I'm reminded that the last person I saw saying that they were withdrawing from the Ship altogether was a transwoman who felt the way the discussion was being carried on was erasing her experience.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
Except they're not are they? They may not be given a platform where the gatekeeper for that platform chooses not to, but there are thousands of homophobes and transphobes out there not being prosecuted for their views.
@Marvin the Martian - there are some perfectly cogent arguments for leaving the European Union, one of which I am actually sympathetic towards. I've just not heard anyone make them here: they've been the usual crypto-racist, anti-immigrant, neo-nationalist and/or revisionist historical tripe that gets wheeled out in lieu of cogent thinking.
Kindly provide a list of acceptable arguments and we promise to try to make them for you.
Personally I think it was people on the Ship who helped convince me the Euro was a lousy idea. And yes, I know the UK doesn't use the Euro as currency.
I'm thinking of the Bennite anti-capitalist, anti-globalist arguments. (Young Master Tor is a proponent, and yes, he puts his points over cogently and compellingly.)
Hmm. Problem is, I suspect it's quite easy to take many 'anti-globalist' comments and paint them as 'anti-immigrant'.
You could, if you were that way inclined. Alternatively, you could make a case for the repatriation of skilled manufacturing jobs on the basis of higher environmental standards, local worker control and more robust supply chains.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Those who have always struggled to exercise their right to free speech. The poor and disadvantaged, the marginalised and powerless.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Those who have always struggled to exercise their right to free speech. The poor and disadvantaged, the marginalised and powerless.
Is that about free speech or about getting your voice heard? It seems to me that they're not the same thing.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
Except they're not are they? They may not be given a platform where the gatekeeper for that platform chooses not to, but there are thousands of homophobes and transphobes out there not being prosecuted for their views.
"Under threat" is not the same as "already gone". If people are actually being arrested for expressing opinions then it's far too late to start worrying about losing the right to freedom of speech.
As an ordinary shipmate for many years now, I think the Ship is a strong and interesting place to be. I have been reading this thread, but cannot follow it quickly enough to take part. I think one of the most important strengths of the Ship is the way that members really do read and respond to the content of other posts rather than treat it as a sort of personal blog space.
Arethosemyfeet: What I presume you mean is that they can't be homophobic and transphobic and avoid getting called on it. By that measure my free speech is under threat because if I call for a left wing government I get called a trot.
I find this kind of rant completely unhelpful because it precludes any discussion that is likely to shed any light, and I, for one, would not wish to become involved.
While, for example, by definition, "transphobic", is deprecated because it denotes irrational and potentially dangerous prejudice, the term is often employed to preclude any discussion on the nature of the "trans" phenomenon, about which so little is known as to its cause. The exploration of the issues involves asking a number of difficult questions, some of which might be regarded as unwelcome or demeaning, though honestly asked. It may be, of course, that the issue is so sensitive that compassion suggests the ship's platform is no better suited to discuss it than Mumsnet. Ideological positioning, though, is no substitute for the search for greater knowledge, whatever the topic.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Those who have always struggled to exercise their right to free speech. The poor and disadvantaged, the marginalised and powerless.
Is that about free speech or about getting your voice heard? It seems to me that they're not the same thing.
If your voice isn't heard then is a theoretical right to free speech of any meaning? If every time you try to peak up you're ignored, how long before you stop speaking? Is the effect of that really that different from not being allowed to speak up?
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Those who have always struggled to exercise their right to free speech. The poor and disadvantaged, the marginalised and powerless.
Is that about free speech or about getting your voice heard? It seems to me that they're not the same thing.
If your voice isn't heard then is a theoretical right to free speech of any meaning? If every time you try to peak up you're ignored, how long before you stop speaking? Is the effect of that really that different from not being allowed to speak up?
I think so, yes. One lies predominantly in the power of the state and other more broadly in society at large. If people shout loud enough and long enough they can start to make their voices heard, as has started to happen for LGBT folk. If you are prevented from speaking then there is no recourse.
But, here we're not talking about the power of the state, but the nature of society and specific communities therein. The LGBT community includes a lot of people who, apart from their sexuality, would expect to be listened to - people with university degrees, celebrities in arts and sports, politicians, journalists etc. The LGBT community includes the poor, disadvantaged and powerless, but also a lot of people who are anything other than powerless and disadvantaged.
We live in a society where people who are rich are listened to because they are rich; if they're also gay then they get to speak up for LGBT rights. We listen to pop stars or successful actors and athletes. These are people with voices, and it's fantastic that they speak up for others (when they do). But the converse of that is that society doesn't listen to the poor, indeed often conveys the impression that because they are poor they don't have anything worth listening too (which sounds remarkably similar to not listening to those advocating Brexit because Brexit is a stupid idea therefore those supporting that can't be saying anything useful).
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Those who have always struggled to exercise their right to free speech. The poor and disadvantaged, the marginalised and powerless.
Is that about free speech or about getting your voice heard? It seems to me that they're not the same thing.
If your voice isn't heard then is a theoretical right to free speech of any meaning? If every time you try to peak up you're ignored, how long before you stop speaking? Is the effect of that really that different from not being allowed to speak up?
I think so, yes. One lies predominantly in the power of the state and other more broadly in society at large. If people shout loud enough and long enough they can start to make their voices heard, as has started to happen for LGBT folk. If you are prevented from speaking then there is no recourse.
Yes. Consider the following two cases...
Members of a creation-science group try to hand out pamphlets saying dinosaurs and humans co-existed, passersby just chuckle and walk away.
