishment, either by a population or a state. For example, a state imprisoning you for espousing an opinion. A group of people getting you fired from your job via PR backlash.

    -There is soft/functional control of discourse: This is when certain points or ideas are suppressed in a more functional sense - nothing is done to your person, but you are excluded from expressing the ideas in key spaces or reaching key audiences. For example, you prevented from going on a news channel and listing your top ten favourite Nazi officials, or getting kicked off of social media.

    Hard control gets far more attention, because it can even (and occasionally does) apply to individuals making casual conversation. Imagine saying the wrong thing with the wrong eavesdropper and getting your job stripped from you by a twitter mob within 24 hours. The thought evokes a new kind of a social anxiety which has captured the public's imagination in recent years with "cancel culture" and the like. It's a terrifying case study in humanity's natural mob mentality that this happens.

    However, in western countries, in terms of wider societal effect, soft control of discourse is much more relevant to the "freedom of mind" Helz describes. Twitter mobs ultimately only affect a handful of individuals, and attempts in developed countries by the state to imprison or fine people for speech have been unilaterally goofy in recent decades and only given sympathy to the victims of such actions. Far greater control has been exerted in developed countries through functional control - through cable news and major websites.

    Within functional suppression, I will also make another distinction:

    -Points can be suppressed through direct omission. This is, for example, when the principal decides they don't want a top ten Nazi Officials event at their university, so the principal cancels the event.

    -Points can be suppressed through replacement. Perhaps you don't oppose freedom of speech in principle, and you would happily allow a top ten Nazi Officials segment on your news channel. However, you only have a finite number of slots in the day for segments so you decide to remove the top ten Nazi Officials segment for a segment on something more... informative. In theory you permit top ten Nazi Officials segments, but in practice you will never actually have one on your channel.

    Now, again, the former gains much more attention than the latter. Because the former is a direct middle finger while the latter is more of an "oops sorry" kind of deal. Cases of college students getting speakers deplatformed for example. However, even if the latter is much more benign than the former, they both have the same effect - no top ten Nazi Officials segments =(.

    So, on the subject of functional replacement, obviously a lot of it is happening in our cable news. Not just in what news stories are covered, but who is actually hired to cover the news stories. People who are complacent and don't question the wider narrative are hired / promoted in favour of those who are critical, so that discourse only happens within a permissible overton window. In practice, we end up with a cable news which does the bidding of big corporations and the state nearly just as much as a propaganda network in another country, but the population is far less cognizant / angry about it because it feels so much less aggressive.

    Functional replacement also happens on social media, through the use of algorithms. In recent years, social media companies have started trying to twist their algorithms to show perspectives and news stories approved by the status quo. If you watch 10 youtube videos from some independent political commentator, your recommendations will still be flooded by BBC/CNN/Fox/exc. because youtube is trying to show you "authoritative sources".

    Frankly, I also find "freedom of speech" to be a kind of crude entry-point into the larger issues. If the government were to force youtube to adopt a politically neutral algorithm and not take down political videos, that could arguably be a violation of free speech, in the same way forcing a small forum to allow people to discuss Nazism freely would be a form of authoritarianism in and of itself. The Koch brothers have spent billions funding propaganda that downplays or outright denies climate change. However, if the government were to forbid individuals or massive corporations from funding advertisement / propaganda campaigns larger than a certain financial limit, that could also arguably be an infringement of their freedom of speech. I find "freedom of mind" or "discourse control" or whatever you want to be better talking points, imo.

    Anyway, hopefully this post has more value than just a slightly more concrete version of what Helz is describing lol.
    Also, there was another point I wanted to make about functional replacement vs functional omission - you should be wary of anyone that tells you they're having that evil raving motherfucker on their network in the name of "freedom of speech". There is almost always an opportunity cost associated with inviting one individual over another, whether that takes the form of losing a time slot or otherwise - in other words, sources of information are almost always implicitly censoring someone by propping up someone else. Why did they sacrifice time that could have been spent platforming a Holocaust Survivor to platform a Neo-Nazi? Ask yourself that. Censorship and control of information is implicit in being a powerful information source, and when your information source starts acting all idealistic and like they just want a free, unbiased discourse, you should get cynical. Because no discourse is truly free or unbiased.
    Last edited by yzb25; May 19th, 2020 at 07:28 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  16. #56

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    One other thing I find completely detestable is the idea that morality is subjective - and taking this idea to mean that e.g. murder may be moral in some cultures. I think this is a very dangerous idea and yet it doesn’t seem to be very unpopular (do correct me if I’m wrong).
    I agree with you but that is a very complex issue. Disentanglement of the concepts of ethics, mores, norms and morals can get pretty hairy and even if you get people who are willing to approach such concepts its asking a lot to expect they will openly challenge their established belief structure.
    A very basic example would be asking a Catholic to separate the ideas of the Vatican as a power structure from the religion. No mater what aspects of cannibalism, torture, incest, rape, pedophilia, or blackmail committed by the Vatican you present; some Catholics will refuse to disentangle their religion from that power structure and see challenging the morality of the Vatican as an attack on the Catholic religion itself.

