Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Br16

Workable Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And that's not exactly counting the, ya know, revolutionary war that was sort of a big deal alongside it. 

Well, everybody both for and against Ratification was on the same side during the war, so while it's important for context/background, I wouldn't really say that's an argument against it.

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The thesis was basically that the only reason that people make deals like that is because of the implied threat of what will happen if they don't. Shays rebellion - with people lying about the implied threat in order to get what they want, backroom deals, and the actual threat of violence there - is a good example of what I mean. People didn't just sit down and hash out their differences and were all 'cool beans' if they didn't get what they wanted.

Fair enough, I was just throwing it out there because it's an interesting example.  I guess it depends on what you mean by "discord and threat of violence."  Of course the Framers exaggerated the threat, but they weren't threatening that they would commit any violence, nor did they attempt to restrict their opposition's speech - instead there was a propaganda campaign between the Federalist and "Anti-Federalist" (I hate using that term as it's the prime example of said propaganda).  If you're gonna make the standard to be no one's ever changed the world without saying violence or discord would happen if we didn't make their desired change, well sure, but that seems to be a pretty pointless standard to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree! But that's the thing that @Knight of whatever was stating - that civil discourse is itself a valuable thing independently of any other thing. 

And no, it really isn't. And even when we consider things 'civil' - in the sense that actual war didn't occur - we have examples like the above, where we are using propaganda, implied threats, use of other platforms to influence others, etc. That's hardly civil discourse like a debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, it's not like the Convention was akin to an Oxford Union event.  Guess I misunderstood what you meant exactly, but of course you're not gonna change things simply by demonstrating the intellectual/logical/whatever superiority of your argument in a polite manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, it's not like the Convention was akin to an Oxford Union event.  Guess I misunderstood what you meant exactly, but of course you're not gonna change things simply by demonstrating the intellectual/logical/whatever superiority of your argument in a polite manner.

You need a Statue of Revolution + 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/26/2019 at 9:59 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

@Varysblackfyre321 That's a rather simplified, almost Manichean worldview. On one side there are various various bigots, racists and other -ists, and on other are righteous people whose holy duty is to call out a former group where they see them. There's no room for nuance or shades of grey in between them. There's no room for misinterpretations or difference in opinion or anything similar.

 

What Worldview specifically are you objecting to? 

That some people for example literal white-supremacists who espouse heinously bigoted ideas should be called out as bad people for thinking it socially acceptable to mistreat others based on their race? 

Oh how naive of me. 

Or are you objecting to my description of the people who think interracial marriage, is wrong and those who want to throw gays in cages for gay sex as bigots wrong?

If so I reject the idea there’s much nuance in those stances. They’re bigots. If you can’t call a guy in 2019 America  who finds a white marrying a black a travesty a racist who could it lol? Who would you call a homophobe if not someone who literally thinks it’s necessary for government to jail people for having gay sex? Like are only guys who literally espouse the virtues genocide of certain groups worthy of being called bigots?

Look, buddy, I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me on every issue is some bigot. I’ve met plenty pro-lifers whose convictions weren’t rooted in racism or sexism but more or less pure ignorance. 

Acknowledging not all your opponents on certain political/social issues are  bigoted to the level of Richard Spencer does not mean in a discussion with someone who is of the same ilk should be treated with with oh so precious civility.

On 8/26/2019 at 9:59 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

Even the word dehumanizing s being thrown around way too liberally, Has OP ever claimed, for example that " trying to politely argue why the working poor are worthless ", as you directly said. He hasn't, to my knowledge. From the fact that he spoke favorably of objectivism, you deduced that he somehow supports all the worst facets of objectivism. You could also do so for pretty much any ideology on planet Earth:

This is patently false. Throughout the entire thread the OP has advocated the specific idea of the common worker being completely worthless without the “profound visionaries” to serve under. Going as far as to Quote this:The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the “competition” between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of “exploitation” for which you have damned the str

And defend it when others rightly made note in how it dehumanized the working class as parasites as true. 

On 8/26/2019 at 9:59 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

So if there's one things I'd like to emphasize and cut to the truth of it - it's this: would you want to live in such a society? Would you like to live in a country where far-right can deplatform you if they think your speech doesn't match their idea of morality? After all, far-righers are no less people than you or me, and thus have the equal right to decide who or what gets deplatformed? @Varysblackfyre321, same question goes for you.

