Ok. That's fair if it includes those things against majorities too. What kind of identity groups would be included? "Race", sexual orientation & gender?
Antifa rocks!
- Thread starter Estebonrober
- Start date
- Status
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Religion would be a big one as well as the disabled
Lexicus
Deity
Detective Rashiminos, on the case: "eh, I don't see what difference it will make if we wait five years to investigate this one"
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Speed it up, slow it down, whatever. Suffering is time compressible.
If this does not expand into ridicule and legitimate criticism or a vague "harm" caused, I would tend to reluctantly agree that on the whole in a multi-identitarian society in a heated political atmosphere those freedoms (of incitement to violence) might have to pay the price. I would perhaps include political affiliation there too.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
I'm talking about purposefully abusing someone on the basis of their religion.
Lexicus
Deity
Cloud_Strife
Deity
I'm not talking about social media, that's an entirely different beast altogether.
Lexicus
Deity
Stephen Pinker and some other dude on Twitter apparently believe that political alignment has a genetic basis, if this is true then theoretically we could remove conservatism completely from the gene pool
edit: just to be clear I think Stephen Pinker is full of crap on that but it's interesting to think about what follows if you assume politics is determined by genes
Is it tho? Why is it different?
These kinds of border cases illustrate why I think it is not generally good to curb free speech. We have already seen the sort of "I have a right not to be exposed to things that offend me" logic deployed in various campus contexts to stifle protest (e.g. one incident I read about months ago where students were protesting outside the administrative building and the protest was shut down because employees there did not feel "safe" with students protesting).
Free speech protects the left as much as it protects the right, and without care any measure that limits free speech even for a noble goal will be twisted and used against the left.
Now all of that said, while I tend to oppose measures restricting free speech I do think there is a general issue where the right is defending free speech where no threat to it actually exists. Being deplatformed ata university for example is not a real threat to free speech, it is more an issue of how academia governs itself than about free speech.
This is part of the general phenomenon as follows:
far-right weirdo [says something ridiculous and unconscionable]
protesters: you shouldn't say that! it's really bad that you said that! you are a bad person for saying that!
far-right weirdo: I have the right to say whatever I want! you are destroying free speech!
Defending someone's right to say something when that right is not really under threat at all seems to function as a sort of oblique method of defending the content of the speech without actually defending the content of the speech, if that makes sense.
edit: just to be clear I think Stephen Pinker is full of crap on that but it's interesting to think about what follows if you assume politics is determined by genes
Is it tho? Why is it different?
These kinds of border cases illustrate why I think it is not generally good to curb free speech. We have already seen the sort of "I have a right not to be exposed to things that offend me" logic deployed in various campus contexts to stifle protest (e.g. one incident I read about months ago where students were protesting outside the administrative building and the protest was shut down because employees there did not feel "safe" with students protesting).
Free speech protects the left as much as it protects the right, and without care any measure that limits free speech even for a noble goal will be twisted and used against the left.
Now all of that said, while I tend to oppose measures restricting free speech I do think there is a general issue where the right is defending free speech where no threat to it actually exists. Being deplatformed ata university for example is not a real threat to free speech, it is more an issue of how academia governs itself than about free speech.
This is part of the general phenomenon as follows:
far-right weirdo [says something ridiculous and unconscionable]
protesters: you shouldn't say that! it's really bad that you said that! you are a bad person for saying that!
far-right weirdo: I have the right to say whatever I want! you are destroying free speech!
Defending someone's right to say something when that right is not really under threat at all seems to function as a sort of oblique method of defending the content of the speech without actually defending the content of the speech, if that makes sense.
Last edited:
I'd venture to say that Pinker's position (from what I've read from him) is not that straight forward, but that there may be some genetic dispositions that makes it more likely for someone to adopt a more liberal/conservative position, like openness to new experiences, which could have a genetic basis. Not that it's a 1 to 1 match, which would be rather a ridiculous claim.
Regarding free speech, that's why I said there has to be some line where ridicule/criticism/perceived "harm" is not included into forbidden speech. The line is probably hard to police as racist/anti-semitic memes marinated in seeming levels of irony might be construed as both ridicule and incitement to violence, so the line is hard to police.
Nuh uh
You made a switch there from "genetic basis" to "determined." The first one isn't that crazy. The second one is crazy if you're interpreting it to mean 1-1 or that nothing but genetics matters. But that's definitely not what he's is saying. The basic intuition is that personalities are to a large extent determined by genetics. This is pretty much only controversial among lay people. Also, it becomes more true as people get older (the whole idea of "you grow into your genes."). Then the idea is personalities influence your politics. An easier claim to make is there's a relationship between genetics and personality indicators and then a relationship between personality indicators and politics. E.g., openness and conscientiousness on the big 5 test are fairly heritable and somewhat predictive of politics. So it's not a super strong relationship, but I wouldn't say it's crap. But you can more directly use twin studies and this has been done a lot of times.
Obviously there are a lot of wrinkles in the idea. African Americans are overwhelmingly Democrats and that has everything to do with historical circumstances.
Personality traits are massively polygenic, so you wouldn't be able to CRISPR away conservatism. But if you were a benevolent god emperor, you could start by banning all conservatives from having kids. As opposed to, say, taking the kids from all conservatives and having them raised by progressives.
If you haven't figured out how this works yet: geneticists quietly figure this stuff out, laypeople find it outrageous and counterintuitive and refuse to believe it, geneticists keep their heads down and continue working, cycle repeats. (edit: except for the occasional Pinker, who rides the outrage to sell books).
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,656
Honestly until the last sentence I didn't even realise this was a reply to me, since the entire first paragraph bears so little resemblance to anything I said.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,656
Honestly I don't think anyone is really going to object to this. Incitement is surely a crime and therefore "restricted" for everyone anyway, not just "nazis"? And in fact my main problem with your attitude earlier in this thread is that you yourself have basically been doing these things.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,656
We could also eliminate gayness and non-Aryan-ness. The possibilities are endless!
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Boo hoo cry me a river, I have no problems with homophobes, racists, transphobes, anti semites, Islamiphobes etc being marginalised.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,656
What are you even replying to there? Why are you acting like a 13 year old?
Lexicus
Deity
It's just wishful thinking, I seriously wish that we could purge conservatism from the gene pool but we can't and I know that it doesn't even really follow from what Pinker says. Really all I was doing was trying to make the usual suspects look ridiculous by getting them to say stuff like this:
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,656
Yes, I definitely look ridiculous for mocking you because you genuinely partake in "wishful thinking" about eugenics. Once again you've slipped on your inverse perspective glasses so that your moral trench appears to you to be the high ground.
Lexicus
Deity
Berzerker
Deity
How do gay people feel about Islam?
- Status
Similar threads
