[Politics] Dumb People Protest and Look Dumb

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Drathnoxis:
As Salvor Hardin once said "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Wait, I though YouTube was the last refuge of the incompetent. ;D

Saelune:
*snip*

You screeched at me about how awful I was, and how much my generation sucked and wasn't worth shit, when all I wanted to do was share something that I loved growing up with the younger generations who'd missed it. You're the kind of person that the people I've spent my adult life fighting against point to when they need a "leftist" example.

[edit] I forgot the word "adult".

[edit 2] by the way, no "nazi" or "alt-right" person has ever spoken to me the way you have. Does that make them better people than you?

Um, ok, that was a big 2 pages there. But, yeah, to get things done you have to get stuck in, and sometimes, that means violence. Not all the time, and not at random, but violence is going to be part of the answer if you intend to win.

As an aside, I though Caitlyn Jenner really that that amazingly naive, privileged and/or stupid to think Trump supported LGBT rights, and finally woke up some time after he got to be PotUS.

DarthCoercis:

Saelune:
*snip*

You screeched at me about how awful I was, and how much my generation sucked and wasn't worth shit, when all I wanted to do was share something that I loved growing up with the younger generations who'd missed it. You're the kind of person that the people I've spent my adult life fighting against point to when they need a "leftist" example.

[edit] I forgot the word "adult".

[edit 2] by the way, no "nazi" or "alt-right" person has ever spoken to me the way you have. Does that make them better people than you?

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1056499-How-do-I-share-the-things-that-helped-define-my-generation-with-the-younger-generations#24283008

Saelune:
Well, for one, realize that every generation is full of terrible people...and good people. Your generation is not 'the best'. One day my generation will be old and will blame the new young generation for our problems, even though our problems were mostly caused by past generations AND our own generation.

Good things are always being made, be it art, music, or any other entertainment. The problem is more how easy it is to find this. Finding good music is hard, but it is not because no one makes good music, it is just that good music is not popular.

Anyway, that is more general. However your topic seems a bit...Australian focused. I am not Australian.

I am sick and tired of people looking for excuses to hate me. This is what I said. I did not 'screech' at you, I made a point that each generation goes through the same as the previous, but instead you took that as a personal attack because you are so convinced that because I am left-wing, and you apparently are right-wing, that I could only be 'screeching' at you. But hey, good job representing 'your generation' as being easily offended by the next.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Your focus on Antifa shows your hand.

I think the problem is that nobody else actually seems to be focusing on them, which I compare to how you state people are ignoring Nazis step onto the stage. Antifa gets a free pass because... reasons.

The government is controlled by the Right, and the Right keeps bitching about Antifa ALL THE TIME. Your statement here is just not true. Yes, paper cuts suck, but they are not as big a deal as LOSING AN ENTIRE ARM.

Eacaraxe:

Kyle Gaddo:
Proud Boys are racists, white supremacists, misogynists, and beyond. They deserve to be protested against at every turn, even if they scream loudly.

They do and they should be -- non-violently, which is my point. That means turning away from and condemning black bloc tactics. Compare this week's news cycle with regards to Proud Boys protest to last. Last week Andy Ngo was lionized on corporate media for wandering into a crowd of Antifa expecting to get his ass whooped on camera, and getting what he wanted. This week we get to point and laugh at Tinder incels and Gavin McInnes losing a fight against a pair of plastic handcuffs.

I know which one I'd rather deal with. I'm also sick of people drawing false equivalencies and excluding middles against me for condemning the black bloc and violent counter-protest. This is a battle that can and should be won in the marketplace of ideas, that can only be lost in the streets, and I'm sick of people on my side picking the losing option; ergo, when a scenario happens demonstrative of what should be done and how, damned right I'm going to shout it from the mountaintops.

Hate speech is not free speech. Despite the fact that it's protected under the First Amendment, hate speech is inherently violent, because it infringes on people's rights to live their life under the very same Constitution that should protect them.