On a private venue? Sure I’m already living in one. Breitbart is not obligated to feature more left-wingers on there platform any more than I’m required to showcase a . I don’t think it should be mandatory for someone saying x should be legally obliged every platform regardless of the message. Like honestly, should Disney studios be mandated to give an ultra-conservative viewpoint for “progressive”  film they produce? 

On 8/26/2019 at 9:59 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

Arguing against deplatforming, for me, means admitting a certain measure of humility and ignorance. It means admitting that no single person, and no single group within society, is qualified enough to measure by themselves what kind of speech should or shouldn't be deplatformed, and that you need some kind of objective criteria to do that. Speech inciting violence, for example, is one such criteria.

To the bolded I’d say yes.  But not for the reasons you give.

Giving homophobes, neo-nazis, and facists, a platform to speak the ability to reach a wider audience with their ideas. You acknowledge this. 

On 8/26/2019 at 9:59 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

2) Deplatforming doesn't solve any problems, it just moves them out of sight, where they continue to persist.

No, giving bigots the microphone could  it easier to convince more people of really heinous shit. Taking away the mike can gives the perception that certain viewpoints aren’t normal and overtime that becomes truer and truer. 

On 8/26/2019 at 9:59 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

I've spoken to few people who, for example, ashamedly admitted to being anything from "discomfortable around the idea of gays" to "strongly homophobic". In each and every case, what changed their mind was that they met a gay or two, started to hang out with them, and saw that they really are no different than the rest. Then, and only then, did they start to question their beliefs. Then, and only then, did they start to change and improve as people and feel ashamed of their former selves.

So? Why does that mean YT shouldn’t take down videos from people espousing that the holocaust isn’t real?

On 8/26/2019 at 9:59 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

What applies to people applies to societies as well. If parts of society holds bad or harmful beliefs, the solution is not to segregate them - the solution is to expose them to the arguments - and not only arguments but also feeling, emotions and thoughts - from the other side. To appeal to their better selves etc. That's how you make a lasting change.

No, it really does help to make sure everyone is of the mind if you’re a racist you’re a bad person, if you’re a misogynist  you’re a bad person, if you’re homophobic, etc because then people would be earnest to try be just that. You do not tolerate intolerance. The day David Duke isn’t seen by society at large as detestable for the ideas he espouses is a really bad day. 

On 8/26/2019 at 9:59 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

3) Deplaforming is only effective agaist people who are otherwise not really powerful.

Not really. If Twitter, YT, and Facebook literally got rid of everything remotely conservative on their platform conservative groups would still be powerful in America. They would just be at a far greater disadvantage than liberals in being able to push their message. Hell just look at the uproar republicans had in response to Mcconnell’s Twitter account being taken down.

On 8/26/2019 at 9:59 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

I've spoken of anecdotal personal evidence so far, but wide-scale examples also are numerous. Fine example would be recent Ireland abortion referendum, where two sides were simply both to big to shut down/deplatform each other and had to rely on other methods to make their case. And I daresay that pro-choice official campaign played it pretty smart - instead of incoherent rambling how pro-lifers are vile misogynists, monsters and oppressors (an argument that is bound to convince exactly no one), instead they played on people's ideals. They presented it as a human rights issue. They brought forward many women who spoke how abortion laws struck the personally so that everyone listening could see how much pain and suffering it brought. And hey - it worked. Whatever pro-choice campaign did- it worked, for they won in a landslide. Some people admitted to changing their minds after hearing women's testimonies.

Yes, these women were given a platform to preach their ideals. And they convinced people. The success you’re remarking here does not showcase ineffectiveness of deplatforming. Hell it touches upon the point @Kalbear made earlier about public discourse not being as significant as people would like to be. Here women are being showcased to have suffered-Which in turn led to more change. 

 

On 8/26/2019 at 9:59 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

There are more examples, but all of them have the one thing in common. They show us that change is hard but possible. That confronting beliefs and ideas we would undoubtebly dub as toxic and outright vile take courage and patience – but that it ultimately pays off. Conversely, deplatforming somebody is a easy way out: effectively removing not the problem but your perception of a problem. Deplatformed nazis won’t stop being nazis. Confronted nazis might.

