> I never once said you were dumb.
I was treating the "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING YOU ARE IGNORANT OF HISTORY" stuff glibly, and treating it as equivalent. Mea culpa.
How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us.Good point, Alex Jones, I'll keep that in mind.
Like this stuff:
> Its tiring thatI need to spend most of my time in any discussionw ith you correcting invalid assumption you make
> Yes, that's how conversation works
> My point was that the absolutist thinking that you are promoting when talking about this subject is ultimately harmful
I also said that I would like to hear your proposal and in positive terms, i.e., not defined by opposition to another proposal. Tell me what it is, I'll take it as a given that what it *isn't* is the stuff I said. Your first post was vague and included a lot of phrases like this, from the post I'm replying to:
> My case was that we should stop
Here is my proposed course of action: I would like to be able to say what I want to say and listen to whatever anyone else is saying. I intend to build things that make this easier for me and for everyone else, and that will make it harder for anyone to stop that.
I was able to say this concisely and without reference to what it is not.
> trying to sell the narrative
This, in my view, sounds like you think I am saying things I do not believe. I am not selling anything, and this is not a narrative. I'd be happier if people agreed with my proposed course of action, but I believe that enough people already do that the objectives can be achieved. I am not concerned that people disagree with me; I expect that in life. I have no reason to "sell a narrative" and if that's what you're doing, I'm not buying, try the next house. If you've got a course of action you want to propose, that I'd be interested in.
> we must look past it if we are to have a positive impact
Look past it at what? Please just propose something.
🇳🇱
Another post with more energy into telling me that I'm saying something I didnt say (and now reiterated that I didnt say it) than actually bothering to discuss the topic, mostly.
I never said you didnt understand anything, nor that you were ignorant of history. I have pointed out the assertions you have made that were wrong, but made no sweeping accusations of your ability or knowledge beyond that.
None of the quotes you provided are contrary to that and I think thats rather obvious to the reader so I wont break it down piece by piece.
I have also already told you what my proposal is, multiple time now. It mostly boils down to changing public sentiment and acting as an example.
That means drawing respectful, well spoken, people who tend to draw in others to hear their message under a free speech banner as well as demonstrating the harm such censorship has, again by concrete example.
Usually when we look back at history where some form of censorship runs rampant, when and if that winds up being overturned, is due to societies that promote free speech as a legal principle but themselves mostly foster selective forms of speech, not through censorship, but through a moral consensus that tends to outcase people who are otherwise being harmful.
Generally when free speech is curtailed it tends to be in response to groups like the neo-Nazis, which tend to have deplorable messages that serve as a beacon for what people want to silence. If a person stands up and respectfully disscents at a neo-nazi meeting you will likely be confronted with very childish hatred, attacks, and maybe even violence.
Compare that to organizations that have been free-speech in nature and have pushed for acceptance of a free-speech mentality where it may have been previously lacking. If one reads, for examples, the discussions and notes we have left over from meetings of the Sons of Liberty we often see that as long as respectful discourse is maintained dissenting ideas are allowed. Those of a deplorable nature tend to be outcast by the group, and thus creates a social pressure, but otherwise the rebuttals to them are well thought out, educated, and respectful. In the end this combination caused the people to rally behind the idea of free speech as a good force. This of course carried on into the process of defining those civil liberties and the USA's first congress.
So the solution is simple, promote free speech in the groups (informal or otherwise) you are part of, while being a shining beacon of respect and admiration, and you can convince people, it wouldnt be the first time in history for sure.
What doesnt help is an absolutist approach. Free speech of any kind no matter how deplorable or disrespectful gets a stage, and a voice, and is socially accepted among the peers. Legally one should have such a right, but only when the morality of the group is mature enough to ensure the respectful voices are the ones we hear and survive within the group dynamic.
As with most problems of this nature it is a social problem. It isnt solved so much at the legal level, thats just the final step, it is solved at the social one.
> I never said you didnt understand anything, nor that you were ignorant of history. I have pointed out the assertions you have made that were wrong,
Let's just say that any details about the conversation are not important and I'll just concede every point you care to make about who said what. Not relevant, not interesting.
> It mostly boils down to changing public sentiment and acting as an example.
Changing public sentiment to *what* and *why*? What's your objective and how are you going to get there? What does it have to do with me?
> So the solution is simple, promote free speech in the groups (informal or otherwise) you are part of, while being a shining beacon of respect and admiration, and you can convince people, it wouldnt be the first time in history for sure.
