The purpose of a safe space, meanwhile, is actually to allow for a free and frank discussion
You can't "allow for a free and frank discussion" by saying that certain subjects cannot be discussed. That's a contradiction in terms that is more than worthy of comparisons to 1984.
You can't have a free and frank discussion if a lot of speakers can't participate without feeling threatened. The discussion will be freer and more frank with some limits in place. Is that clearer for you? The idea that freedom can be enhanced by rules is surely not a controversial one.
This would be laudable, except you think that too. Your threshold for the range of views and opinions might be calibrated differently, but it's non-zero.
Your evidence for that being?
I'm of the "I hate what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" school of thought.
You agreed to the rules when you joined. You enforced them when you were a host. You help define them when you were admin. At no point did you say "I can't support this" and withdraw.
I rest my case.
If we allowed racism and homophobia on the Ship (bearing in mind some shipmates don't think we crack down on that hard enough), do you think we'd have any non-white or gay shipmates left? I prefer their company to racists and homophobes, frankly.
It's perfectly understandable to prefer the company of those you like, but that's how echo chambers (or whatever stripe) form.
It's either/or, not both/and. It's either racists and homophobes, or POC and gay folk. I know where I stand, and with whom.
This would be laudable, except you think that too. Your threshold for the range of views and opinions might be calibrated differently, but it's non-zero.
Your evidence for that being?
I'm of the "I hate what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" school of thought.
You agreed to the rules when you joined. You enforced them when you were a host. You help define them when you were admin. At no point did you say "I can't support this" and withdraw.
I rest my case.
If we allowed racism and homophobia on the Ship (bearing in mind some shipmates don't think we crack down on that hard enough), do you think we'd have any non-white or gay shipmates left? I prefer their company to racists and homophobes, frankly.
It's perfectly understandable to prefer the company of those you like, but that's how echo chambers (or whatever stripe) form.
It's either/or, not both/and. It's either racists and homophobes, or POC and gay folk. I know where I stand, and with whom.
This is true and was alluded to up thread. In places where fully free speech of the kind apparently being advocated for, such as 4chan, the extreme views dominate.
Sorry - do I get you right? We should allow racism on the Ship?
Depends what you mean by that. Racial insults and trolling would be prohibited along with any other personal insults and trolling. But should we allow critical discussion of differences between races and cultures? The pros of Empire? The cons of immigration? Support for dress codes in schools and offices? Whether it's OK for white people to wear kimonos?
A simple "we don't allow racism here" could be used to prohibit any of the above, and more.
SOF sort of has a "we don't allow racism here" and yet still those topica are allowed.
Said this to you before, but it bears repeating. There is no such thing as completely free speech. Giving one person/group the right to say anything they wish impinges on the freedom of some other person/group. It is why most, if not all, countries have limits on free speech. One can argue about where the limits should be, but arguing that there should be no limits merely enhances the position of the people who have power.
I suppose what we are discussing it not whether we favour free speech or not but what are the acceptable limits. The limits, ISTM, relate to content and context. Respecting content, the question is that of whether or not it is an incitement to violent public disorder, particular when directed against individuals or groups. Context concerns place: a public space in a particular location, a university lecture or tutorial, a private residence, private correspondence, posts on ship of fools, a newspaper, a telephone conversation, parliament(ary privilege, pulpit and debating society. My strong preference is that any proposal for the abridgement of the right of free speech should be regarded with great suspicion, especially when dressed in touchy-feely sheep's clothing.
Likewise, if someone proposes that they can't say what they want because of those pesky rules, it's an infringement of free speech, etc, they're probably the reason why we have those rules in the first place.
Sorry - do I get you right? We should allow racism on the Ship?
Depends what you mean by that. Racial insults and trolling would be prohibited along with any other personal insults and trolling. But should we allow critical discussion of differences between races and cultures? The pros of Empire? The cons of immigration? Support for dress codes in schools and offices? Whether it's OK for white people to wear kimonos?
A simple "we don't allow racism here" could be used to prohibit any of the above, and more.
Well, perhaps you might want to address the paragraph in my post you didn't quote.
I ignored it because we on the Ship have to follow the law whether we like it or not. The rest we have control over.
Well, I did ask whether you thought the law was wrong as well, and whether we as a country should allow neo-Nazis to express their views.
Yes, I think we should. Stalinists too.
The whole point of human rights is that everyone has them. So if freedom of speech is to be considered a human right (which I think it is) then that has to apply to everyone, whatever I personally may think of their views.
Likewise, if someone proposes that they can't say what they want because of those pesky rules, it's an infringement of free speech, etc, they're probably the reason why we have those rules in the first place.