    This is not to say morality is subjective but rather that understanding morality may touch on some core belief structures most people are just not constitutionally capable of dealing with in a mature way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Do you have some examples of attempts to control perspective btw?
    Yeah. I could probably throw out a hundred with little effort. On the most basic level consider the structure of a persuasive message. It builds a narrative framing an issue from a perspective with consideration to specific connotations that all build to a pre-constructed result.
    Consider that definition I gave and tell me if I am wrong.
    If not you don’t refute that definition cite pretty much every marketing campaign that has ever existed in any way as an example. The most overt these days would be things like CNN vs FOX News while the most impactful very few are even capable of recognizing. For a few popular ones I would mention-
    -Breakfast is the most important meal of the day (and why is bacon a breakfast food at all)
    -Streets belong to cars / calling people a “mentally deficient moron” through the word ‘Jay’ became normal
    -Origins of the electoral college
    -Pretty much every rights movement ever that functions on the moral justification of equality while pushing against equality
    -Your testosterone should be checked regularly and its in need of treatment as abnormal ‘low t’ even if over 50% of men are considered as ‘low t’
    -Jump in our ‘sell this’ pyramid scheme today because if you get 4 people to buy in after you and they get 4 people ect.. it will make you money (even though if you repeat that process 12 times it exceeds the population of the world)
    -Give to God because X scripture demands X% of your money and its Gods will you give it to me


    I think I question how this answer matters more than I want to think about the answer. I just do not believe people are capable of accepting their own bias.
    The feminist will always call the critic of the ghostbusters remake who suggests equality of alimony, child custody and prison sentence a sexist evil pig and consider any such position an immoral attack on their belief structure. But why?
    Why is this division so prominent and accepted? Why do we look at these established structures and accept them? What is it about the learned behavior that drives our nature to conform to terrible belief structures even when reason is presented against it?
    I barely understand how much I do not understand but I value the knowledge of what I do not understand over that which I do. Most of the time the question holds more value than the answer and the understanding of your ignorance is the beginning of true knowledge. This goes further but I do not think there is value in mentioning it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    And what do you mean by that exactly?
    What I mean by all that is that there is a general lack of respect for the autonomy of an individual within our society.
    When we move from creating a product to creating a need for a product we can make its wrong.
    When we convert our information systems into methods to convey ideology's it is wrong.
    When we shift from searching for the understanding of our existence to searching for how we can create whats comfortable for us that fits into whats around us is that what allows evil to exist?
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  17. #57

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by secondpassing View Post
    I agree that our freedom in the mind is being hurt by such large scale efforts to control perspective. I'm thinking that you're referring to political groups, companies, activists, and major religions as those behind those efforts. If that is the case, then the solutions would be to either get a stronger or bigger organization to control the bad ones (macro level?), or to run another grass-roots campaign or education system to convince the followers to not support the major groups (micro level?). I think this makes the solution kind of circular.
    I very honestly dont even think on that level. The more I understand about mass propagation the less I want to have anything to do with it. Our society can keep their kardashian drama bullshit and shove all the influence it has straight up their ass because I care about the few in my life. I have a few hundred people who regularly interact with me and at most fifty or so who are actively involved in my life. I do not care about the nonsense the world does. I care about the quality of life for the few people I care about.

    Quote Originally Posted by secondpassing View Post
    Could you really make an ethical argument for Nazis under utilitarianism? I thought utilitarianism is about saying the moral thing to do is to maximize benefit for the greatest amount of people. Perhaps you could make one is limited in consideration. For example, a movement of the greatest benefit to Germans, but I don't think the Nazi movement benefited mankind.
    Yes and in many ways. The most simple I think someone else said at some point was Eugenics. I could carry really complex conversations on that subject into ethics boards carried out by state governments on the subject.

    A lot of it just deals with the measurement of ethics vs liability vs morality though. Im not sure if I could say anything profound on that subject. Maybe someone would look at something I said as profound there but it would just be regurgitation of existing logic models. But then again isnt that like 90% of conversations? Just walking through previously discussed concepts people at least pretend to not know to understand just to arrive at a desired conclusion which is... once again... marketing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  18. #58

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    Whenever enough people ask me too.
    Throw me in on one of your games someday. I want to do one more here and you were always one of my favorite hosts : )
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  19. #59

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    What is the "propagation" you are talking about, and why is it so important? I don't understand that part of your post, sorry.
    Ideas are living things and they travel between living things. Here is a good example of it in 2 ways (Please watch that video and consider how belief structures are pushed independent of facts)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pnpM7Yx05Q

    Notice the rhetoric that builds the social issue. I could easily throw another 100 references of people that want to spell out some mix of 'cops bad, cops racist, cops evil' ect where its blatantly apparent. At this point its not about arguing about 'what' happened but rather about how people receive information. You have to not only consider the information that is available but also how the conclusion was drawn about the information.
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  20. #60

    Re: Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Ideas are living things and they travel between living things. Here is a good example of it in 2 ways (Please watch that video and consider how belief structures are pushed independent of facts)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pnpM7Yx05Q

    Notice the rhetoric that builds the social issue. I could easily throw another 100 references of people that want to spell out some mix of 'cops bad, cops racist, cops evil' ect where its blatantly apparent. At this point its not about arguing about 'what' happened but rather about how people receive information. You have to not only consider the information that is available but also how the conclusion was drawn about the information.
    Interesting video. I would say I agree, which I do, but that's not really what you're looking for anyway?
    Those that created and retweeted those videos were looking out so much for the message they wanted to convey, they skipped out on being skeptical of the information they were repeating. A lot of people are blind, yes.
    I can also recommend sc2mafia to watch the video, but personally I would not go out and find more videos like it. Acknowledging misinformation exists and combating it are two different things.

    I was going to respond to the Eugenics thing, but then I skimmed a page out of the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and kinda well... realized that describing myself as a utilitarian was inaccurate. I'll go do altruistic things that benefit the most people, but I don't expect other people to do so, I just hope they do. Thanks for your answer regardless.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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