Members of a creation-science group hand out pamphlets saying dinosaurs and humans co-existed, get arrested, put on trial, and jailed.
The first case I would see as both sides exercising their democratic right to promote or ignore certain opinions.
The second case I would see as an attack on the very idea of democratic rights.
I think so, yes. One lies predominantly in the power of the state and other more broadly in society at large. If people shout loud enough and long enough they can start to make their voices heard, as has started to happen for LGBT folk. If you are prevented from speaking then there is no recourse.
Fair enough, but as I said in the debate leading up to the creation of Epiphanies, the Ship is not a platform for advocacy; it's a discussion forum, and there's a difference.
I think those habitually engaged in advocacy often tend to forget this is not what we're here for on the Ship, perhaps because we work hard to allow views to be expressed and protected to some extent where appropriate.
I'm all for advocacy, and personally engage in it right up to the UN and national politicians on the particular rights issues I'm especially concerned about. But that is not the same engagement as discussion, which is what I think we're here for.
In the example above, are they being jailed because their beliefs are considered unacceptable by the State, or because the propagation of those beliefs is considered likely to cause offence and/or to lead to public disorder? They're not the same thing, although arresting for the latter reasons could be a subterfuge for the first.
No-one on the Ship is likely to get arrested for posting, though!
Stetson:
Members of a creation-science group hand out pamphlets saying dinosaurs and humans co-existed, get arrested, put on trial, and jailed.
I would see as an attack on the very idea of democratic rights. etc.
Of course, this is the kind of issue that has been moot in the dear old Bible Belt, regarding Darwinism and Creationism. Should the two have equal status in the public school system, where Creationism has widespread social acceptance?
In the example above, are they being jailed because their beliefs are considered unacceptable by the State, or because the propagation of those beliefs is considered likely to cause offence and/or to lead to public disorder?
I'm not sure it really matters, because my point is simply about the difference between being ignored, and the difference between being censored. Not the difference between harmful and benign speech.
But if it helps, let's cteate an example where the speech in question might be considered by many to be directly harmful to public order...
Members of a pro-pedophile group are trying to get the age-of-consent lowered to the single digits(but not actually advocating that people break existing laws). I would say that newspapers have the right to refuse to print their letters, social media outlets have the right to ban their accounts, comedians have the right to mock them mercilessly on TV, and passersby have the right to toss their pamphlets into the trash upon seeing the content.
However, I would consider it a very bad thing if the government were to make it illegal simply to advocate that certain laws be changed, however much I might think that changing those laws would also be a very bad thing.
Members of a creation-science group try to hand out pamphlets saying dinosaurs and humans co-existed, passersby just chuckle and walk away.
Members of a creation-science group hand out pamphlets saying dinosaurs and humans co-existed, get arrested, put on trial, and jailed.
The first case I would see as both sides exercising their democratic right to promote or ignore certain opinions.
The second case I would see as an attack on the very idea of democratic rights.
A third option is where those who are vehemently anti-creation-science, and who massively outnumber the initial group, surround the group and shout at the top of their lungs about how bad and wrong and evil creation science is such that passersby can hardly tell there's even a creation science group there at all. They certainly can't accept a pamphlet even if they would be interested in the ideas therein, because the larger group is in the way.
Where would you place that scenario on the scales? Is the larger group simply exercising their democratic right to free speech, or are they denying that right to the smaller group?
In the example above, are they being jailed because their beliefs are considered unacceptable by the State, or because the propagation of those beliefs is considered likely to cause offence and/or to lead to public disorder? They're not the same thing, although arresting for the latter reasons could be a subterfuge for the first.
No-one on the Ship is likely to get arrested for posting, though!
That's not actually true. The hosts check every single post to make sure that they don't cross any legal lines. If they're concerned, they flag it up backstage. It's uncommon but not rare, for a post to be redacted or deleted.
That way, they/we protect the Ship, both legally and reputationally.
On top of that is another layer, where the Ship has its own rules. We don't normally redact or delete posts at that point (but still do in certain situations), but apply our own sanctions, from warnings to suspensions to banning.
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.
Just taking lilbuddha's piece as an example rather than directing this specifically at her.
I think there is something pretty fundamental missing in a lot of the responses on this thread. The focus is on the rational argument against Trump/Johnson/Brexit with the implication that the rational argument is so compelling only the foolish would be in favour of any of them. That, I think, ignores the emotional appeal they hold for many people.
For example, a pragmatist might say that it makes no difference where a law is made or who it is made by, so long as it is a good law. A supporter of Brexit would not agree with that; for them it matters a great deal that a law affecting the UK is made in Westminster (or Edinburgh/Cardiff/Belfast) even if that law is identical to one originating in Brussels. It matters that their town council building flies the union flag and not the EU flag and that their passports are blue and not burgundy. Similarly, a sense of tradition and conservative values holds a huge appeal for those who find liberal social values alarming and while it seems odd to the rationalist that they should favour serial philanderers like Trump and Johnson, they do so because the political opposition to them appears worse.
Such people are not 'wrong' or 'stupid'; they are simply applying a different set of values and no amount of engagement with them on rational and practical matters will change that. What might work is a focus on the emotional appeal of the alternatives to Trump/Johnson/Brexit.
It is not exactly an intelligent thing to vote for something that will give one no benefit whilst causing one harm.
You're only thinking economically. Is it so hard to understand that there are some people for whom things other than personal financial wellbeing are important?
If someone believes that their sense of national pride or their national independence/self-determination is more important than their personal financial wellbeing then who are you to say those things are not a benefit to them?
