-
Features
Things You Can't Say
- Thread starter Trausti
- Start date
LordKiran
Veteran Member
Here's an essay from the mid aughts about conformity.
Link
What are the things we can't say in our historical period? Anything about Race, perhaps. What else?
So is this your entry for the oppression Olympics? If so you've posted in the wrong forum.
Society beating conformity into you is how its supposed to work, society dictates cultural norms. One cultural norm in America is the idea that each and every man is his own and answerable only to his own actions and merits. So as one might expect, something that goes against this norm might come under consternation by the general public.
Also the article is incorrect, Galileo wasn't condemned by the church because he said the earth orbited the sun. He was condemned because he directly challenged their authority on multiple occasions by trying to interpret scripture in their place. The irony of this incorrect statement on part of the author is that it just goes to show what happens when stupid shit is allowed to go on unchallenged by the general public.
If you ask me, we do have a tolerance problem in America, and that tolerance problem is for flat earthers, pizza gaters, creationists, climate change deniers, gender spectrum deniers, and dipshit chucklefuck white supremacists who use a skewed and misinformed view of scientific data to justify their own erroneous beliefs. Stupid shit should not be tolerated because that's how it is allowed to propagate.
Last edited:
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Trausti said:
Are you saying that you think the reason why saying racist things causes a stir is because the "offended" think some people might actually believe racism and it's actually not because of the historical context of racism, re-traumatization, and that some people want to protect other people?
LordKiran
Veteran Member
Oh come on Don, what's the worst thing that could happen if everyone just said "Hey you're right Richard Spencer!"
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I think i'm just not clear, maybe confused, on why he feels racism is a good example of the alleged phenom. The whole title, too, seems to indicate this is about nonconformity. I think a better example might be saying something about the military. Racism has too much of a loaded history and present to reduce it to a single motivation behind whom it may disturb. I think?
I will add that knowing the poster's history as thinking there are real genetic differences among races responsible for intelligence and violence differences, i am still at a loss as to what he is saying.
ronburgundy
Contributor
Stupid shit should not go unchallenged, but it should be "tolerated" in the sense that there should be zero legal ramifications for it and those who say stupid shit should not be punished beyond things like losing a job because the stupid shit directly relates to one's competence in that job. Only actually "stupid" (and therefore objectively false) shit should even receive those sorts of punishments. Which means those seeking punishments should be expected to have clear evidence of such falsehoods, and their failure to produce it should be treated as punishable stupid shit of its own.
If supposed stupid shit is actually stupid, then it is easy to show it to be so, and thus there is no need to prevent people form voicing them. Open debate and critique favors valid ideas in the long run, which is why religion and other invalid ideologies seek to suppress speech. In contrast, use of strong coercion to silence such ideas makes it likely that such coercion will be used to silence more valid than invalid ideas, and thus stifle moral, political, and intellectual progress. That is the foundation of the principle of free speech.
IF a person offers an idea, then the burden for it being accepted as true is clearly on them to supply evidence. However, if others seek to punish a person for their ideas, then the burden of proof is on the punishers to establish that those ideas are not merely false, but so definitively and clearly false that only a person of gross mental incompetence or dishonesty would utter them.
It's entirely arbitrary to be born when we were. People in earlier times and other places were just like us. In those earlier times and other places, the authority seeking to impose conformity could often count on a braying mob to punish those accused of wrongthink. LordKiran and Don have kindly revealed to us that in their past lives they had their torches ready to light up the heretics.
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
Interesting.
One must never question the causes of global warming (or is it climate change?) as the science is settled. Except it's not.
Expressing old fashioned views about marriage will result in a public flogging. Indeed, old fashioned views (well, biology really) about gender at all could result in serious repercussions.
Misgivings about abortion ? Oof, that could cause you grief.
Pointing out that teh islam is not be a "religion of peace" will draw the ire of many.
And that reckless behavior sometimes has bad consequences will get you into all sorts of bother.
I'm sure there will be more.
One must never question the causes of global warming (or is it climate change?) as the science is settled. Except it's not.
Expressing old fashioned views about marriage will result in a public flogging. Indeed, old fashioned views (well, biology really) about gender at all could result in serious repercussions.
Misgivings about abortion ? Oof, that could cause you grief.
Pointing out that teh islam is not be a "religion of peace" will draw the ire of many.
And that reckless behavior sometimes has bad consequences will get you into all sorts of bother.
I'm sure there will be more.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,343
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
"People tell me I am wrong; People told Galileo that he was wrong; Galileo was right; Therefore I am right" remains a fucking moronic argument even when dressed up in several paragraphs of flowery language.
There isn't anything you are not allowed to say in a modern developed country. If you feel that others are shouting down your arguments, then you need to consider that they have as much right to their opinion that your arguments are shit as you have to your opinion that they are not; and that opinions are irrelevant to facts.
If you are not in jail, on a gallows, or strapped to a bonfire, then it's pretty much a certainty that you have yet to say something that you are not allowed to say.
If you are right, prove it. If you can't prove it, you have no right to have it believed by others.
If you can prove it, and people still refuse to believe it, then those people are idiots. There has never been a world shortage of idiots; railing against them is futile.
But the simple fact that your opinions are not accepted by the masses doesn't indicate that it is the masses who are indulging in idiocy. Someone's an idiot, but the smart money is on the idiots being the minority; and even when they are a majority, the idiots are always the ones who lose the debate in the long term.
Things are always moving slowly in the direction of reason. You might be dead before your ideas become accepted, but that's OK, as long as it's all about the ideas.