This is really wishful thinking. It’d be nice if we could rely on the sanctity of good ideas promoted through clean debate to win the day but that is really really naive at best. There are really intelligent nazis who far from blubbering wrecks are able to articulate their ideas in such a way could have the listener buying into their ideas.

Among the top high command in the Nazi party it was by no means rare. Hitler despite being a monster was not an idiot.

They peddled their gross beliefs into Germany. Their beliefs gradually became the norm.

Also, a deplatformed Nazi will find it significantly harder to convert followers to his cause.

We do not portray neo-nazis as ever just good people in media. Major movie producers generally don’t finance their movies and movie theaters generally don’t play the ones they hastily make. 

As a result of ostracizing them society by and large have come to recognize being a white-supremacist is a really bad thing. Which is why you’ll see plenty of white-supremacists try to argue than being a white-supremacist they’re just white-nationalists. 

On 8/26/2019 at 9:59 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

And there’s something very intuitive about that. People want to be validated and recognized. They want their opinion to be heard and acknowledged – and then, and only then – are you able to change it. If you shut them down and keep talking how stupid and bigoted they are (aka deplatform them), you’re denying them the possibility. The solution to fighting dehumanizing ideas paradoxically is not to dehumanize people who have them

No. I’m not dehumanizing anyone by virtue of saying you should not be given movie deal from let’s say Disney to preach that the holocaust isn’t real. No one is entitled to whatever platform they so please.

The solution to fighting dehumanizing ideas is not to say any idea no matter how atrocious shouldn’t be looked at as grounds to see someone as a bad person at all times.

It’s not to try to manufacture nuance in every situation where someone holds an abominable belief never something to be justification for pariah status. 

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

Going as far as to Quote this:The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the “competition” between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of “exploitation” for which you have damned the str

this is pretty much an inadvertent parody of a vulgar marxist theory of exploitation. rand is always good for a laugh.

Edited by sologdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night on my way to work I was listening to part of a podcast about pirates. Yes apparently there is such a thing. Pirates were naval deserters, escaped convicts, escaped slaves and other people who had few opportunities to advance in society. 

Once they got together, rather than setting up a libertarian society, where every man is for himself, proud and free, they created a democratic society where captains were voted in and those injured or missing limbs were voted extra shares of loot. Socialism in other words. 

Since before the agrarian revolution, and after, many different ways of governing groups of people have been tried. Except for Objectivism. Take that as a hint that it is unworkable now and always has been. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ah ha!  We have now discovered why women's enormous labor of producing a baby, keeping a baby alive, even feeding the baby from their own bodies, raising that baby is considered unskilled labor (performed of course, by the worthless at the bottom of the wealth production scale), work that is expected to be uncompensated by wealth in any way -- it's because babies and children are worthless and produce no wealth either.

That's probably why Rand never had any kids and never put any in her books.

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sologdin said:

podcast about pirates

was it based on linebaugh & rediker?

CBC radio up here in Canada has a show where they sample podcasts on many different subjects. They just happened to pick pirates yesterday. It may well have been but I can't be positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

probably why Rand never had any kids and never put any in her books

she writes about parenting and children in some non-fiction pieces.  and she adopts far right prejudices regarding purported 'perversions'; her ideas are nothing if not incoherent and childish.  i've argued elsewhere that objectivists have horrible ideas on sex and parenting because they're mostly hopeless virgins.  not sure which way the causality flows though.

Edited by sologdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... her ideas are nothing if not incoherent and childish.

As are all of her 'ideas'.  :idea::dunce:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2019 at 9:55 PM, Rippounet said:

I for myself would actually have liked reading a well-constructed argumentation defending objectivism with a few studies and real-life examples to back it up. But at some point it became clear we were not going to get anything close to that.

I can relate to that. Topic itself had potential, but quickly degenerated for various reasons, OP failing to deliver good arguments in favor of objectivism being one of them. While objectivism as a whole is way too much based on lack of empathy and self-aggrandizement to be valid (not to mention Rand's occasional hypocrisy with regards to herself and her followers) - I do believe it had some interesting elements and ideas which could be contructively debated upon and perhaps be used to take something of value from. Alas, not here.
 