Blaming foreigners ≠ national pride.
Getting out of the EU because of their "control" only to have to go back begging ≠ national pride.
It is not exactly an intelligent thing to vote for something that will give one no benefit whilst causing one harm.
You're only thinking economically. Is it so hard to understand that there are some people for whom things other than personal financial wellbeing are important?
If someone believes that their sense of national pride or their national independence/self-determination is more important than their personal financial wellbeing then who are you to say those things are not a benefit to them?
Blaming foreigners ≠ national pride.
Getting out of the EU because of their "control" only to have to go back begging ≠ national pride.
You're not even open to the possibility that other people may disagree with your definitions of things like "national pride", are you?
Obviously the specifics of a discussion of Brexit isn't appropriate here (we've other threads for that ... I don't consider it censorship to segregate discussions). But I will say that @Marvin the Martian has previously explained his views (including in relation to national pride*) in a clear and respectful manner, that deserves a respectful response and discussion. Now obviously I wasn't convinced (mainly because we have very different ideas of what are important considerations - eg: I don't have much concern for national pride, but am very much concerned with aspects like workers rights and environmental regulations, and the massive benefits of international cooperation), but I hope I wasn't disrespectful in my response. Sometimes (in fact quite often) we simply start from completely different places and have very little common ground.
* I can't recall if the fairly substantial discussion that we had around issues like national identity were within the Brexit thread or it we spun off a separate thread for that.
It is not exactly an intelligent thing to vote for something that will give one no benefit whilst causing one harm.
You're only thinking economically. Is it so hard to understand that there are some people for whom things other than personal financial wellbeing are important?
If someone believes that their sense of national pride or their national independence/self-determination is more important than their personal financial wellbeing then who are you to say those things are not a benefit to them?
Not necessarily. For example, I identify as European far more than I identify as British. Therefore the UK's membership of the EU reflects my sense of identity because it grants me the right to live and work freely in all member states. I wouldn't mind Britain leaving the EU if I could separately remain an EU citizen. As it is, once Britain fully leaves the EU I will suffer a diminution of my sense of identity. The question then is whether your British identity and my European identity are in conflict.
Specific to your point re self-determination, speaking as a long-time Lib-Dem and Green voter I find that laughable because the parties I have voted for have negligible impact at Westminster. The UK might as well be governed direct from Copenhagen or Bonn.
The Ship is experiencing the same issues as other media. Sweeping generalisations klaxon …
People are becoming more tribal, seeking out the like-minded to talk too with and only really interested in sources / material that support the opinion that they’ve already arrived at. They seem less willing to agree to disagree, accept being challenged or open to having their minds changed.
People also seem more willing to say stuff on the Internet that they might not be say to people’s faces, which means interactions can become much more aggressive and spiral out of control more quickly: “All Brexiters are stupid” or “Remoaners are traitors who should be hung”. Occasionally I want to remind people that the Ship is NOT Twitter and to keep it civilised / polite.
There seems be a lack of understanding of the difference between an opinion and a fact. As well as what are a good sources of information - person with actual experience, qualifications and stuff. And what isn’t – random person on the Internet with a URL and large quantity of tin-foil to hand.
A whole narrative feed by sections of the media who blather endlessly about freedom of speech being under threat because someone asked them a difficult question, the source of their information or asked them not to use playground insults.
Taking a recent incident involving a well-known Breakfast TV presenter in the UK as an example of what’s seen as acceptable in the current climate:
The installation of 5G masts and the spread of Covid-19 are completely unconnected. (Fact).
The installation of 5G masts is connected to the spread of Covid-19. (Opinion).
Setting fire to 5G masts to prevent the spread of Covid-19. (Action).
The reason that opinions about masts and virus spreading aren’t covered in MSM h isn’t because they’re not being given a proper chance, but because they’re Not True. OTH, if a white, middle aged bloke who presents a Breakfast TV on one of the big 5 terrestrial channels isn’t the epitome of mainstream media I’m not quite sure what is?!
A bloke who I’d bet the farm has a mobile phone … And couldn’t manage a decent apology or the backbone to own his deep thoughts when it counts. Pssft.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
Except they're not are they? They may not be given a platform where the gatekeeper for that platform chooses not to, but there are thousands of homophobes and transphobes out there not being prosecuted for their views.
"Under threat" is not the same as "already gone". If people are actually being arrested for expressing opinions then it's far too late to start worrying about losing the right to freedom of speech.
Who has the power to call for arrests? Hint, it isn't the left.
It is not exactly an intelligent thing to vote for something that will give one no benefit whilst causing one harm.
You're only thinking economically. Is it so hard to understand that there are some people for whom things other than personal financial wellbeing are important?
If someone believes that their sense of national pride or their national independence/self-determination is more important than their personal financial wellbeing then who are you to say those things are not a benefit to them?
Blaming foreigners ≠ national pride.
Getting out of the EU because of their "control" only to have to go back begging ≠ national pride.
You're not even open to the possibility that other people may disagree with your definitions of things like "national pride", are you?
≠ means not automatically synonymous. It does not mean that that people cannot think they are.
If someone believes that their sense of national pride or their national independence/self-determination is more important than their personal financial wellbeing then who are you to say those things are not a benefit to them?
Not necessarily. For example, I identify as European far more than I identify as British. Therefore the UK's membership of the EU reflects my sense of identity because it grants me the right to live and work freely in all member states. I wouldn't mind Britain leaving the EU if I could separately remain an EU citizen. As it is, once Britain fully leaves the EU I will suffer a diminution of my sense of identity. The question then is whether your British identity and my European identity are in conflict.