Honestly, as an American, having an American perspective and understanding America's track record of censorship, I find the continental conceptions of speech and expression repugnant and morally bankrupt. Over here, laws, rules, or policies permitting the regulation of "dangerous" or "offensive" speech have a far, far greater track record for leading to the suppression of voices dissenting or critical to those in power, and persecuting historically-disadvantaged persons, than they do of protecting them. Viewpoint- or content-based suppression of speech should never be a power afforded to governing entities. Ever.

Public or private sphere, lest anyone forget the oppression of LGBTQ's in Hays Code and Red Scare-era Hollywood.

It means that things can and should change for the safety and protection for all of a nation's people.

I can think of at least one famous quote by Benjamin Franklin that would serve as adequate clapback to this...

...and in the spirit of that, how about hijab bans? What's the compelling government interest in banning hijab? Niqab and burka bans, you could relatively easily make the argument...that is, in service to a surveillance state, so fuck that right there.

Saelune:
LGBT people literally fought back against abusive cops and it helped spark the LGBT rights movement.

You're emphasizing and idealizing the violence at the cost of all else. That's what's wrong with your argument. If you can't or won't understand how that's contrary to the reality and the spirit of the topic, that's on you. Least of all if you can't tell a difference between defending oneself against a physical assault by a dirty cop, and assaulting others on the street.

I am emphasizing the point that STANDING UP TO BULLIES is important, and that it is wrong to punish people for STANDING UP TO BULLIES!

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:

Shadowstar38:
People with dumb ideas voiced their opinions. People responded with criticism. No laws were broken, no rights were violated, and counter intuitive ideologies gained zero traction. This is a pretty good example of the system at play actually functioning correctly. Now if only antifa would take notice and stop fucking around we'd make some progress.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys

Nazis still exist, bigotry still exists, nothing was solved or fixed.

Remember when Antifa shot up that synagogue? And that mosque? Oh wait, those were Republicans. Well, what about that time Antifa sent bombs out of a van decked out in pro-Hillary pictures? Oh wait, that was a Republican in a pro-Trump van.

If you actually want to condemn violent actions, condemn the actual terrorists. Your focus on Antifa shows your hand.

Awesome. We're right back to the BS first day back. I love it.

This event by itself is only meant to illustrate that you can combat ideologies you disagree with in a productive way. I didn't claim it solved the specific issues you choose to point out in your response.

My only reason for bringing up Antifa is because they serve as a counter-point for how you combat right-wing ideologies incorrectly. It served a purpose to the context of the conversation. So no. I did not "show my hand".

EDIT: It's also worth noting the weird whataboutry here. I pointed out X group of people are dicks and you managed to jump to "But group Y is a bigger issue". I didn't say anything about which group is worse, or which needs to be prioritized. Why are we making it a competition?

Reminder 'ideology I disagree with' here being 'Kill all Jews, blacks, LGBT and disabled'. You are intentionally trying to turn THAT into 'just a different opinion'. That is intentionally manipulative and you know it. Everyone who does that to me, which is many and often, is trying to pretend that MURDERING MINORITIES 'is just a different opinion'.

Saelune:
*snip*

Did you not read what you wrote, or are you just ignoring it because it doesn't fit with the persona you're trying to project now?

DarthCoercis:
Did you not read what you wrote, or are you just ignoring it because it doesn't fit with the persona you're trying to project now?

Uhrm, well, if that was indeed what you were referring to, then what you wrote was obviously untrue.

Silvanus:
*snip*

That is the edited after being questioned version.

DarthCoercis:

Silvanus:
*snip*

That is the edited after being questioned version.

Wow. You are literally blatantly lying. How dare you!?

But thanks. Thanks for really hammering it in how much lies and bullcrap I am constantly thrown, when you literally blatantly lie to essentially my own face!

You can call me many things, but how DARE YOU LIE SO BLATANTLY! This is probably the most insulted I have ever been.

DarthCoercis:

That is the edited after being questioned version.

Since the post in question quoted you, you should have the original in your inbox. You could PM me it?

Silvanus:

DarthCoercis:

That is the edited after being questioned version.

Since the post in question quoted you, you should have the original in your inbox. You could PM me it?

I believe they are claiming that I edited the original post in the topic that made them mad to be less offensive.