On 8/27/2019 at 10:49 PM, Kalbear said:

I'm just going to say this: human history has virtually no examples of where civil discourse has made significant societal changes, whereas it has an absurd amount of examples of uncivil discourse that have changed worlds. If you can find an example where civil discourse was the main key instead of the actual threat of violence or discord being used as the stick, feel free

I did offer examples in my posts, and I can easily find more: gay rights movement, MLK, Gandhi etc. I'll be the last one to deny that violence and threat of violence has installed and toppled many ideologies and change the world for better or worse, but such approach has its limitations. The chief being the inability to use it when the group you're fighting for is much less powerful than other other group. In fact, this has been one of main themes of the recent (100-150 years) history: how can we construct a society in such a manner that violence is not necessary for the change?

On 8/27/2019 at 10:49 PM, Kalbear said:

If you can find an example where civil discourse was the main key instead of the actual threat of violence or discord being used as the stick,...what convinces them is their ingroup changing their opinions and threatening to ostracize those who disagree. 

This in particular seems overly excessive. On a personal level, have you ever been touched or moved by a picture or a paining you saw? Or a movie, poem, book or song? Have you ever changed your opinion after hearing some particularity well written speech? Have you ever changed as a person due to complete stranger's testimony, speech, book or film? Or have all your opinion changes been due to threat of violence or in-group pressure? Surely not.

And yes, I'm lumping all of these together under "public discourse" because all of them are indeed from of public discourse. Art and free speech are both variants of "freedom of expression" concept.

On 8/27/2019 at 10:49 PM, Kalbear said:

In general humans think that they are able to be convinced by facts and data

Oh, I agree here very much, people are irrational beings, first and foremost. And I'm thinking that's not a bad thing overall.

But who said that public discourse has to be done with rational arguments only? Feelings, ideals and thoughts are all equally valid tools in a discourse. In fact, all of mot effective public speakers and charismatic people use little to no "facts and data".

All in all, I get the feeling (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you're arguing from the position of perpetual majority and the comfort it provides. You advocate deplatforming without worrying that you'll be the one getting deplatformed; you speak of "threatening to ostracize those who disagree" , but have you considered that those whose disagree may actually be right?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The perpetual majority in this case is arguing against hypocrisy and general stupidity. Rand herself used our present system of laws and government to assert hert ownership of the fruits of her labours rather than being a true Galtian figure and doing all that herself. Her books were copyrighted and as such she relied on  government and the legal system to protect the fruits of her labour.. If she was serious about keeping the fruits of her labour all to herself she would have printed a single copy and stood over the person reading it, so that no unauthorized use could occur.

As it is she depended on the institutions she despised to do the work for her. Blatant hypocrisy.

As mentioned in an earlier post, even uber capitalists such as pirates, when creating a political structure for self government, did not use a libertarian model but a socialist model as the basis of their society. Libertarian societies have a lifespan of about 10 minutes as people realize that once you have a problem that one person alone cannot solve, or escape, then you are truly screwed. There are no examples of libertarian societies in the historical record or in the prehistorical record. 10 minutes is not long enough to leave a trace.

As such any argument for a libertarian society is blatant stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2019 at 5:18 PM, sologdin said:

probably why Rand never had any kids and never put any in her books

she writes about parenting and children in some non-fiction pieces.  and she adopts far right prejudices regarding purported 'perversions'; her ideas are nothing if not incoherent and childish.  i've argued elsewhere that objectivists have horrible ideas on sex and parenting because they're mostly hopeless virgins.  not sure which way the causality flows though.

  Rand could venerate a man who’d destroy the lives of millions or at least deny services that could save millions  to sate his own greed as respectable, but two guys consentingly sucking each other’s pricks to feel good or a prostitute sucking a prick for money are acting shamefully. It’s ok to be selfish even when it hurts the rest of society as whole, except when it comes to engaging in certain consenting sexual acts I find icky(with the adage of not really hurting anyone).

Though, I would typically try to give someone  some leeway given their setting in terms of how homophobic they are I can’t help but be irked at the blatant hypocrisy here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2019 at 8:33 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Or are you objecting to...