Not everybody can get their way every time. That's why we have elections.
Specific to your point re self-determination, speaking as a long-time Lib-Dem and Green voter I find that laughable because the parties I have voted for have negligible impact at Westminster. The UK might as well be governed direct from Copenhagen or Bonn.
I've discussed the democratic deficiencies of various systems - including Westminster's - at length elsewhere, it's way off topic for this thread.
Not everybody can get their way every time. That's why we have elections.
It's not about 'getting my way'. It's about theft. Something I have enjoyed for over forty years has been taken from without compensation. The idea that I, or anyone else, should be reconciled to that is insulting.
Not everybody can get their way every time. That's why we have elections.
It's not about 'getting my way'. It's about theft. Something I have enjoyed for over forty years has been taken from without compensation. The idea that I, or anyone else, should be reconciled to that is insulting.
Members of a creation-science group try to hand out pamphlets saying dinosaurs and humans co-existed, passersby just chuckle and walk away.
Members of a creation-science group hand out pamphlets saying dinosaurs and humans co-existed, get arrested, put on trial, and jailed.
The first case I would see as both sides exercising their democratic right to promote or ignore certain opinions.
The second case I would see as an attack on the very idea of democratic rights.
A third option is where those who are vehemently anti-creation-science, and who massively outnumber the initial group, surround the group and shout at the top of their lungs about how bad and wrong and evil creation science is such that passersby can hardly tell there's even a creation science group there at all. They certainly can't accept a pamphlet even if they would be interested in the ideas therein, because the larger group is in the way.
Where would you place that scenario on the scales? Is the larger group simply exercising their democratic right to free speech, or are they denying that right to the smaller group?
Believe it or not, I have actually thought about whether shouting someone down and blocking access in the manner you describe, counts as forceful suppression of speech. I'm a little undecided, but I lean toward "yes", because of the physical aspect of it, ie. the person is being physically prevented from expressing their views in any meaningful way.
But that's not really what is going on on SOF with, say, pro-brexit views. Someone can come on here and say brexit is great, Farage is God etc, and even if twenty other posters jump in to tell him he's a racist moron, his original post will still be there, people can read it, he's free to post more, and some lurkers, if not active posters, might even be convinced by what he says.
To re-work your original example, let's say half a dozen evolutionists hang around the same street corner as the creationist, and every time someone goes to take one of his tracts, they say in a mocking, singsong voice "He's a fucking idiot!", without being so loud as to drown out any conversation. I think that's more comparable to what happens on the Ship, and does not qualify as suppression of speech.
Which is saying the same thing, in practical terms. Racism is not national pride to everyone, despite it being so to some.
No, it's not the same. Equality and identity are different. The symbol you wanted is this one: ≢
However, as is clear from this discussion, using mathematical symbols that neither you nor many of your correspondents understand in the same way does not make for a clear discussion. Using words would be clearer...
Which is saying the same thing, in practical terms. Racism is not national pride to everyone, despite it being so to some.
No, it's not the same. Equality and identity are different. The symbol you wanted is this one: ≢
However, as is clear from this discussion, using mathematical symbols that neither you nor many of your correspondents understand in the same way does not make for a clear discussion. Using words would be clearer...
Mathematics is a language, but language is not mathematics.
X does not equal Y is commonly used on SOF to mean exactly how I meant it. Just like ITTWACW is part of our vernacular.
It is not exactly an intelligent thing to vote for something that will give one no benefit whilst causing one harm.
You're only thinking economically. Is it so hard to understand that there are some people for whom things other than personal financial wellbeing are important?
If someone believes that their sense of national pride or their national independence/self-determination is more important than their personal financial wellbeing then who are you to say those things are not a benefit to them?
Not necessarily. For example, I identify as European far more than I identify as British. Therefore the UK's membership of the EU reflects my sense of identity because it grants me the right to live and work freely in all member states. I wouldn't mind Britain leaving the EU if I could separately remain an EU citizen. As it is, once Britain fully leaves the EU I will suffer a diminution of my sense of identity. The question then is whether your British identity and my European identity are in conflict.
Specific to your point re self-determination, speaking as a long-time Lib-Dem and Green voter I find that laughable because the parties I have voted for have negligible impact at Westminster. The UK might as well be governed direct from Copenhagen or Bonn.
I agree completely.
We are now very tempted to move to Germany.
As a Green Party member and voter I’m hardly represented at all.
No, it was something Mrs May said "there are no citizens of nowhere" (she also said there were no citizens of the world in a similar vein). But the Hebrews 11 reference works as well.
OK, I should probably not be posting now. I am not as educated, intelligent or opinionated as others posting currently. But the amount of poo that is being flung towards the other brings me to tears. The Ship seems to be floundering and too many IMHO seem to have the need to win the argument and not save the Ship. No, I’m not going to try to explain that or defend it, I’m not smart enough to do so. But I’m pretty fed up. Toss me into the briny if that’s what you feel like. I can swim without the Ship.
But, the Ship claims to be a Magazine of Christian Unrest. I’m not finding much of the Christian in this recent series of arguments. My faith may be a simple one, but for me Christian means caring for each other even if I think you’re an idiot, supporting your growth even if I think you’re a faker…… being kind even when I want to punch you, and trying to find a way to forgive you if you punch me. And for me faith does not mean certitude, it somehow involves that energy/force/love/peace that somehow defines God.
Were this forum in a church basement I’d have, by now, walked out in tears, promising myself that I’d pray for you, and be very, very fearful of ever coming in again. I am very sad to see this.