But I think the rules of the Ship are a red herring in this discussion. The rules of the Ship allow you to say most things, up to and including 'The Srebrenica massacre was fabricated by NATO' and 'the death toll in the Holocaust has been exaggerated' (and yes, both of those things have been said).
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
Sorry - do I get you right? We should allow racism on the Ship?
Depends what you mean by that. Racial insults and trolling would be prohibited along with any other personal insults and trolling. But should we allow critical discussion of differences between races and cultures? The pros of Empire? The cons of immigration? Support for dress codes in schools and offices? Whether it's OK for white people to wear kimonos?
A simple "we don't allow racism here" could be used to prohibit any of the above, and more.
Well, perhaps you might want to address the paragraph in my post you didn't quote.
I ignored it because we on the Ship have to follow the law whether we like it or not. The rest we have control over.
Well, I did ask whether you thought the law was wrong as well, and whether we as a country should allow neo-Nazis to express their views.
Yes, I think we should. Stalinists too.
The whole point of human rights is that everyone has them. So if freedom of speech is to be considered a human right (which I think it is) then that has to apply to everyone, whatever I personally may think of their views.
I think not having people incite that you be murdered is a human right. And one that takes precedence over the free speech of the one doing the inciting. YMMV.
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
Not to mention a recent thread where a political grouping on the Ship were repeatedly tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the late 20th Century.
Sorry - do I get you right? We should allow racism on the Ship?
Depends what you mean by that. Racial insults and trolling would be prohibited along with any other personal insults and trolling. But should we allow critical discussion of differences between races and cultures? The pros of Empire? The cons of immigration? Support for dress codes in schools and offices? Whether it's OK for white people to wear kimonos?
A simple "we don't allow racism here" could be used to prohibit any of the above, and more.
Well, perhaps you might want to address the paragraph in my post you didn't quote.
I ignored it because we on the Ship have to follow the law whether we like it or not. The rest we have control over.
Well, I did ask whether you thought the law was wrong as well, and whether we as a country should allow neo-Nazis to express their views.
Yes, I think we should. Stalinists too.
The whole point of human rights is that everyone has them. So if freedom of speech is to be considered a human right (which I think it is) then that has to apply to everyone, whatever I personally may think of their views.
Said this to you before, but it bears repeating. There is no such thing as completely free speech. Giving one person/group the right to say anything they wish impinges on the freedom of some other person/group. It is why most, if not all, countries have limits on free speech. One can argue about where the limits should be, but arguing that there should be no limits merely enhances the position of the people who have power.
This would be laudable, except you think that too. Your threshold for the range of views and opinions might be calibrated differently, but it's non-zero.
Your evidence for that being?
I'm of the "I hate what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" school of thought.
You agreed to the rules when you joined. You enforced them when you were a host. You help define them when you were admin. At no point did you say "I can't support this" and withdraw.
I rest my case.
Then it's a pretty weak case. I'm perfectly able to abide by - and even enforce - rules that I personally disagree with for the sake of a higher purpose. Yes, as an Admin I helped define the rules, but as you well know that's a collaborative process and not every decision is a unanimous one. If I walked away from places every time a policy decision didn't go the way I wanted then I'd have literally nowhere left to go (and yes, that includes my own home!).
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
I agree. I wish posters would demolish people's arguments in terms not laden with invective.
(I would also add my intuition that many people's hearts here are in most matters more conservative than what might be guessed from their posts).
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
Not to mention a recent thread where a political grouping on the Ship were repeatedly tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the late 20th Century.
Whereas other political groupings are routinely tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the early 20th Century. Sauce for the goose, and all that - if one is wrong then both are wrong.
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
Not to mention a recent thread where a political grouping on the Ship were repeatedly tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the late 20th Century.
Absolutely, and that is a Bad Thing too, but the near-total lack of Tory posters suggests the effects are vastly more pronounced in one direction.
The purpose of a safe space, meanwhile, is actually to allow for a free and frank discussion
You can't "allow for a free and frank discussion" by saying that certain subjects cannot be discussed. That's a contradiction in terms that is more than worthy of comparisons to 1984.
I'm thinking of Alcoholics Anonymous, which could be considered the original "safe space". Those meetings seem like they're a lot more productive by exercising a certain amount of censorship (e.g. the insistence on anonymity, adherence to the 12 steps, other structural elements of those meetings, etc.) than they would as rhetorical free-for-alls. Sure, they may not provide you with a forum for lecturing people on why they should be listening to Rush Limbaugh (or whatever), but they're arguably a lot more effective at helping people talk about and deal with their drinking problems because of those rules.
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
Not to mention a recent thread where a political grouping on the Ship were repeatedly tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the late 20th Century.