If you think it's all about you, you are likely out of luck. But at least you have the consolation of knowing that the worst thing they will do to you is call you an idiot. For almost all of human history, saying things that were not allowed meant imprisonment, torture, or death.
There isn't anything you are not allowed to say in a modern developed country. If you feel that others are shouting down your arguments, then you need to consider that they have as much right to their opinion that your arguments are shit as you have to your opinion that they are not; and that opinions are irrelevant to facts.
If you are not in jail, on a gallows, or strapped to a bonfire, then it's pretty much a certainty that you have yet to say something that you are not allowed to say.
If you are right, prove it. If you can't prove it, you have no right to have it believed by others.
If you can prove it, and people still refuse to believe it, then those people are idiots. There has never been a world shortage of idiots; railing against them is futile.
But the simple fact that your opinions are not accepted by the masses doesn't indicate that it is the masses who are indulging in idiocy. Someone's an idiot, but the smart money is on the idiots being the minority; and even when they are a majority, the idiots are always the ones who lose the debate in the long term.
Things are always moving slowly in the direction of reason. You might be dead before your ideas become accepted, but that's OK, as long as it's all about the ideas.
If you think it's all about you, you are likely out of luck. But at least you have the consolation of knowing that the worst thing they will do to you is call you an idiot. For almost all of human history, saying things that were not allowed meant imprisonment, torture, or death.
This distinction is absolutely vital. Unless the stupid shit is actually causing clear and immediate danger (like an incitement to violence), it should be "tolerated" and subjected to the marketplace of ideas, where it can be ridiculed and dismissed or ignored. But the thought police and language police should have no place in a modern enlightened society. Yes that goes for racism, sexism, and most of the other isms out there. Saying "I agree with Richard Spencer" (as somebody mentioned above) on such and such a point should be tolerated, and the man may even have a few good points hidden in what he says. I would go beyond allowing him to speak. I would actually listen to him, because exposing and rebutting bad ideas is how bad ideas are defeated. Censoring bad ideas only makes them attractive by taboo and fought for move vigorously as we look like we are trying to hide something.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,343
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
These things ARE tolerated.
The 'thought police' and 'language police' don't set you on fire, hang you from a noose, or throw you in a dungeon.
What kind of pathetic snowflake cheapens the actual suffering of millions throughout history in the name of reason by comparing that suffering to the horror of being called a racist by someone whose opinions they profess not to accept?
Some idiot thinks I'm a racist - that's indistinguishable from them having me executed.
The only powers the 'thought police' have are the power to ridicule, dismiss or ignore. These are the things you yourself accept should happen to ideas that fail to survive in the marketplace of reason.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
I'm sorry, but in terms of my post I am making a clear distinction between intolerance and outright oppression. I don't think the ideas perpetuated by ethnic replacing conspiracy nuts among others deserve to even be considered because that would mean I'd have to take them seriously and I just cannot. It's counterproductive to argue with obstinance born from ignorance. I think a better way is to present to them why they are wrong in a concise and easily understandable manner and if they chose to double down, then yeah people like that shouldn't be respected beyond basic common decency.(You know not assaulting/killing them/threatening them) They shouldn't be listened to as if their ideas have merit. They should be maligned when they speak and made into public pariahs, such is how society should rightly reject them.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
I take this as an argument against the idea that we must learn, once again, to ignore conservatives and their ridiculous arguments in favor of keeping the parts of the status quo that have been proven to be faulty, dangerous, unworkable in the context of our modern, constantly changing world. That it is alright for conservatives to defend racism, xenophobia, etc. or to deny things like history or scientific discoveries or other established facts, especially when they do it apparently unknowingly in the service of a small but highly influential minority of the population interested only in the capture of as much of the income and wealth of the nation for themselves as possible.
That conservatives and reactionaries deserve to be heard, that their arguments in favor of tradition and the way that things always have been are just as valid as any other ideas even though they can only be supported by a constant stream of ever changing and conflicting lies and distortions and outright fantasies. Even though treating their bullsh*t agruments as possibly being equal to reality has multiplied these bullsh*t ideas to the point that because of them we have elected a certifiably insane, treasonous moron into the presidency of the US and because of all of this we now stand on the brink of destroying the gift of more than two hundred and fifty years of ever improving democracy that was passed to us.
Is this what this thread is about? Or am I misreading it?
That conservatives and reactionaries deserve to be heard, that their arguments in favor of tradition and the way that things always have been are just as valid as any other ideas even though they can only be supported by a constant stream of ever changing and conflicting lies and distortions and outright fantasies. Even though treating their bullsh*t agruments as possibly being equal to reality has multiplied these bullsh*t ideas to the point that because of them we have elected a certifiably insane, treasonous moron into the presidency of the US and because of all of this we now stand on the brink of destroying the gift of more than two hundred and fifty years of ever improving democracy that was passed to us.
Is this what this thread is about? Or am I misreading it?
sharon45
Veteran Member
This is merely hopeful.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,343
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
No, it is an historical observation.
sharon45
Veteran Member
And I see that it is not positive to keep ultimately backing up supposed reason with ever more effective and dangerous weapons.
untermensche
Contributor
Donald Trump was just elected president.
We are in Wonderland. The crazies have taken over.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
Nobody needs to be hysterical.
Kilgore Trout
Member
bilby said:
Isn't this basically just because of the idea that winners write history? Whatever the current society thinks is considered reasonable by that society. For example, if say, 100 years from now, creationists made up 90% of the populace, they are going to say that "reason" finally won on that issue.