Make stupidity illegal

[FatAndFaithless]

freedom means the freedom to be an idiot

But then they get elected and the whole concept goes out the window.

Eeyup. At least there are term limits. And I still think the younger generations are going to keep getting more and more skeptical and mindful, seeing that the level of information availability nowadays is insanely high compared to any previous generations.

[bladevalant546]

Oppressive censorship is always easiest to implement against the unpopular and seemingly most deserving members of society. Once they're out of the way, the censors find themselves with a lot of power and few people to exercise it against. So they start expanding the meaning of "stupid."

Always the slippery slope no? However, surely there is a balance I mean look at the South man....it is turning into a dystopia, as minimalist stated. The whole game changes once the idiots get elected. Free speech (unchained) is made for an educated population. With out that, then you give the freedom for people to be well destructive against others.

[Dystopia]

Oppressive censorship is always easiest to implement against the unpopular and seemingly most deserving members of society. Once they're out of the way, the censors find themselves with a lot of power and few people to exercise it against. So they start expanding the meaning of "stupid."

Always the slippery slope no? However, surely there is a balance I mean look at the South man....it is turning into a dystopia, as minimalist stated. The whole game changes once the idiots get elected. Free speech (unchained) is made for an educated population. With out that, then you give the freedom for people to be well destructive against others.

I don't like the concept of freedom of speech as Americans put it, almost unlimited, but I also don't like what happens in some European countries where there's a culture of political correct opinions and having an unpopular opinion will automatically make you a racist or a close minded person. Example, insulting Islam being a crime.

In my opinion, freedom of speech should be illegal if it endangers others or the entire society. If it is merely an opinion, then OK.

[bladevalant546]

Blackout, that I could live with. I mean what I mostly is against is I am against X because my X belief/political part/pundit talking point said so, and I will not objectively analyze it. I am not for banning expression or speech. However, where is the line between reckless stupidity such as global warming denial, or repression of technology, or social progress with out debate? Even now we are at least all bringing something forward that make valid points. However, when do we say, ok that opinion is not helping us, or that belief is holding society back? Those is the questions and scenarios that grind my gears.

[DramaQueen]

I feel your frustration.
In libya. it's the other way around, you have to be an idiot.

[Tonus]

Always the slippery slope no? However, surely there is a balance I mean look at the South man....it is turning into a dystopia, as minimalist stated.

I see it as the price we pay. To be honest, I was just as keen on free speech rights when I was a conservative religious person. I lack faith that the people in power would use that kind of power responsibly. In our right/left two party system, you're only one election cycle away from giving a powerful legislative tool to one party or the other and leaving their opponents with few options to stop them.

[bladevalant546]

Always the slippery slope no? However, surely there is a balance I mean look at the South man....it is turning into a dystopia, as minimalist stated.

I see it as the price we pay. To be honest, I was just as keen on free speech rights when I was a conservative religious person. I lack faith that the people in power would use that kind of power responsibly. In our right/left two party system, you're only one election cycle away from giving a powerful legislative tool to one party or the other and leaving their opponents with few options to stop them.

I can see your point, it is sad price to pay no?

[Tonus]

I can see your point, it is sad price to pay no?

It is. As Courtney said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. In other words, knowing that the worst elements of free society will always try to use that freedom against us. The positive side being that we can use that same freedom to help keep them from crossing those boundaries. The advent of 24/7 social media has helped on both of those fronts, though I think it hurts the worst elements more because it's tougher for them to deny that they said or planned something horrible when their words are bouncing around the cloud.

[ManMachine]

I believe in the freedom of speech and thought. However, at what point should we tolerate stupidity? When I see countless comments how global warming is fake, wanting free education or healthcare to stimulate and maximize education and health makes you immoral, or how I.C.E cars are going to be replaced by EVs are a pipe dream. When the defense of those ideals are because the GOP or some conservative talking point/shills say so. How much of that should we actually tolerate? I am finding that allowing stupidity to breed is doing more harm that good.

Even though the average temperature of the Earth is rising, this is, as the statement points out, an average and that this 'average' rise can also lead to localised cooling in some parts of the world due to a process called 'thermohaline circulation'. While it is not exactly fake, 'global warming' is a phrase used to describe a generalised characteristic of global temperatures and not the actual issues we are likely to face in our own local climates.

The philosophy behind environmental issues is not openly debated often enough, unfortunately the political debate got stuck on the 'fake'/'not fake' issue for too long and now it seems the philosophical debate has got obfuscated by the politics. Philosophically there is still a very important debate to be had;

Should we be attempting to perpetuate the conditions optimal for our mass survival, continue overpopulating the planet and depleting its finite resources?

Evolution, after all, tells us this is folly and that environmental pressure will ultimately drive mutation and change or extinct us completely as it has done (or will do) with every single species that has occupied this planet. Evolution has not marked humanity out as a 'species worth keeping', you can bet the farm on that. Any hope that we can reform and act with global unity flies in the face of everything we know about human history.

These, from what I can see, are the matter of the debate that needs to be had.

Stupidity is not taking the 'wrong' side in an argument, it's failing to question the premise of the entire proposition and blindly buying into the preconceptions that the controlling agencies in this world with a vested interest in the status-quo (i.e. government, business and organised crime) need us to.

MM

[bladevalant546]

I get what you are saying, however there are pundit points that are pollution any debate. What we seen in this topic is how different opinions can still be talked about with civility.