Whereas other political groupings are routinely tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the early 20th Century. Sauce for the goose, and all that - if one is wrong then both are wrong.
Yes, I clearly remember all those threads where Capitalism was decried by pointing to Mussolini, Hitler and Castro.
I am aware that Johnson and Trump have both been described here as having fascist tendencies, and in Trump's case, racist, but that is in response to things they said or did which pointed in that direction. I don't recall anyone using it to denounce the Tory party as intrinsically fascist. Xenophobia has been raised as a reason for Brexit votes, but again, this is in response to xenophobic views expressed by Brexiteers, and the rise in xenophobic hate crime which followed the Brexit referendum.
This would be laudable, except you think that too. Your threshold for the range of views and opinions might be calibrated differently, but it's non-zero.
Your evidence for that being?
I'm of the "I hate what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" school of thought.
You agreed to the rules when you joined. You enforced them when you were a host. You help define them when you were admin. At no point did you say "I can't support this" and withdraw.
I rest my case.
Then it's a pretty weak case. I'm perfectly able to abide by - and even enforce - rules that I personally disagree with for the sake of a higher purpose. Yes, as an Admin I helped define the rules, but as you well know that's a collaborative process and not every decision is a unanimous one. If I walked away from places every time a policy decision didn't go the way I wanted then I'd have literally nowhere left to go (and yes, that includes my own home!).
I'm simply going to shrug at this: you're prepared to fold your opinion that is supposed to be defended to the death.
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
Not to mention a recent thread where a political grouping on the Ship were repeatedly tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the late 20th Century.
Absolutely, and that is a Bad Thing too, but the near-total lack of Tory posters suggests the effects are vastly more pronounced in one direction.
Or alternatively that tories, by and large, can dish it out but can't take it. You're assuming that right and left are equally valid, equally defensible and moral positions. I don't think they are.
You're assuming that right and left are equally valid, equally defensible and moral positions. I don't think they are.
You're entitled not to, but that doesn't require you, or anyone else, to consistently translate the force of that conviction into heated vocabulary. Thus are crusaders born.
You're assuming that right and left are equally valid, equally defensible and moral positions. I don't think they are.
You're entitled not to, but that doesn't require you, or anyone else, to consistently translate the force of that conviction into heated vocabulary. Thus are crusaders born.
You are of course within your rights as an Admin to restrict what language I use where on the ship. I'm not aware that I have butted up against such restrictions but I'm happy to be corrected.
It is interesting, however, that handwringing about right wing speech being restricted has turned into me being warned against being mean to tories.
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
Not to mention a recent thread where a political grouping on the Ship were repeatedly tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the late 20th Century.
Absolutely, and that is a Bad Thing too, but the near-total lack of Tory posters suggests the effects are vastly more pronounced in one direction.
Or alternatively that tories, by and large, can dish it out but can't take it. You're assuming that right and left are equally valid, equally defensible and moral positions. I don't think they are.
But is there a more right wing Christian forum, where presumably lefties are either heavily criticized or are on the run? I assume there are plenty in the US, but how about the UK?
I'd have thought some things wouldn't need to be spelled out explicitly, but not all positions and opinions are equally valid. Some of them are just stupid and should be called out as such.
Injecting disinfectant into human lungs will not cure COVID-19. It will kill or severely injure the subject.
Letting a pandemic spread unchecked to acquire "herd immunity" will almost certainly kill a lot more people than taking steps to mitigate the disease.
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
Not to mention a recent thread where a political grouping on the Ship were repeatedly tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the late 20th Century.
Absolutely, and that is a Bad Thing too, but the near-total lack of Tory posters suggests the effects are vastly more pronounced in one direction.
Or alternatively that tories, by and large, can dish it out but can't take it. You're assuming that right and left are equally valid, equally defensible and moral positions. I don't think they are.
But is there a more right wing Christian forum, where presumably lefties are either heavily criticized or are on the run? I assume there are plenty in the US, but how about the UK?
I'll reiterate something I said upthread: it's really not a lot of fun arguing something from a minority position. I'm recently back from 6 months plus ashore because I'd had enough, and I am someone who has been around for a while and has met a lot of Shippies over the years. I joined the previous boards in 2006 having lurked for a year before then.
These days there are are topics I don't get involved in because I know that my view will not be popular and I can't see the point of getting into the debate. (As an aside, my email from December 2012 suggested religious topics were difficult at the time following the influx from the Dawkins board, which was partly why I was ashore at the time). I can totally understand why people whose point of view or religious affiliation is in the minority choose not to stay, particularly when they don't have a long association with the Ship and/or friendships they've built up over the years.