They responded in the topic, but then also sent me a PM angrily calling me 'sanctimonious' and having a 'superiority complex'. I remember being so caught off guard by it, cause my still unedited post I do not at all think was anything like they claimed. I responded with asking them to elaborate, but it sat in my sent list, bolded and unchecked.

Saelune:
Reminder 'ideology I disagree with' here being 'Kill all Jews, blacks, LGBT and disabled'. You are intentionally trying to turn THAT into 'just a different opinion'. That is intentionally manipulative and you know it.

You see this right here? This is a core issue with your responses I've noticed which is kind of perplexing. I phrase words a particular way, you try to ascertain why I used that particular phrasing, but immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm being malicious and go off of that without really trying to figure out what my actual intentions are. It makes these conversations sort of draining.

That wording illustrates my approach to problem solving is intended to be consistent outside of this situation. I find this particular ideology deplorable yet on a fundamental level I don't subscribe to the idea of objective morality. So for me its a balance of codifying laws that protect individual rights as much as possible while leaving the specifics that branch out from that open to debate.

But to make this whole thing simple, fine. Nazis are objectively evil. Clear cut, no question, no argument. We're on the same page. That doesn't invalidate anything I've said here. There's a smart way to handle them and a stupid way to handle them. And no matter what Antifa still falls on the stupid side of the spectrum. You don't appear to disagree with the idea that Antifa are dicks. You don't appear to disagree with the idea that problems can(at least sometimes) be solved non-violently. So what are you actually taking issue with?

DarthCoercis:

Saelune:
*snip*

You are a totalitarian hypocrite. That you'd try to deny insulting me and my generation, and pretend to be a victim is pathetic. That's pretty much what I'd expect from you though, Miss "I am always right in whatever I say".

Silvanus:

DarthCoercis:

That is the edited after being questioned version.

Since the post in question quoted you, you should have the original in your inbox. You could PM me it?

I have had 0 messages, quotes or otherwise in my inbox since 2016. If the owners of the escapist fix the backend issues with the forums, I'll be more than happy to send you the insults Saelune threw at me when I asked the forum how to share something I loved in my youth with the younger generations who had not been exposed to it. My favourite part was when she told me my generation wasn't worth shit.

You're projecting.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1056499-How-do-I-share-the-things-that-helped-define-my-generation-with-the-younger-generations#24283008

That is literally a link to my post. Anyone is free to read it themselves.

Or I can post it here again, verbatim.

Saelune:
Well, for one, realize that every generation is full of terrible people...and good people. Your generation is not 'the best'. One day my generation will be old and will blame the new young generation for our problems, even though our problems were mostly caused by past generations AND our own generation.

Good things are always being made, be it art, music, or any other entertainment. The problem is more how easy it is to find this. Finding good music is hard, but it is not because no one makes good music, it is just that good music is not popular.

Anyway, that is more general. However your topic seems a bit...Australian focused. I am not Australian.

Did you just stop at the ... and ignore everything after?

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:
Reminder 'ideology I disagree with' here being 'Kill all Jews, blacks, LGBT and disabled'. You are intentionally trying to turn THAT into 'just a different opinion'. That is intentionally manipulative and you know it.

You see this right here? This is a core issue with your responses I've noticed which is kind of perplexing. I phrase words a particular way, you try to ascertain why I used that particular phrasing, but immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm being malicious and go off of that without really trying to figure out what my actual intentions are. It makes these conversations sort of draining.

That wording illustrates my approach to problem solving is intended to be consistent outside of this situation. I find this particular ideology deplorable yet on a fundamental level I don't subscribe to the idea of objective morality. So for me its a balance of codifying laws that protect individual rights as much as possible while leaving the specifics that branch out from that open to debate.

But to make this whole thing simple, fine. Nazis are objectively evil. Clear cut, no question, no argument. We're on the same page. That doesn't invalidate anything I've said here. There's a smart way to handle them and a stupid way to handle them. And no matter what Antifa still falls on the stupid side of the spectrum. You don't appear to disagree with the idea that Antifa are dicks. You don't appear to disagree with the idea that problems can(at least sometimes) be solved non-violently. So what are you actually taking issue with?