But at the same time I'm always a bit aware, maybe too aware, that I'm outside the group. And, it does come across I'm afraid that there is a group. I'm sure there isn't, but it's not what it often looks like from the outside.
FWIW, I have a similar experience, but with regard to theology and Kerygmania discussions. As you say, it is mostly easier to read than to contribute, but in my case because my ideas are so unfamiliar and unusual that they pretty much always get challenged more than I've got time for.
The Ship is experiencing the same issues as other media. Sweeping generalisations klaxon …
People are becoming more tribal, seeking out the like-minded to talk too with and only really interested in sources / material that support the opinion that they’ve already arrived at. They seem less willing to agree to disagree, accept being challenged or open to having their minds changed.
And the media reflects the political polarization in our countries. Churches where I live seem politically polarized as well. So I'm not surprised that the Ship has similarly self-sorted.
I wonder if aging doesn't also factor into this on the Ship as well. I'm guessing that our demographic skews older rather than younger, partly because the demographics of Christianity go that way and partly because the demographics of internet bulletin boards go that way. I'm sure there are varying degrees of rigidity among people as they age, but as I get older I find both that my views are more fixed and that I'm less interested in debating with people whose views are very different. My views changed a lot between the ages of 18 and 30, and some of my views changed a bit between 30 and 50, but I can only think of one important thing that I've really changed my mind about since I turned 50.* I'm less interested in debating things not just because I'm less open to changing my mind but also because I've had the same discussions again and again and again, and they play out the same way. I remember when I was finally just done defending pacifism, not because I found myself in the minority but because the discussion kept taking the same turns.
*I stopped believing in God, and the Ship had nothing to do with it.
OK, I should probably not be posting now. I am not as educated, intelligent or opinionated as others posting currently. But the amount of poo that is being flung towards the other brings me to tears. The Ship seems to be floundering and too many IMHO seem to have the need to win the argument and not save the Ship. No, I’m not going to try to explain that or defend it, I’m not smart enough to do so. But I’m pretty fed up. Toss me into the briny if that’s what you feel like. I can swim without the Ship.
But, the Ship claims to be a Magazine of Christian Unrest. I’m not finding much of the Christian in this recent series of arguments. My faith may be a simple one, but for me Christian means caring for each other even if I think you’re an idiot, supporting your growth even if I think you’re a faker…… being kind even when I want to punch you, and trying to find a way to forgive you if you punch me. And for me faith does not mean certitude, it somehow involves that energy/force/love/peace that somehow defines God.
Were this forum in a church basement I’d have, by now, walked out in tears, promising myself that I’d pray for you, and be very, very fearful of ever coming in again. I am very sad to see this.
Were this forum in a church basement I’d have, by now, walked out in tears, promising myself that I’d pray for you, and be very, very fearful of ever coming in again. I am very sad to see this.
Yeah, but on the other hand, churches are full empty of people who fell out and didn't ever thrash through the issues, preferring to walk away and be upset about it, often for years. I've long wished for churches to have a RL equivalent of Hell (on its better days), and I think churches that have something approximating it rather than permanent iron-on crinkly smiles are much healthier places to be in the long run.
Also, lockdown is getting to people, and to me this thread is clear evidence of it. If it helps clear the air a bit, so much the better.
I'm not convinced it's any worse than it's ever been. IngoB wasn't exactly pleasant if you disagreed with him; further back Spawn was acidic enough to hit pH 0; Mad Geo was noted by one poster as demonstrating it was actually possible to think with a spleen; Erin of blessed memory didn't suffer fools - as she saw them - gladly. David didn't post often but when he did it was to dismbowel. I gather you had a visit from the miserable bastard OldAndrew during my absence some years ago and I know what he was like having tangled with the misanthropic tit elsewhere.
I'm not convinced it's any worse than it's ever been. IngoB wasn't exactly pleasant if you disagreed with him; further back Spawn was acidic enough to hit pH 0; Mad Geo was noted by one poster as demonstrating it was actually possible to think with a spleen; Erin of blessed memory didn't suffer fools - as she saw them - gladly. David didn't post often but when he did it was to dismbowel. I gather you had a visit from the miserable bastard OldAndrew during my absence some years ago and I know what he was like having tangled with the misanthropic tit elsewhere.
It's why Hell was deemed necessary.
This has caused me to wonder how many of the more vocal conservatives were actually planked. My memory of who jumped and who was pushed is shaky but didn't IngoB have at least one period of enforced shore leave?
I'm not entirely sure BabyWombat was complaining about Hell. What I'm seeing is an upswelling of disrespectful interactions on the main boards, ones that stay just this side of getting Hostly attention (and often stray over the border). As far as I'm concerned, Hell is fine, Hell does a great job of handling that stuff. And those who don't want to read Hell don't have to.
But I can't count the number of times I've refrained from posting on a mainboard thread because I just can't face the facile bullshit that will be thrown at me for being different. Arguments are fine, I can deal with arguments. But casual, throw-away lines that equate all Americans with shooters, all Republicans with Trump, all conservatives with sadistic assholes who hate children, immigrants, and the poor, all LCMS with backwoods troglodytes, all inerrantists with knuckledragging idiots, all pro-life people with women-hating controlling assholes whose interest in children expires at birth... and by the time you attempt to formulate some kind of answer (clutching your head all the while), at least five other people have piled on to say yea and amen. With not a single argument among them. Just assertion and attitude.