I suspect one of the things that has changed is a reluctance to use Hell the way it was once used. It seemed to keep Purgatory and the other boards more polite, less abusive and less acerbic when people were called to Hell on the slightest pretext. That reluctance to use Hell seems to be partly in reaction to repeated comments about dog-piling in Hell.
I'd have thought some things wouldn't need to be spelled out explicitly, but not all positions and opinions are equally valid. Some of them are just stupid and should be called out as such.
Injecting disinfectant into human lungs will not cure COVID-19. It will kill or severely injure the subject.
Letting a pandemic spread unchecked to acquire "herd immunity" will almost certainly kill a lot more people than taking steps to mitigate the disease.
Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs.
None of those are opinions, they're facts.
1 - In all fairness, it will kill the virus. The problem is that it will kill the person as well.
2 - Nobody I know of denies that fact. Some people have said it's a price worth paying to avoid the negative impacts of lockdown, which is an opinion.
3 - Nobody I know of seriously denies that fact now, but at the time it was a moot point - I certainly thought he did. I'm no apologist for Bush, Blair or the Iraq War, but we should only judge people's actions on the information they had available to them at the time.
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
Not to mention a recent thread where a political grouping on the Ship were repeatedly tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the late 20th Century.
Absolutely, and that is a Bad Thing too, but the near-total lack of Tory posters suggests the effects are vastly more pronounced in one direction.
Or alternatively that tories, by and large, can dish it out but can't take it. You're assuming that right and left are equally valid, equally defensible and moral positions. I don't think they are.
I don't think the question is whether the opinions are valid but whether the people holding them are worthy of respect.
I don't think the question is whether the opinions are valid but whether the people holding them are worthy of respect.
I'm pretty sure you can hold an idea in contempt without necessarily holding the person advocating it to be contemptible. Sometimes it's impossible though, like advocates of caging small children. The idea is contemptible and expressing that idea invites contempt as well.
You're assuming that right and left are equally valid, equally defensible and moral positions. I don't think they are.
You're entitled not to, but that doesn't require you, or anyone else, to consistently translate the force of that conviction into heated vocabulary. Thus are crusaders born.
You are of course within your rights as an Admin to restrict what language I use where on the ship. I'm not aware that I have butted up against such restrictions but I'm happy to be corrected.
It is interesting, however, that handwringing about right wing speech being restricted has turned into me being warned against being mean to tories.
I was making a general, not a specific case, I wasn't warning anyone about being mean to any political faction (in fact I didn't mention politics at all), and I didn't have my admin tags on.
There is no Ship law against heated language within the bounds of the 10Cs, which draw the line at personal attack, but the temperature of some posters' styles runs noticeably and fairly consistently higher than others'. This applies across the spectrum, but as @Ricardus rightly observes, the conservatives tend to tire faster because they have less support.
Of course we all have different styles, and if the Ship was basically a succession of academic papers it would be quite boring, but as I've said before, nothing puts me off the essence of a position faster than an inability to formulate it dispasionnately at least some of the time.
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
Not to mention a recent thread where a political grouping on the Ship were repeatedly tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the late 20th Century.
Absolutely, and that is a Bad Thing too, but the near-total lack of Tory posters suggests the effects are vastly more pronounced in one direction.
Or alternatively that tories, by and large, can dish it out but can't take it. You're assuming that right and left are equally valid, equally defensible and moral positions. I don't think they are.
I don't think the question is whether the opinions are valid but whether the people holding them are worthy of respect.
Feel free to ask if I feel respected in the Socialism/Capitalism thread. I expect (in Purgatory) to have to defend my views, and I expect my interlocutors to do the same, because that is respectful. It's treating each other as worthy of debate.
Quite. If it's acceptable to dismiss YECs in such a manner for an opinion that, on its own, is largely harmless why is it a problem to be similarly contemptuous of other fallacious and far more damaging ideologies?
It's a question of context. Alan pointed out people he knew with YEC beliefs that had no difficulty taking a maths class, but if they're not willing to apply standard geological tools and methods, they're going to fail geology.
If someone wants to come on here and defend their YEC beliefs, they are free to do so, and we can have a discussion. As long, that is, as one of us doesn't have fingers in ears and is chanting "la la la". I actually know one person who holds YEC beliefs, and yet also agrees with standard geological science. His position is that the Universe was created 6000 years ago specifically to look like it's almost 14 billion years old.
My response to him is simple. We agree that God is omnipotent. It is beyond credibility that God would create the universe 6000 years ago in order to look 14 billion years old, but do a bad job of it. Therefore whether he's right or I'm right about how old the universe is, the universe still behaves as though it's 14 billion years old, and it makes sense to use models and theories that assume that this is true.