You're being intentionally manipulative. Stop it.

The things I have to deal with.

image

Saelune:
You're being intentionally manipulative. Stop it.

I thought I clarified my position enough to demonstrate that wasn't the case. Guess not. But I honestly don't see the manipulation you're accusing me of.

Good talk.

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:
You're being intentionally manipulative. Stop it.

I thought I clarified my position enough to demonstrate that wasn't the case. Guess not. But I honestly don't see the manipulation you're accusing me of.

Good talk.

You know exactly what you are doing. You have done it often, as have others who seek to defame me and defend Nazis as 'just a different opinion'. That is why I am pointing it out clearly and bluntly. I don't expect you to apologize, I just don't want others getting the wrong idea or to think I am oblivious.

Saelune:
You know exactly what you are doing. You have done it often, as have others who seek to defame me and defend Nazis as 'just a different opinion'. That is why I am pointing it out clearly and bluntly. I don't expect you to apologize, I just don't want others getting the wrong idea or to think I am oblivious.

shrug

If you're going to just ascribe maliciousness to my words without due cause, there's really not much I can do to make you think differently.

Eacaraxe:

altnameJag:
I'd like to point out the number of instances where the Proud Boys crossed lines, came up to the counter protestors, and had to be escorted away by the cops.

And, in the links I posted in the OP, USA Today has a report of black bloc protesters trying to charge, then outflank, a police barricade, then were busted up trying to erect barricades of their own.

WashPo has a fairly detailed account of the entire day, including a group of antifa harassing PB's at a bar and another spat in front of the DC Trump hotel. Then you had Joey Salads wandering off to get himself Andy Ngo'd, and getting extracted by the cops before Antifa could indulge him. I'll be the first to admit, Joey Salads deserves a solid ass whoopin' just on merit of being a dumpster-tier "pranktuber", forget the political shit for a second. Where I take exception, is that it's not a particularly savvy idea to give him one on camera in the middle of a political protest.

Daily Dot has an account of Antifa invading a Starbucks for some reason. But that's just funny.

Bottom line is, the cops were there and they actually did their job. That is, keeping two opposing sides of a protest who, left alone would start a riot, separate, and therefore preventing a riot. When it became clear to either side they weren't getting what they wanted, they went off to their own little corners and did their own thing.

Which is really the heart of the matter. PB's love to instigate, and all they have to do to accomplish that is show up. But if they can't fight, they have to talk, and when they have to talk they end up looking like completely inept jackasses.

The solution to this is so simple a grade schooler can figure it out: stop giving PB's what they want (riots), and start forcing them to do what they don't (talk). And yeah, that means telling the black bloc to take a hike. That shouldn't be any skin off any reasonable person's ass.

Or we can sit here and point fingers as to whose loop in the codependent cycle of violence matters more.

Problem is, in Portland anyway, the cops are in the tank for the Proud Boys. As in "let the Proud Boys through the line to beat on antifa a bit then cover their retreat with riot shields and grenades" in the tank.

ACAB, but DC cops are slightly less B.

Saelune:
The government is controlled by the Right, and the Right keeps bitching about Antifa ALL THE TIME.

And yet I don't really see much mention of Antifa from the gubment. Or the MSM. Or a whole lot of anyone. It's a free pass.

Your statement here is just not true. Yes, paper cuts suck, but they are not as big a deal as LOSING AN ENTIRE ARM.

Because lynchings and various attacks on random passersby are paper cuts. Ever been lynched? Not fun.

trunkage:

Drathnoxis:
As Salvor Hardin once said "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Those founding fathers were sure incompetent destroying property just because a king reduced a tax

Okay?

Leg End:
And yet I don't really see much mention of Antifa from the gubment. Or the MSM. Or a whole lot of anyone. It's a free pass.

Here's a Republican state representative discussing surveillance of, and violence towards, "Antifa": link.

Homeland Security official discussing redirecting funds towards combating anti-fascists: link.

A bill put forward by a Republican congressman to provide for "penalty enhancements" when crimes are committed in disguise, which he has dubbed the "Unmasking Antifa Act": link

Nancy Pelosi condemning them: link

As far as negative "MSM" coverage goes, here's negative coverage from CNN, NBC, Washington Post, NYT.