You realize it takes about ten times as long to craft a logical, carefully argued reply (with facts!) to one of those throwaway lines? And while you're doing it, the thread has moved twenty posts forward, with the same kind of self-congratulatory echoes being posted again and again. When you finally post an answer, who even cares anymore? It's been beaten into the ground, we all know we're right because there are so many of us saying exactly the same thing, we've moved on, why are you bringing that up again?
And it doesn't fucking matter how many times you point out counter-examples to the contrary, those counter-examples sink like a stone in the collective new ethos of the Ship, and it's all to do again the very next morning. Even if people actually agreed with you. By tomorrow it's gone, erased, as if it had never been. As if I had never been.
I'm really not sure why I'm still on the Ship, truthfully. Must be an addiction. I've tried to walk away a hundred times.
I now firmly expect to get at least one reply on this very thread saying, "but Americans/Republicans/pro-lifers/LCMS/white people ARE that way, so we don't have to discuss it."
I'm not convinced it's any worse than it's ever been. IngoB wasn't exactly pleasant if you disagreed with him; further back Spawn was acidic enough to hit pH 0; Mad Geo was noted by one poster as demonstrating it was actually possible to think with a spleen; Erin of blessed memory didn't suffer fools - as she saw them - gladly. David didn't post often but when he did it was to dismbowel. I gather you had a visit from the miserable bastard OldAndrew during my absence some years ago and I know what he was like having tangled with the misanthropic tit elsewhere.
It's why Hell was deemed necessary.
But those were noted individuals, what a number of us are trying to say is that everything has moved in that direction, see @Lamb Chopped's post above. I don't agree with Lamb Chopped on various issues, but 1) she has a thought through belief system that she can justify, which I respect her for, and listening to her I understand more about other people, and 2) I totally get why she finds it difficult to disagree on threads.
[We patiently challenged OldAndrew over several threads, including a Hell thread (Josephine and I were in that mix, insisting he evidenced his assertions and countering them). He left of his own volition, I suspect, because I see him elsewhere on the Internet, he couldn't persuade any of us that his idiosyncratic view was right.]
Comments
Except they're not are they? They may not be given a platform where the gatekeeper for that platform chooses not to, but there are thousands of homophobes and transphobes out there not being prosecuted for their views.
You could, if you were that way inclined. Alternatively, you could make a case for the repatriation of skilled manufacturing jobs on the basis of higher environmental standards, local worker control and more robust supply chains.
Is that about free speech or about getting your voice heard? It seems to me that they're not the same thing.
"Under threat" is not the same as "already gone". If people are actually being arrested for expressing opinions then it's far too late to start worrying about losing the right to freedom of speech.
I find this kind of rant completely unhelpful because it precludes any discussion that is likely to shed any light, and I, for one, would not wish to become involved.
While, for example, by definition, "transphobic", is deprecated because it denotes irrational and potentially dangerous prejudice, the term is often employed to preclude any discussion on the nature of the "trans" phenomenon, about which so little is known as to its cause. The exploration of the issues involves asking a number of difficult questions, some of which might be regarded as unwelcome or demeaning, though honestly asked. It may be, of course, that the issue is so sensitive that compassion suggests the ship's platform is no better suited to discuss it than Mumsnet. Ideological positioning, though, is no substitute for the search for greater knowledge, whatever the topic.
I think so, yes. One lies predominantly in the power of the state and other more broadly in society at large. If people shout loud enough and long enough they can start to make their voices heard, as has started to happen for LGBT folk. If you are prevented from speaking then there is no recourse.
We live in a society where people who are rich are listened to because they are rich; if they're also gay then they get to speak up for LGBT rights. We listen to pop stars or successful actors and athletes. These are people with voices, and it's fantastic that they speak up for others (when they do). But the converse of that is that society doesn't listen to the poor, indeed often conveys the impression that because they are poor they don't have anything worth listening too (which sounds remarkably similar to not listening to those advocating Brexit because Brexit is a stupid idea therefore those supporting that can't be saying anything useful).
Yes. Consider the following two cases...
Members of a creation-science group try to hand out pamphlets saying dinosaurs and humans co-existed, passersby just chuckle and walk away.
Members of a creation-science group hand out pamphlets saying dinosaurs and humans co-existed, get arrested, put on trial, and jailed.
The first case I would see as both sides exercising their democratic right to promote or ignore certain opinions.
The second case I would see as an attack on the very idea of democratic rights.
Which is pretty much where I think we're at here.
I think those habitually engaged in advocacy often tend to forget this is not what we're here for on the Ship, perhaps because we work hard to allow views to be expressed and protected to some extent where appropriate.
I'm all for advocacy, and personally engage in it right up to the UN and national politicians on the particular rights issues I'm especially concerned about. But that is not the same engagement as discussion, which is what I think we're here for.
No-one on the Ship is likely to get arrested for posting, though!
Of course, this is the kind of issue that has been moot in the dear old Bible Belt, regarding Darwinism and Creationism. Should the two have equal status in the public school system, where Creationism has widespread social acceptance?
I'm not sure it's that straightforward.
I'm not sure it really matters, because my point is simply about the difference between being ignored, and the difference between being censored. Not the difference between harmful and benign speech.
But if it helps, let's cteate an example where the speech in question might be considered by many to be directly harmful to public order...
Members of a pro-pedophile group are trying to get the age-of-consent lowered to the single digits(but not actually advocating that people break existing laws). I would say that newspapers have the right to refuse to print their letters, social media outlets have the right to ban their accounts, comedians have the right to mock them mercilessly on TV, and passersby have the right to toss their pamphlets into the trash upon seeing the content.
