Very few issues have both sides. Booleans yes, they have exactly two equally valid values. Coins also have both sides. But most issues are neither coins nor booleans.
5 minutes for each is better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else.
And just about everyone thinks they're the oppressed ones, and includes it in their messaging. Including literally Hitler. (His being thrown in jail is arguably the best thing that could have happened to the Nazis in the mid 20s IIRC)
Yep, assuming there are two equally valid positions for everything, because they have a two-party system, so there must be for every topic a GOP side and a Democrat side. Never mind that both parties have often similar bad policies on any topic, in which case you fool yourself believing to be objective while you are only repeating bipartisan dogma.
"Better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else". No, the critics of two-party systems don't want a single party system like Soviet Russia. They want multipartism.
And science has sometimes settled on only one theory. And in other times may have four different competing hypotheses. And other times just no idea whatsoever.
The positive side of both-sideism is that it's very easy. Count the number of sides being presented. Complain if it's not two. Being very lazy myself, I value that.
I hold the opinion that slavery is bad. I think books that advocate for slavery are abhorrent. I guess the next step really is Soviet Russia. Well done you for pointing that out.
And who gets to decide who gets none? Because I assure you, the same people crying out now that it's "totally okay to cut out one 'side' of something", are the same people who in an environment with a non-agreeable majority insist on the sanctity of the minority position, and that the majority be forced to at least recognize and incorporate parts of it's viewpoint in terms of making concessions for the sake of representing everyone.
This is the structural issue that underpins the criticality of active non-optimization through not engaging in the active suppression of bad ideas, but in the reiteration that bad ideas exist, and here's why they are classed as bad ideas.
It may not be popular, but I'm not kicking the Neo-Nazis off the stage to satisfy some thought by an accidental current majority, because that would set the precedent where if everything I hold dear (equal opportunity, free access to information, aid for those in need, equality under the law, right to autonomy, safety from foreign influences, effective representation, a government constrained by a mandate it conduct business through due process, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), heaven forbid, should it ever become relegated to the same "fringe" status by some horrible sequence of events, would be similarly revoked of it's time in the air, and rightly so, as I very clearly communicated how I wished to be treated by reserving the right to silence in a position of power. I have faith that no matter how much what I value gets attacked by bad ideas, it'll always tend to come out on top, and produce better outcomes in the long run.
I'm sorry. I'm not willing to sacrifice the moral or pragmatic high ground here, because someone can't relegate some rambling to the mental bit bucket, or has such a small mind as to be deluded into thinking that Liberty should by definition only empower things they like.
I may not agree at all with the repugnants, but I will fight to the death for them. Someone's gotta be there. If no one is, then we've already given in to might makes right. If there is at least one principled person though; one spark, there is still hope for the downtrodden and the damned, to whom I refuse to deny the right to the pursuit of their happiness; even if there is a status quo that renders the legs they need to achieve it incredibly unlikely. They have the right to champion their own cause.
For example you look at the history and look whether something was more helpful than harmful (eg: fascist propaganda)
or you look at the science and look whether something is a real theory or barely an hypothesis whose flaws are well-documented.
Basically, instead of saying "GOP says it's raining and Democrats says the weather is nice", you look at the facts and open your window.
> That would set the precedent where if everything I hold dear (...) become relegated to the same "fringe" status by some horrible sequence of events
That scenario exists merely in your slippery slope fallacy.
Meanwhile, fascist propaganda has been proven to do huge damage on this very planet of Earth.
Real freedom follows the principle 'the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins'. In the US it seems to mean: 'I must be free to do everything including harming people. If I can't harm others, I'm not really free'
I don't believe that many people believes seriously in 'free' speech absolutism. Are you for abolishing libel laws? Prohibiting non-disclosure agreement? Because they hinder practical free speech more than hate speech laws.
>That scenario exists merely in your slippery slope fallacy.
It does huh? When I was growing up, I'd chance upon some people with thoroughly unpleasant opinions. Everyone in the neighborhood knew about them. Everyone ignored them. Nowadays, you've got mobs coordinating amongst one another to inflict harm on someone over a disagreeable worldview.
So no, that it exists only in my mind is, and always will be hogwash. Once again, it takes someone principled to stare down the angry mob and say "not one step further, y'all cool it."
I'm absolutely fine with doing away with NDAs as a recognized legal instrument to be quite honest. The conscience of good men being burdened or weighed down when justice demands one speak out is one of the legal system's longest standing shames in my opinion.
Libel reflects more on the character of the Libeler than of the Libeled, and the truth is a foolproof remedy, which makes it obvious to everyone who the fool/scoundrel in the room is. If anything, one can have Libel laws utilized as a powerful tool of oppression, particularly when wielded by those with disproportionate power or means at their disposal.