Drathnoxis:

Those founding fathers were sure incompetent destroying property just because a king reduced a tax

Okay?

The point being, of course, that the actions of the Founding Fathers constitute a very effective use of political violence, and one which is now widely accepted, treated as necessary, and lauded as justified today.

Drathnoxis:

trunkage:

Drathnoxis:
As Salvor Hardin once said "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Those founding fathers were sure incompetent destroying property just because a king reduced a tax

Okay?

If we go by Hardin analogy, the founding fathers must, therefore, be pretty incompetent.

Also what Silvanus says

Sometimes I don't get what's so hard to understand about the fact that times change and with that the actions required to attain certain goals. There used to be a time when royalty used the marriage of their children as a diplomatic tool, it isn't anymore. There used to be a time when sending thugs on the street to beat up ideological opponents was an effective way to silence the opposition, it isn't anymore.
Interesting to see some so called "progressives" believe the violent methods used in the early 20th century are still effective/justified and not defending such methods is somehow a defence of the targeted group. Even the far right has realised these methods are no longer effective and peaceful communication and using the victim card is much more effective. We live in anti violence & victim-oriented times (relatively speaking). Don't turn your political/ideological opponents into victims of violence. You are merely helping them gather sympathy and support.

"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."

Eacaraxe:

Amazing how stupid alt-right protesters look when they're simply allowed to speak, and the news of the day isn't about rioting, isn't it?

Amazing how this has been a consistent and reliable pattern for 40 years, and only in the last two to three has it been disrupted by black bloc violence leading to an escalating and expanding cycle of violence which permits alt-right apologia in the mass media, isn't it?

Why, it's almost as if violently and preemptively disrupting protest is counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating in any conceivable way, unless your vested interest is in that cycle of violence as opposed to the defeat of far-right ideology in the marketplace of ideas.

I mean Hitler was pretty much a proto early alt-right guy correct? And they did let Hitler talk and look where that got them.

We like to say logic and reason will win out and just debating them will see us win the day, but I wonder if that's really true or if we just want it to be true? I mean I'm sure we all know of absolute falsehoods that spread everyday from people who either flatout lie or have been tricked into believing nonsense.

And sometimes horrible ideas spread and people believe them despite all the logic and reason in the world, and people suffer for it. We have real life historical examples of this happening.

Look at the fake medicine scam industry, if they ban a book literally telling you to ban bleach to cure cancer somebody will go 'oh but free speech they should be allowed to sell that book' but what possible benefit is there to allowing these fake medical advices that are useless at best (and harm by putting off real treatment) or actively detrimental to your health at worst. Why does absolutely everything have to be allowed? Because usually when you take something to an extreme, you find problems with it, is freedom of speech any different there?

Fieldy409:

Eacaraxe:

Amazing how stupid alt-right protesters look when they're simply allowed to speak, and the news of the day isn't about rioting, isn't it?

Amazing how this has been a consistent and reliable pattern for 40 years, and only in the last two to three has it been disrupted by black bloc violence leading to an escalating and expanding cycle of violence which permits alt-right apologia in the mass media, isn't it?

Why, it's almost as if violently and preemptively disrupting protest is counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating in any conceivable way, unless your vested interest is in that cycle of violence as opposed to the defeat of far-right ideology in the marketplace of ideas.

I mean Hitler was pretty much a proto early alt-right guy correct? And they did let Hitler talk and look where that got them.

We like to say logic and reason will win out and just debating them will see us win the day, but I wonder if that's really true or if we just want it to be true? I mean I'm sure we all know of absolute falsehoods that spread everyday from people who either flatout lie or have been tricked into believing nonsense.

And sometimes horrible ideas spread and people believe them despite all the logic and reason in the world, and people suffer for it. We have real life historical examples of this happening.

Look at the fake medicine scam industry, if they ban a book literally telling you to ban bleach to cure cancer somebody will go 'oh but free speech they should be allowed to sell that book' but what possible benefit is there to allowing these fake medical advices that are useless at best (and harm by putting off real treatment) or actively detrimental to your health at worst. Why does absolutely everything have to be allowed? Because usually when you take something to an extreme, you find problems with it, is freedom of speech any different there?