However, I would consider it a very bad thing if the government were to make it illegal simply to advocate that certain laws be changed, however much I might think that changing those laws would also be a very bad thing.
A third option is where those who are vehemently anti-creation-science, and who massively outnumber the initial group, surround the group and shout at the top of their lungs about how bad and wrong and evil creation science is such that passersby can hardly tell there's even a creation science group there at all. They certainly can't accept a pamphlet even if they would be interested in the ideas therein, because the larger group is in the way.
Where would you place that scenario on the scales? Is the larger group simply exercising their democratic right to free speech, or are they denying that right to the smaller group?
That's not actually true. The hosts check every single post to make sure that they don't cross any legal lines. If they're concerned, they flag it up backstage. It's uncommon but not rare, for a post to be redacted or deleted.
That way, they/we protect the Ship, both legally and reputationally.
On top of that is another layer, where the Ship has its own rules. We don't normally redact or delete posts at that point (but still do in certain situations), but apply our own sanctions, from warnings to suspensions to banning.
Just taking lilbuddha's piece as an example rather than directing this specifically at her.
I think there is something pretty fundamental missing in a lot of the responses on this thread. The focus is on the rational argument against Trump/Johnson/Brexit with the implication that the rational argument is so compelling only the foolish would be in favour of any of them. That, I think, ignores the emotional appeal they hold for many people.
For example, a pragmatist might say that it makes no difference where a law is made or who it is made by, so long as it is a good law. A supporter of Brexit would not agree with that; for them it matters a great deal that a law affecting the UK is made in Westminster (or Edinburgh/Cardiff/Belfast) even if that law is identical to one originating in Brussels. It matters that their town council building flies the union flag and not the EU flag and that their passports are blue and not burgundy. Similarly, a sense of tradition and conservative values holds a huge appeal for those who find liberal social values alarming and while it seems odd to the rationalist that they should favour serial philanderers like Trump and Johnson, they do so because the political opposition to them appears worse.
Such people are not 'wrong' or 'stupid'; they are simply applying a different set of values and no amount of engagement with them on rational and practical matters will change that. What might work is a focus on the emotional appeal of the alternatives to Trump/Johnson/Brexit.
Getting out of the EU because of their "control" only to have to go back begging ≠ national pride.
You're not even open to the possibility that other people may disagree with your definitions of things like "national pride", are you?
* I can't recall if the fairly substantial discussion that we had around issues like national identity were within the Brexit thread or it we spun off a separate thread for that.
Not necessarily. For example, I identify as European far more than I identify as British. Therefore the UK's membership of the EU reflects my sense of identity because it grants me the right to live and work freely in all member states. I wouldn't mind Britain leaving the EU if I could separately remain an EU citizen. As it is, once Britain fully leaves the EU I will suffer a diminution of my sense of identity. The question then is whether your British identity and my European identity are in conflict.
Specific to your point re self-determination, speaking as a long-time Lib-Dem and Green voter I find that laughable because the parties I have voted for have negligible impact at Westminster. The UK might as well be governed direct from Copenhagen or Bonn.
People are becoming more tribal, seeking out the like-minded to talk too with and only really interested in sources / material that support the opinion that they’ve already arrived at. They seem less willing to agree to disagree, accept being challenged or open to having their minds changed.
People also seem more willing to say stuff on the Internet that they might not be say to people’s faces, which means interactions can become much more aggressive and spiral out of control more quickly: “All Brexiters are stupid” or “Remoaners are traitors who should be hung”. Occasionally I want to remind people that the Ship is NOT Twitter and to keep it civilised / polite.
There seems be a lack of understanding of the difference between an opinion and a fact. As well as what are a good sources of information - person with actual experience, qualifications and stuff. And what isn’t – random person on the Internet with a URL and large quantity of tin-foil to hand.
A whole narrative feed by sections of the media who blather endlessly about freedom of speech being under threat because someone asked them a difficult question, the source of their information or asked them not to use playground insults.
Taking a recent incident involving a well-known Breakfast TV presenter in the UK as an example of what’s seen as acceptable in the current climate:
The installation of 5G masts and the spread of Covid-19 are completely unconnected. (Fact).
The installation of 5G masts is connected to the spread of Covid-19. (Opinion).
Setting fire to 5G masts to prevent the spread of Covid-19. (Action).
The reason that opinions about masts and virus spreading aren’t covered in MSM h isn’t because they’re not being given a proper chance, but because they’re Not True. OTH, if a white, middle aged bloke who presents a Breakfast TV on one of the big 5 terrestrial channels isn’t the epitome of mainstream media I’m not quite sure what is?!
A bloke who I’d bet the farm has a mobile phone … And couldn’t manage a decent apology or the backbone to own his deep thoughts when it counts. Pssft.
Not everybody can get their way every time. That's why we have elections.
I've discussed the democratic deficiencies of various systems - including Westminster's - at length elsewhere, it's way off topic for this thread.
No, it means "does not equal" or "not equal to".
It's not about 'getting my way'. It's about theft. Something I have enjoyed for over forty years has been taken from without compensation. The idea that I, or anyone else, should be reconciled to that is insulting.
Believe it or not, I have actually thought about whether shouting someone down and blocking access in the manner you describe, counts as forceful suppression of speech. I'm a little undecided, but I lean toward "yes", because of the physical aspect of it, ie. the person is being physically prevented from expressing their views in any meaningful way.