Do also note that I'm not dismissing YECs because they hold a largely harmless opinion - I'm dismissing their opinion because it is manifest nonsense that doesn't make an attempt to interact with the data. It's quite clear that you would like to dismiss with contempt some (or perhaps all) right-wing ideologies, which you consider fallacious and harmful. I don't think, however, that most right-wing ideologies display quite such manifest disregard for the data as YEC. I often find left- and right- wing people in broad agreement on the facts, but arguing about interpretation, or about the relative importance of different things.
Again, I'd apply the same standard - for a sensible discussion, you've got to address the data. That might mean arguing that someone's interpretation of the data is wrong, or that the way the data was recorded misses out something important, or that the data is just false, but all of these positions have to be supported to have an actual discussion. Just saying "that's wrong" isn't an argument, it's a blatant contradiction.
I don't think the question is whether the opinions are valid but whether the people holding them are worthy of respect.
I'm pretty sure you can hold an idea in contempt without necessarily holding the person advocating it to be contemptible. Sometimes it's impossible though, like advocates of caging small children. The idea is contemptible and expressing that idea invites contempt as well.
Which is why I hedged by saying 'The question is', rather than 'Every holder of every opinion is worthy of respect'.
Labour supporters on these boards have argued that one reason why Mr Corbyn did badly is because the media lied about him. If media lies had any impact on the election results (i.e., some of the people whom they convinced Corbyn was a Bad Thing weren't already predisposed to believe Corbyn was a Bad Thing), that would imply that a section of Tory voters are honest dupes - invincibly ignorant, in Thomist terms - are sincere in their beliefs, and would be open to persuasion on the basis of the facts. Which is more likely to happen if they are treated with respect.
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
Not to mention a recent thread where a political grouping on the Ship were repeatedly tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the late 20th Century.
Absolutely, and that is a Bad Thing too, but the near-total lack of Tory posters suggests the effects are vastly more pronounced in one direction.
Or alternatively that tories, by and large, can dish it out but can't take it. You're assuming that right and left are equally valid, equally defensible and moral positions. I don't think they are.
I don't think the question is whether the opinions are valid but whether the people holding them are worthy of respect.
Feel free to ask if I feel respected in the Socialism/Capitalism thread.
I refer you to my response to Karl and Arethosemyfeet in the trail you have quoted.
I expect (in Purgatory) to have to defend my views,
You're a left-winger posting on a largely left-wing board.
and I expect my interlocutors to do the same, because that is respectful. It's treating each other as worthy of debate.
Absolutely. The problem is with the sort of post that treats the opposing view as a priori indefensible.
You're a left-winger posting on a largely left-wing board.
I'm pretty certain that I'm far enough left that other left wingers would say "steady on".
I take the point that the Ship is broadly, socially liberal and politically communitarian. But that doesn't have to translate into left-wing politics - Tory wets would be on board with much of that. We're also theologically conservative.
If your point is "left wingers don't draw fire", then you'd be wrong. If you think believing an opposing view is indefensible is, indefensible, then how low do you want to go? There are lots of opinions I view as indefensible, and I'm certain you do too. In the Ship context, it's up to the proposer to try and defend them, not me.
You are spot on about contempt. I think it's the acid test. If any of us cannot stop the contempt for an opinion leaking over into contempt for the Shipmate - and it's entirely reasonable for that to happen - then the Ship remedies are call them to Hell or drop it.
The reasoning is that you are more free to express contempt there than in Purgatory. Sometimes it's hard to Host that line. The general standard is to allow Purg debates to run as hot as possible.
I'm thinking over what CK said. I don't think my own Hosting standard has changed on that. But I'm doing a personal review.
It may be a Styx issue. Thinking about that as well.
Of course we all have different styles, and if the Ship was basically a succession of academic papers it would be quite boring, but as I've said before, nothing puts me off the essence of a position faster than an inability to formulate it dispasionnately at least some of the time.
Conversely, there are times when it's good to see that someone is passionate about something, to know that this is an issue close to their heart that's important to them.
Friends have been mentioned upthread. My perspective is that I'm only somewhat interested in friends on the ship. I'm more interested in something else: fellow shipmates, who share at least some interests, world view, and don't mind remaining engaged when we don't agree and aren't exactly friendly to each other. This is different than friends. Special that.
The question of whether I'm finding less of that sort engagement over time? Probably it ebbs and flows? or is a web forum passé because younger generations want short Tik-Tok videos and the like?
I'd have thought some things wouldn't need to be spelled out explicitly, but not all positions and opinions are equally valid. Some of them are just stupid and should be called out as such.
The problem is that there is no consensus about the location of the line between just stupid and merely wrong, or for that matter between just stupid and true. All one can really say is that so far all the good arguments one has come across have been on one side of the question, leaving open the possibility that there are good arguments one has not yet come across.