I've become aware that Free Speech doesn't lead to the Market Place of Idea or to good arguments winning the day. If that was the case, everything would have been cured by 1900. Free Speech does inoculate you from Logic and Reason, as you're just worried about what you have to say instead of someone else, so you just stop listening to good sense. Free Speech only works generationally with gradual increments being hard fought for a decades before progress is made. But can be easily outdone by Free Speech, leading down a different path.

Anti-vaxxers leading to measles outbreaks recently is another example

What would be great, though, is a clear definition of when Hitler actually becomes evil. He wasn't evil in the trenches in 1916. He was evil in 1942 when he started the elimination. When did he slip from normal to evil? Because that would shut a lot of people up on both sides about words like Fascists, Racists, Concentration Camps etc.

trunkage:
I've become aware that Free Speech doesn't lead to the Market Place of Idea or to good arguments winning the day. If that was the case, everything would have been cured by 1900. Free Speech does inoculate you from Logic and Reason, as you're just worried about what you have to say instead of someone else, so you just stop listening to good sense. Free Speech only works generationally with gradual increments being hard fought for a decades before progress is made. But can be easily outdone by Free Speech, leading down a different path.

Anti-vaxxers leading to measles outbreaks recently is another example

Free Speech worked well for a lot of people for over a century. The last decade has seen the rise of the Internet, which is arguably where bad ideas take root. The problem is not that people are allowed to speak their mind or even that most people aren't logical or reasonable enough, the problem is that the internet is a place where quacks of all kinds can peddle their horseshit and get easy ways to exploit the vulnerable. The "filter bubble"-effect is pretty real and the fact that the internet is so vast and often hard to navigate means that it is hard to get a nuanced take on any single issue.

I'm fairly certain that a decade from now, a lot of these problems will be a lot smaller. The older generations (ours included, I believe) will always have trouble navigating the modern, social media dominated internet, but the post-millenials have grown up learning to sift through social media bullshit.

trunkage:
What would be great, though, is a clear definition of when Hitler actually becomes evil. He wasn't evil in the trenches in 1916. He was evil in 1942 when he started the elimination. When did he slip from normal to evil? Because that would shut a lot of people up on both sides about words like Fascists, Racists, Concentration Camps etc.

Depending on how harsh you are it is either 1919, when Hitler joined the DAP and Anton Draxler put Hitler on his way down the rabbit hole, or in 1923 when he attempted the Beer Hall Putsch. By 1924, when he wrote Mein Kampf, he was arguably fully formed as the man who wouldn't hesitate to instigate a world war or genocide. Hitler and the NSDAP were always pretty open about just what they intended to do with the Jewish population and how they intended to save Germany by fighting the entire world.

generals3:
Sometimes I don't get what's so hard to understand about the fact that times change and with that the actions required to attain certain goals. There used to be a time when royalty used the marriage of their children as a diplomatic tool, it isn't anymore. There used to be a time when sending thugs on the street to beat up ideological opponents was an effective way to silence the opposition, it isn't anymore.
Interesting to see some so called "progressives" believe the violent methods used in the early 20th century are still effective/justified and not defending such methods is somehow a defence of the targeted group. Even the far right has realised these methods are no longer effective and peaceful communication and using the victim card is much more effective. We live in anti violence & victim-oriented times (relatively speaking). Don't turn your political/ideological opponents into victims of violence. You are merely helping them gather sympathy and support.

"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."

Except the Right is the violent side, and the Left still gets all the blame.

Saelune:
Except the Right is the violent side, and the Left still gets all the blame.

Not on this forum... (and as that is the reach of my post that is what matters)

trunkage:

Fieldy409:

Eacaraxe:

Amazing how stupid alt-right protesters look when they're simply allowed to speak, and the news of the day isn't about rioting, isn't it?

Amazing how this has been a consistent and reliable pattern for 40 years, and only in the last two to three has it been disrupted by black bloc violence leading to an escalating and expanding cycle of violence which permits alt-right apologia in the mass media, isn't it?

