Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 5:51 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Steven Pinker defends free speech
#11
RE: Steven Pinker defends free speech
(November 25, 2014 at 10:08 pm)Mequa Wrote:
(November 25, 2014 at 12:27 pm)Jenny A Wrote: See edits above.
Critical thinking makes the real difference as I see it. Dogmatism breeds bigotry.

Scapegoating "despised" demographics is a method of absolving oneself of personal accountability, and demagogues can do a lot of harm there using such methods. Their aim is not to get people to think.

Again, critical thought, in addition to encouraging freethought as opposed to a herd mentality, seem to make all the difference here.

Free thought requires allowing everyone to speak, even the people you don't agree with. Deciding one type of speech is dogmatism and should therefore be censored is in itself dogmatism and prejudice. Let the bigots speak. The rest of us are plenty capable of responding. We don't need to have the government turn off some kinds of speech. Giving it that power is dangerous.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
#12
RE: Steven Pinker defends free speech
(November 25, 2014 at 11:06 pm)Jenny A Wrote:
(November 25, 2014 at 10:08 pm)Mequa Wrote: Critical thinking makes the real difference as I see it. Dogmatism breeds bigotry.

Scapegoating "despised" demographics is a method of absolving oneself of personal accountability, and demagogues can do a lot of harm there using such methods. Their aim is not to get people to think.

Again, critical thought, in addition to encouraging freethought as opposed to a herd mentality, seem to make all the difference here.

Free thought requires allowing everyone to speak, even the people you don't agree with. Deciding one type of speech is dogmatism and should therefore be censored is in itself dogmatism and prejudice. Let the bigots speak. The rest of us are plenty capable of responding. We don't need to have the government turn off some kinds of speech. Giving it that power is dangerous.

I understand where you're coming from. I'm not sure whether you're USian, Canadian, Irish or UKian, but to stick with the US which probably has the most lax freedom of speech laws - it's a lucky country which now has been a pretty stable democracy for over 200 years. I'm German, and we have several laws in place which restrict hate speech and, of course, in particular of the political and racist kind. I'm not entriely sure about the origin of these laws, it is very well possible that the Americans had their hand in it back in '45-'49. Either way, they were set up to make sure that demagogues like the national socialist party would never get a foothold in society again by taking away their oxygen in the first place. In other words, there was not enough trust in society to regulate itself. In the US, we have this peculiar situation where the state and its founding myth itself are some kind of ersatz religion which may not be shared by the extremist groups in the country, but is embraced by the majority such that extremist anti-democracy ideas don't seem to be able to gain widespread support, even the loony wing of the tea party crowd which is very anti-government I reckon won't go very far. The question is whether the US is really immune to fascist demagogues taking over - one more devastating terror attack which can be pinned on Muslim perps connected with an economic crisis, and the country might just need hate speech laws to keep the American Nazi resurgence at bay. Let's just hope that never happens. In the meantime, we can watch the "arabs" getting killed the slow way.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
#13
RE: Steven Pinker defends free speech
(November 25, 2014 at 11:43 am)Mequa Wrote: Free speech is very important.

I do accept a value pluralist system however, where the ideal of free speech needs to be balanced against proscribing harmful speech. The obvious example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is not a fire. Other examples though, such as promoting hatred, discrimination, and whipping up prejudices, show that there are limits to the acceptable free expression of speech, as this kind of speech clearly causes harm to groups and individuals who neither need nor deserve it.

On the other hand, I think free thought and critical thinking are extremely important, in particular pertaining to social issues. Empathy and compassion are also important however, in my view.

Any thoughts?

Pun intended?

MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci

"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)