Life is too short to pay attention to arguments for all positions someone might put forward under all circumstances. But a debate board is not all circumstances.
When I see someone arguing in favour of Brexit using facts I'll happily engage seriously with them. Hasn't happened yet.
How about the fact that when Brexit happens we won’t have to follow EU law? Is that not a fact?
I’ve no intention of rehashing any of the arguments here. All I’m doing is pointing out that what I just said is a fact, and one that was used to argue in favour of Brexit. Whether you think it’s a good thing or not is a matter of opinion, not fact.
When I see someone arguing in favour of Brexit using facts I'll happily engage seriously with them. Hasn't happened yet.
How about the fact that when Brexit happens we won’t have to follow EU law? Is that not a fact?
I’ve no intention of rehashing any of the arguments here. All I’m doing is pointing out that what I just said is a fact, and one that was used to argue in favour of Brexit. Whether you think it’s a good thing or not is a matter of opinion, not fact.
Not precisely true. It is pretty demonstrable that it will have a negative effect on a fair amount of people. Already has. So as close to objectively not good as that can get.
I think Marvin's point is that the pros and cons can be argued without lapsing into assertions of stupidity. Personally I think the cons outweigh the pros.
I think Marvin's point is that the pros and cons can be argued without lapsing into assertions of stupidity. Personally I think the cons outweigh the pros.
I'm not sure it can. The evidence was there that Brexit would harm many of those who supported it. It is not exactly an intelligent thing to vote for something that will give one no benefit whilst causing one harm.
There are stupid arguments out there, pretending otherwise is a false sense of balance. And it can be harmful, cf the climate change "debate".
And there are subjects where the very "debate" is an assault on the subject of the debate. Race, gender, etc. Playing nice is already a disadvantage to one side of those.
It is not a case where everything is presenting one's case and tally up the results. Life is not that clean or simple.
The whole point of human rights is that everyone has them. So if freedom of speech is to be considered a human right (which I think it is) then that has to apply to everyone, whatever I personally may think of their views.
From this it does not follow that they must be allowed the use of any and every pulpit. Just because person X has a right under the law to spew bullshit Y doesn't mean group Z has to let them use their facilities, or funds, or good name.
Comments
You can't have a free and frank discussion if a lot of speakers can't participate without feeling threatened. The discussion will be freer and more frank with some limits in place. Is that clearer for you? The idea that freedom can be enhanced by rules is surely not a controversial one.
I rest my case.
It's either/or, not both/and. It's either racists and homophobes, or POC and gay folk. I know where I stand, and with whom.
This is true and was alluded to up thread. In places where fully free speech of the kind apparently being advocated for, such as 4chan, the extreme views dominate.
Said this to you before, but it bears repeating. There is no such thing as completely free speech. Giving one person/group the right to say anything they wish impinges on the freedom of some other person/group. It is why most, if not all, countries have limits on free speech. One can argue about where the limits should be, but arguing that there should be no limits merely enhances the position of the people who have power.
Yes.
Yes, I think we should. Stalinists too.
The whole point of human rights is that everyone has them. So if freedom of speech is to be considered a human right (which I think it is) then that has to apply to everyone, whatever I personally may think of their views.
But I think the rules of the Ship are a red herring in this discussion. The rules of the Ship allow you to say most things, up to and including 'The Srebrenica massacre was fabricated by NATO' and 'the death toll in the Holocaust has been exaggerated' (and yes, both of those things have been said).
The point is that if all pro-Tory posts are met with a barrage of 'That opinion is stupid and Tories are evil', then Tories will abandon the Ship as surely and effectively as if they were banned by the rules. (And no, we aren't there yet, but I do think we are sailing in that direction.)
I think not having people incite that you be murdered is a human right. And one that takes precedence over the free speech of the one doing the inciting. YMMV.
We've had our fair share of "momentum are all trots and thugs and anti-semites" type posts too.
Not to mention a recent thread where a political grouping on the Ship were repeatedly tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the late 20th Century.
Said this to you before, but it bears repeating. There is no such thing as completely free speech. Giving one person/group the right to say anything they wish impinges on the freedom of some other person/group. It is why most, if not all, countries have limits on free speech. One can argue about where the limits should be, but arguing that there should be no limits merely enhances the position of the people who have power.
Then it's a pretty weak case. I'm perfectly able to abide by - and even enforce - rules that I personally disagree with for the sake of a higher purpose. Yes, as an Admin I helped define the rules, but as you well know that's a collaborative process and not every decision is a unanimous one. If I walked away from places every time a policy decision didn't go the way I wanted then I'd have literally nowhere left to go (and yes, that includes my own home!).