Why, it's almost as if violently and preemptively disrupting protest is counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating in any conceivable way, unless your vested interest is in that cycle of violence as opposed to the defeat of far-right ideology in the marketplace of ideas.

I mean Hitler was pretty much a proto early alt-right guy correct? And they did let Hitler talk and look where that got them.

We like to say logic and reason will win out and just debating them will see us win the day, but I wonder if that's really true or if we just want it to be true? I mean I'm sure we all know of absolute falsehoods that spread everyday from people who either flatout lie or have been tricked into believing nonsense.

And sometimes horrible ideas spread and people believe them despite all the logic and reason in the world, and people suffer for it. We have real life historical examples of this happening.

Look at the fake medicine scam industry, if they ban a book literally telling you to ban bleach to cure cancer somebody will go 'oh but free speech they should be allowed to sell that book' but what possible benefit is there to allowing these fake medical advices that are useless at best (and harm by putting off real treatment) or actively detrimental to your health at worst. Why does absolutely everything have to be allowed? Because usually when you take something to an extreme, you find problems with it, is freedom of speech any different there?

I've become aware that Free Speech doesn't lead to the Market Place of Idea or to good arguments winning the day. If that was the case, everything would have been cured by 1900. Free Speech does inoculate you from Logic and Reason, as you're just worried about what you have to say instead of someone else, so you just stop listening to good sense. Free Speech only works generationally with gradual increments being hard fought for a decades before progress is made. But can be easily outdone by Free Speech, leading down a different path.

Anti-vaxxers leading to measles outbreaks recently is another example

What would be great, though, is a clear definition of when Hitler actually becomes evil. He wasn't evil in the trenches in 1916. He was evil in 1942 when he started the elimination. When did he slip from normal to evil? Because that would shut a lot of people up on both sides about words like Fascists, Racists, Concentration Camps etc.

Well I dunno man. I mean we've thousands of years of everything being shitty and oppressive right? Versus the past couple hundred years of everything suddenly turning good? Whats the difference, well we have technology now but machines don't have ethics and work just as well for shitheads so I don't think it's that. We also have democracy and debate so that might be the ticket, it's just a slow process.

Fieldy409:
Well I dunno man. I mean we've thousands of years of everything being shitty and oppressive right? Versus the past couple hundred years of everything suddenly turning good? Whats the difference, well we have technology now but machines don't have ethics and work just as well for shitheads so I don't think it's that. We also have democracy and debate so that might be the ticket, it's just a slow process.

That's a big topic in of itself. Personally, I think it's at least in part because we tend to have more stuff and better life expectancy. If you're going to die poor due to disease or starvation, you've little to lose by getting violent. If you can expect to live to 70 or 80 and be fairly comfortable, more appealing to sit round and watch TV.

Now, doesn't apply to everyone, of course, but (IMHO) some conflicts fizzle out because people get shiny toys to play with and don't turn up to the fights anymore.

Fieldy409:
I mean Hitler was pretty much a proto early alt-right guy correct? And they did let Hitler talk and look where that got them.

We like to say logic and reason will win out and just debating them will see us win the day, but I wonder if that's really true or if we just want it to be true? I mean I'm sure we all know of absolute falsehoods that spread everyday from people who either flatout lie or have been tricked into believing nonsense.

And sometimes horrible ideas spread and people believe them despite all the logic and reason in the world, and people suffer for it. We have real life historical examples of this happening.

Look at the fake medicine scam industry, if they ban a book literally telling you to ban bleach to cure cancer somebody will go 'oh but free speech they should be allowed to sell that book' but what possible benefit is there to allowing these fake medical advices that are useless at best (and harm by putting off real treatment) or actively detrimental to your health at worst. Why does absolutely everything have to be allowed? Because usually when you take something to an extreme, you find problems with it, is freedom of speech any different there?

Disturbingly, we have ideas like the great replacement theory entering mainstream conversation too: https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-publications/the-great-replacement-the-violent-consequences-of-mainstreamed-extremism/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/07/christchurch-mosque-killer-ideas-mainstream-social-media

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here