That Liberty invites the possibility of poor behavior or the actual exercise of freedoms unencumbered by threat of a nebulous System is a fear I am 100% familiar with, and okay with. It's worth it. There are more people on Earth looking to place fetters on everyone else that I don't see any reason to encourage anyone to do so no matter the convenience.
>Real freedom follows the principle 'the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins'.
Congratulations. You just made my point why a library is best served in stock books that it's community may not like, in the interests of creating availability for the reader that just might need it! Or why free speech absolutism is the most prudent treatment of speech! Anything less is one person treading on another's freedom.
Good of the goose, good of the gander. You don't get to silence one group, (your freedom) because (your freedom) stops where their freedom begins. You may think it's a good idea. They may be really annoying to you. But just as you get to voice your bit, they get theirs. Anything else is self-referential inconsistency, to which the punishment is beatings with an organic carrot. No exceptions.
On the subject of "the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins", what's happened to the Jamestown library is two rights colliding head on:
* The right of the library to freely collect and exhibit whatever information it pleases, a freedom of expression.
* The right of the taxpayers to freely decide how their tax dollars are spent, a freedom of association.
The library absolutely has their right to free expression, but so long as they use public money to operate, that right to free expression ends where the taxpayers' right to free association begins.
In this particular case, both rights were exercised and respected. The library is still free to collect and exhibit as it pleases, but not on the dime of taxpayers; and taxpayers no longer have to pay for a library they are not satisfied with.
Does Pablo Escobar belong in that conversation? Or am I like many others who have just been exposed to the show Narcos which makes up the entirety of our Colombian experience?
A button for 'disagree strongly' should upvote a comment.
When Einstein and Niels Bohr 'strongly disagree' on quantum physics in 1927, they start a debate that makes both of them more enlightened.
When a bullshit artist, who couldn't care less about the truth, hijack a discussion to make it all about Him (it's almost always a dude), everyone become dumber.
"Moving along" is not enough because the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it.
I have seen 25 years of internet trolling and this kind of attitude is gendered yes. Not in a binary way but in a bimodal one. I could have avoided the point because it's obvious though. I don't hate men because as you found out I'm one myself.
I can't do that in general.
Certain attitudes OTOH are heavily gendered, like the psychology behind internet trolls who at the simplest level is that they want everyone's attention to orbit around them.
For women online in particular I'm pretty sure lots of them would rather enjoy less attention on them personally. Too much it not pleasant for _them_. I'm thinking in particular about friends who are content creators, minding her own business and receive comments on her look, insults, sexist comments, unsolicited dick pics, rape and death threats,... I'm sure sexism has nothing to do with that.
OK I'm done on this topic. Maybe there are a lots of women behind internet trolls and then I'm wrong, that's an empirical question. My comment was on "strongly disagree" vs "bullshitting"
So men are the only people who comment without revealing their gender? What about trans individuals? Does that mean I can reliably mask my gender by deciding whether or not I mention it in my comments and posts?
And this still doesn't answer what rules you or the men's talk expert you asked use. Anybody can claim they have "a lifetime of experience" in anything they want, but without either an empirical success rate or a set of explicit testable rules, it's all bullshit out of their ass.
>We have a lifetime of experience listening to a man's point of view.
I and a lot of other men have a lifetime of experience listening to women's point of view too, and yet I can find no sane man who claims they can identify gender from text, unless in very special cases.
Sounds like a U.S. thing too. Worshipping of rich people, who must be rich because they are virtuous (Weber) therefore if you copy their habits you can be virtuous too, become rich and go to paradise.
On my way to make 9 babies in order to become the next Elon Musk.
Of course people in other countries do this, but anecdotally it does seem to be more common in the US. I think it's something to do with the American dream.
I have lived in France and Germany and 95+% of the articles I have seen that follow this exact pattern to use as selling argument for $SomeTechnique$ the exact number of millions or billions someone made using $SomeTechnique$ were from the US.
Perhaps you don't pay attention. It striked me because I couldn't care less about the lives of billionaires. People laugh at the 9 years old girl who wants to become Madonna but that dream is no more irrealistic and is IMHO less stupid than becoming Elon Musk.
And no, I'm not gonna make 9 babies. If I have a child one day I want to do half of the parenting.
The spirit of capitalism comes from the US and has a religious background.
Nowadays, many countries have a strong US cultural influence, no shit.
I wish I was smart enough to make this up, but it all comes from this very famous book which summary I provided.
Maybe reading books is not your thing, but I find it interesting.
It's not even hypocrisy, they believe there are not bad things but only bad people doing it. Like in the Harry Potter book where slavery is not bad per se, only when done by bad people. If Harry Potter owns a slave that's fine because Harry is good.