(I would also add my intuition that many people's hearts here are in most matters more conservative than what might be guessed from their posts).
Whereas other political groupings are routinely tarred with the same brush as tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships from the early 20th Century. Sauce for the goose, and all that - if one is wrong then both are wrong.
Absolutely, and that is a Bad Thing too, but the near-total lack of Tory posters suggests the effects are vastly more pronounced in one direction.
I'm thinking of Alcoholics Anonymous, which could be considered the original "safe space". Those meetings seem like they're a lot more productive by exercising a certain amount of censorship (e.g. the insistence on anonymity, adherence to the 12 steps, other structural elements of those meetings, etc.) than they would as rhetorical free-for-alls. Sure, they may not provide you with a forum for lecturing people on why they should be listening to Rush Limbaugh (or whatever), but they're arguably a lot more effective at helping people talk about and deal with their drinking problems because of those rules.
Yes, I clearly remember all those threads where Capitalism was decried by pointing to Mussolini, Hitler and Castro.
I am aware that Johnson and Trump have both been described here as having fascist tendencies, and in Trump's case, racist, but that is in response to things they said or did which pointed in that direction. I don't recall anyone using it to denounce the Tory party as intrinsically fascist. Xenophobia has been raised as a reason for Brexit votes, but again, this is in response to xenophobic views expressed by Brexiteers, and the rise in xenophobic hate crime which followed the Brexit referendum.
I'm simply going to shrug at this: you're prepared to fold your opinion that is supposed to be defended to the death.
Or alternatively that tories, by and large, can dish it out but can't take it. You're assuming that right and left are equally valid, equally defensible and moral positions. I don't think they are.
You are of course within your rights as an Admin to restrict what language I use where on the ship. I'm not aware that I have butted up against such restrictions but I'm happy to be corrected.
It is interesting, however, that handwringing about right wing speech being restricted has turned into me being warned against being mean to tories.
But is there a more right wing Christian forum, where presumably lefties are either heavily criticized or are on the run? I assume there are plenty in the US, but how about the UK?
Injecting disinfectant into human lungs will not cure COVID-19. It will kill or severely injure the subject.
Letting a pandemic spread unchecked to acquire "herd immunity" will almost certainly kill a lot more people than taking steps to mitigate the disease.
Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs.
There are some on Facebook.
These days there are are topics I don't get involved in because I know that my view will not be popular and I can't see the point of getting into the debate. (As an aside, my email from December 2012 suggested religious topics were difficult at the time following the influx from the Dawkins board, which was partly why I was ashore at the time). I can totally understand why people whose point of view or religious affiliation is in the minority choose not to stay, particularly when they don't have a long association with the Ship and/or friendships they've built up over the years.
I suspect one of the things that has changed is a reluctance to use Hell the way it was once used. It seemed to keep Purgatory and the other boards more polite, less abusive and less acerbic when people were called to Hell on the slightest pretext. That reluctance to use Hell seems to be partly in reaction to repeated comments about dog-piling in Hell.
None of those are opinions, they're facts.
1 - In all fairness, it will kill the virus. The problem is that it will kill the person as well.
2 - Nobody I know of denies that fact. Some people have said it's a price worth paying to avoid the negative impacts of lockdown, which is an opinion.
3 - Nobody I know of seriously denies that fact now, but at the time it was a moot point - I certainly thought he did. I'm no apologist for Bush, Blair or the Iraq War, but we should only judge people's actions on the information they had available to them at the time.
I don't think the question is whether the opinions are valid but whether the people holding them are worthy of respect.
I'm pretty sure you can hold an idea in contempt without necessarily holding the person advocating it to be contemptible. Sometimes it's impossible though, like advocates of caging small children. The idea is contemptible and expressing that idea invites contempt as well.
I was making a general, not a specific case, I wasn't warning anyone about being mean to any political faction (in fact I didn't mention politics at all), and I didn't have my admin tags on.
There is no Ship law against heated language within the bounds of the 10Cs, which draw the line at personal attack, but the temperature of some posters' styles runs noticeably and fairly consistently higher than others'. This applies across the spectrum, but as @Ricardus rightly observes, the conservatives tend to tire faster because they have less support.
Of course we all have different styles, and if the Ship was basically a succession of academic papers it would be quite boring, but as I've said before, nothing puts me off the essence of a position faster than an inability to formulate it dispasionnately at least some of the time.
Feel free to ask if I feel respected in the Socialism/Capitalism thread. I expect (in Purgatory) to have to defend my views, and I expect my interlocutors to do the same, because that is respectful. It's treating each other as worthy of debate.