All right. I think this is fine to do. I won't get in your way, and I intend to do similar, but I don't think I'm going to be a beacon of anything, I don't plan to do that.
I think you'll have a much easier time giving people free speech than convincing them that they'd like it if they had it.
> What doesnt help is an absolutist approach.
Absolutism is forbidden forever! Absolutely no absolutism!
You're free to advocate against absolutism, but I don't give a damn what's helpful. I intend to say the things that I believe to be true.
If you're selling clothes, you can always say either "You're too fat for these pants" or "These pants are too small for you", don't get me wrong. There's a huge difference, though, between exercising tact and crafting a message.
But if I perceive that something is the overwhelmingly likely case, I will say so. I'm not selling anything. If you think I'm wrong, you're free to point it out, but if you think I'm saying something unhelpful to your goals, it's a non-starter. I'm not a salesman, I'm a hacker.
> Legally one should have such a right, but only when the morality of the group is mature enough to ensure the respectful voices are the ones we hear and survive within the group dynamic.
Did I read correctly that you feel the right is contingent on respectful voices being prioritized? (By some standard of respectfulness, which standard I do not know.) I think this is a bad approach, but maybe it was a phrasing artifact, so I'll hold off on that until you confirm.
> As with most problems of this nature it is a social problem.
Great. I'm building a home defense system, not trying to convince people to stop robbing other people. Go solve society if you like.
> Changing public sentiment to *what*
To a sentiment that feels free speech should be an important legal right which is preserved and exercized.
> What does it have to do with me?
I dont recall saying **you** had anything to do with it either way, aside from the mentality you espouse at times sometimes getting in the way of that intended goal perhaps. but the focus has mostly been a general one and not directed at you specifically, you just happened to respond.
> Did I read correctly that you feel the right is contingent on respectful voices being prioritized?
No, to be more clear. The right from a legal sense should be absolute. However a legal right does not imply a moral right on an individual basis. Individuals should shun members of a group who exercize harmful freedom of speech, but the right to make such speech legally speaking should be preserved regardless.
> I dont recall saying **you** had anything to do with it either way,
Here is a PDF, it's a piece by Grice, pulled from a larger work on linguistics. It lays out the Gricean Maxims. Please have a read, it's interesting stuff, it's an attempt to enumerate and describe the implicit rules that govern how people communicate.
One of the underlying assumptions if you're talking to me is that it is somehow relevant to me. That is, this assumption is warranted, being a pillar of communication: unless you have a reason to say it, you do not say it.
> aside from the mentality you espouse at times sometimes getting in the way of that intended goal perhaps.
As previously covered, I don't think it gets in the way of what I'm doing.
> but the focus has mostly been a general one and not directed at you specifically, you just happened to respond.
I JUST HAPPENED TO RESPOND because you JUST HAPPENED to reply to my post and JUST HAPPENED tag me and JUST HAPPENED to tell me that I do not understand history and that I'm doing it wrong. It is expected that if you say that sort of thing to a person they will respond, and that presenting this as a mere coincidence is really stupid to do.
"Not directed at you specifically" is...I don't even know what to do with this. A brief, incomplete collection of things that were not directed at me specifically, that appeared in replies to me:
> This all seems rather clueless of what was said and just based on your own assumptions...
Not directed at me specifically.
> You also seem to assume that I am somehow ok with censorship laws
Not directed at me specifically.
> but such absolutist thinking, as you tend to engage in, isnt particularly helpful
Not directed at me specifically.
> However if we were to take what you said at face value then it would be hopeless, despite history being against you in that regard
Not directed at me specifically.
> I need to spend most of my time in any discussion with you correcting invalid assumption you make
Not directed at me specifically!
> Another post with more energy into telling me that I'm saying something I didnt say (and now reiterated that I didnt say it) than actually bothering to discuss the topic, mostly.
CLEARLY NOT DIRECTED AT ME SPECIFICALLY!
I JUST HAPPENED TO RESPOND!
I knew it! You're a fucking narcotics agent!> Individuals should shun members of a group who exercize harmful freedom of speech, but the right to make such speech legally speaking should be preserved regardless.
No *speech* is harmful, only illucutionary acts, and I have no position on the conduct of groups of which I am not a member and which do not interfere with anything I'm doing. Given that groups set their own norms, this boils down to...what, precisely?
grice75.pdf
As @realcaseyrollins said, this conversation is getting painful now. I'm done.
hopefully next time the conversation can be more pleasant. But I do not see a hope to recover from this round.