But that's not really what is going on on SOF with, say, pro-brexit views. Someone can come on here and say brexit is great, Farage is God etc, and even if twenty other posters jump in to tell him he's a racist moron, his original post will still be there, people can read it, he's free to post more, and some lurkers, if not active posters, might even be convinced by what he says.
To re-work your original example, let's say half a dozen evolutionists hang around the same street corner as the creationist, and every time someone goes to take one of his tracts, they say in a mocking, singsong voice "He's a fucking idiot!", without being so loud as to drown out any conversation. I think that's more comparable to what happens on the Ship, and does not qualify as suppression of speech.
No, it's not the same. Equality and identity are different. The symbol you wanted is this one: ≢
However, as is clear from this discussion, using mathematical symbols that neither you nor many of your correspondents understand in the same way does not make for a clear discussion. Using words would be clearer...
X does not equal Y is commonly used on SOF to mean exactly how I meant it. Just like ITTWACW is part of our vernacular.
I agree completely.
We are now very tempted to move to Germany.
As a Green Party member and voter I’m hardly represented at all.
Please take the Brexit tangent either to an existing thread or a new one.
Please take concerns about Hosting Standards, particularly with reference to Host-lite and its effect on membership, to the Styx.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Host Hat Off
Is this a reference to Hebrews 11: 13-16? A timely reminder. Thanks
But, the Ship claims to be a Magazine of Christian Unrest. I’m not finding much of the Christian in this recent series of arguments. My faith may be a simple one, but for me Christian means caring for each other even if I think you’re an idiot, supporting your growth even if I think you’re a faker…… being kind even when I want to punch you, and trying to find a way to forgive you if you punch me. And for me faith does not mean certitude, it somehow involves that energy/force/love/peace that somehow defines God.
Were this forum in a church basement I’d have, by now, walked out in tears, promising myself that I’d pray for you, and be very, very fearful of ever coming in again. I am very sad to see this.
FWIW, I have a similar experience, but with regard to theology and Kerygmania discussions. As you say, it is mostly easier to read than to contribute, but in my case because my ideas are so unfamiliar and unusual that they pretty much always get challenged more than I've got time for.
And the media reflects the political polarization in our countries. Churches where I live seem politically polarized as well. So I'm not surprised that the Ship has similarly self-sorted.
I wonder if aging doesn't also factor into this on the Ship as well. I'm guessing that our demographic skews older rather than younger, partly because the demographics of Christianity go that way and partly because the demographics of internet bulletin boards go that way. I'm sure there are varying degrees of rigidity among people as they age, but as I get older I find both that my views are more fixed and that I'm less interested in debating with people whose views are very different. My views changed a lot between the ages of 18 and 30, and some of my views changed a bit between 30 and 50, but I can only think of one important thing that I've really changed my mind about since I turned 50.* I'm less interested in debating things not just because I'm less open to changing my mind but also because I've had the same discussions again and again and again, and they play out the same way. I remember when I was finally just done defending pacifism, not because I found myself in the minority but because the discussion kept taking the same turns.
*I stopped believing in God, and the Ship had nothing to do with it.
Thank you. I am glad you posted.
Also, lockdown is getting to people, and to me this thread is clear evidence of it. If it helps clear the air a bit, so much the better.
It's why Hell was deemed necessary.
This has caused me to wonder how many of the more vocal conservatives were actually planked. My memory of who jumped and who was pushed is shaky but didn't IngoB have at least one period of enforced shore leave?
But I can't count the number of times I've refrained from posting on a mainboard thread because I just can't face the facile bullshit that will be thrown at me for being different. Arguments are fine, I can deal with arguments. But casual, throw-away lines that equate all Americans with shooters, all Republicans with Trump, all conservatives with sadistic assholes who hate children, immigrants, and the poor, all LCMS with backwoods troglodytes, all inerrantists with knuckledragging idiots, all pro-life people with women-hating controlling assholes whose interest in children expires at birth... and by the time you attempt to formulate some kind of answer (clutching your head all the while), at least five other people have piled on to say yea and amen. With not a single argument among them. Just assertion and attitude.
You realize it takes about ten times as long to craft a logical, carefully argued reply (with facts!) to one of those throwaway lines? And while you're doing it, the thread has moved twenty posts forward, with the same kind of self-congratulatory echoes being posted again and again. When you finally post an answer, who even cares anymore? It's been beaten into the ground, we all know we're right because there are so many of us saying exactly the same thing, we've moved on, why are you bringing that up again?
And it doesn't fucking matter how many times you point out counter-examples to the contrary, those counter-examples sink like a stone in the collective new ethos of the Ship, and it's all to do again the very next morning. Even if people actually agreed with you. By tomorrow it's gone, erased, as if it had never been. As if I had never been.
I'm really not sure why I'm still on the Ship, truthfully. Must be an addiction. I've tried to walk away a hundred times.
I now firmly expect to get at least one reply on this very thread saying, "but Americans/Republicans/pro-lifers/LCMS/white people ARE that way, so we don't have to discuss it."
But those were noted individuals, what a number of us are trying to say is that everything has moved in that direction, see @Lamb Chopped's post above. I don't agree with Lamb Chopped on various issues, but 1) she has a thought through belief system that she can justify, which I respect her for, and listening to her I understand more about other people, and 2) I totally get why she finds it difficult to disagree on threads.
[We patiently challenged OldAndrew over several threads, including a Hell thread (Josephine and I were in that mix, insisting he evidenced his assertions and countering them). He left of his own volition, I suspect, because I see him elsewhere on the Internet, he couldn't persuade any of us that his idiosyncratic view was right.]