That's another key point. Do we come here to have our ideas challenged, or to seek to impose them?
Or to add them to the conversation?
It's a question of context. Alan pointed out people he knew with YEC beliefs that had no difficulty taking a maths class, but if they're not willing to apply standard geological tools and methods, they're going to fail geology.
If someone wants to come on here and defend their YEC beliefs, they are free to do so, and we can have a discussion. As long, that is, as one of us doesn't have fingers in ears and is chanting "la la la". I actually know one person who holds YEC beliefs, and yet also agrees with standard geological science. His position is that the Universe was created 6000 years ago specifically to look like it's almost 14 billion years old.
My response to him is simple. We agree that God is omnipotent. It is beyond credibility that God would create the universe 6000 years ago in order to look 14 billion years old, but do a bad job of it. Therefore whether he's right or I'm right about how old the universe is, the universe still behaves as though it's 14 billion years old, and it makes sense to use models and theories that assume that this is true.
Do also note that I'm not dismissing YECs because they hold a largely harmless opinion - I'm dismissing their opinion because it is manifest nonsense that doesn't make an attempt to interact with the data. It's quite clear that you would like to dismiss with contempt some (or perhaps all) right-wing ideologies, which you consider fallacious and harmful. I don't think, however, that most right-wing ideologies display quite such manifest disregard for the data as YEC. I often find left- and right- wing people in broad agreement on the facts, but arguing about interpretation, or about the relative importance of different things.
Again, I'd apply the same standard - for a sensible discussion, you've got to address the data. That might mean arguing that someone's interpretation of the data is wrong, or that the way the data was recorded misses out something important, or that the data is just false, but all of these positions have to be supported to have an actual discussion. Just saying "that's wrong" isn't an argument, it's a blatant contradiction.
Which is why I hedged by saying 'The question is', rather than 'Every holder of every opinion is worthy of respect'.
Labour supporters on these boards have argued that one reason why Mr Corbyn did badly is because the media lied about him. If media lies had any impact on the election results (i.e., some of the people whom they convinced Corbyn was a Bad Thing weren't already predisposed to believe Corbyn was a Bad Thing), that would imply that a section of Tory voters are honest dupes - invincibly ignorant, in Thomist terms - are sincere in their beliefs, and would be open to persuasion on the basis of the facts. Which is more likely to happen if they are treated with respect.
I refer you to my response to Karl and Arethosemyfeet in the trail you have quoted.
You're a left-winger posting on a largely left-wing board.
Absolutely. The problem is with the sort of post that treats the opposing view as a priori indefensible.
I'm pretty certain that I'm far enough left that other left wingers would say "steady on".
I take the point that the Ship is broadly, socially liberal and politically communitarian. But that doesn't have to translate into left-wing politics - Tory wets would be on board with much of that. We're also theologically conservative.
If your point is "left wingers don't draw fire", then you'd be wrong. If you think believing an opposing view is indefensible is, indefensible, then how low do you want to go? There are lots of opinions I view as indefensible, and I'm certain you do too. In the Ship context, it's up to the proposer to try and defend them, not me.
You are spot on about contempt. I think it's the acid test. If any of us cannot stop the contempt for an opinion leaking over into contempt for the Shipmate - and it's entirely reasonable for that to happen - then the Ship remedies are call them to Hell or drop it.
The reasoning is that you are more free to express contempt there than in Purgatory. Sometimes it's hard to Host that line. The general standard is to allow Purg debates to run as hot as possible.
I'm thinking over what CK said. I don't think my own Hosting standard has changed on that. But I'm doing a personal review.
It may be a Styx issue. Thinking about that as well.
The question of whether I'm finding less of that sort engagement over time? Probably it ebbs and flows? or is a web forum passé because younger generations want short Tik-Tok videos and the like?
Life is too short to pay attention to arguments for all positions someone might put forward under all circumstances. But a debate board is not all circumstances.
How about the fact that when Brexit happens we won’t have to follow EU law? Is that not a fact?
I’ve no intention of rehashing any of the arguments here. All I’m doing is pointing out that what I just said is a fact, and one that was used to argue in favour of Brexit. Whether you think it’s a good thing or not is a matter of opinion, not fact.
There are stupid arguments out there, pretending otherwise is a false sense of balance. And it can be harmful, cf the climate change "debate".
And there are subjects where the very "debate" is an assault on the subject of the debate. Race, gender, etc. Playing nice is already a disadvantage to one side of those.
It is not a case where everything is presenting one's case and tally up the results. Life is not that clean or simple.
From this it does not follow that they must be allowed the use of any and every pulpit. Just because person X has a right under the law to spew bullshit Y doesn't mean group Z has to let them use their facilities, or funds, or good name.