To few things. One is how all of your examples consist of genuine nazis, racists, bigots etc. or, in case of pro-lifers: ignorants. Is there any room for people who are not morally or scientifically lacking - and still have the opposing opinion?

The second is that yes, indeed, there are a lot of bigots around the world. But even more, I think, are people who are trying to shut down others by proclaiming them bigots and thus justifying their verbal aggression. IMO, people in general are way to quick to label others as bigots when confronted with an argument or idea they don't like (or in some cases - but not here - an argument they don't like to face). So, it's not enough for br16, for example to just be wrong (and again - I think he is wrong), but also he has to to immature, stupid and oppressive, an expy of evil ideology who came here to preach his insidious ideas to good people of asoiaf.westeros using polite speech to camouflage his heinous thoughts. This is not aimed at you personally - but at most people in this thread.

The third is that, even with confronting actual bigots, shouting how they're all evil and dumb is not the good way to achieve..anything really.
 

On 8/28/2019 at 8:33 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This is patently false. Throughout the entire thread the OP has advocated the specific idea of the common worker being completely worthless without the “profound visionaries” to serve under. Going as far as to Quote this:The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the “competition” between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of “exploitation” for which you have damned the str

 

Ok, point taken. Though I'd still ask you if you think approach you've all taken here is the best one.
 

On 8/28/2019 at 8:33 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

On a private venue? Sure I’m already living in one. Breitbart is not obligated to feature more left-wingers on there platform any more than I’m required to showcase a . I don’t think it should be mandatory for someone saying x should be legally obliged every platform regardless of the message. Like honestly, should Disney studios be mandated to give an ultra-conservative viewpoint for “progressive”  film they produce? 

I'm not talking about private venue - everyone is free to invite whom he likes on his own property.

When you're talking about e.g. people you deem racists and bigots, you're not just talking about not inviting them to your conference, you're talking about completely erasing them off the realm of public discourse, because that's how morally heinous they really are. See, other people like far-righters are equally passionate and equally righteous in their worldview, and they'll have no problem using the same methods to shut you down. If your film offends them in some way, they'll shut it down (from public or private-owned cinema, in makes no matter). If you write about their primitivism in media, they'll sue and harass you. all of this has already happened where I live.

That was one of my main points against deplatforming: that it's not nearly as much fun when idelogically opposite people are the ones doing it. So, when I asked you if you would be willing to live in a society where deplatforming is based on people's personal idea of morality - that's what I meant.
 

On 8/28/2019 at 8:33 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Giving homophobes, neo-nazis, and facists, a platform to speak the ability to reach a wider audience with their ideas. You acknowledge this.

Yes, it does. And it makes me very uncomfortable. Disgusted even. But my own personal disgust of their ideas is not a good reason enough to censor them.
 

On 8/28/2019 at 8:33 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No, giving bigots the microphone could  it easier to convince more people of really heinous shit. Taking away the mike can gives the perception that certain viewpoints aren’t normal and overtime that becomes truer and truer. 

I'm doing to elaborate on this a bit, because I feel this is a key point where we disagree.

Consider every popular good idea that today's society has: gender equality, racial equality, worker's rights, democracy etc. There was a time, not so long ago, when each of these ideas were not popular and were not considered good by majority of people. And they naturally, tried to "take away the mike", hoping, just like you - that now it will be clear to all that these "viewpoints aren’t normal and overtime that becomes truer and truer. " Today we know that it didn't work out - what just flatly censoring someone or something doesn't per se mean that he, she or it are not normal. And it doesn't solve the problem, not in the least. Prohibition didn't stop alcohol consumption and anti-abortion laws didn't stop abortions, altough lawmakers in both cases certainly hoped that taking away the mike would achieve something.

Taking the mike away not only doesn't solve anything, it can also be flat out counterproductive. While adherents of the "censored ideology"won't change their mind, they'll crate the allure of forbidden fruit around their ideas which will lure more than a few unsuspecting minds. You'll get the situation where many will know that "censored ideology" is supposed to be bad, but they don't know why it's bad, since they've never seen it challenged (and how could they, since it's censored). And lastly, it creates the impression of fear - that we're ought to be afraid of some ideas so it's best to preemptively shut them down, which to me signals insecurity and impotence. I'm not afraid of nazi, racist, sexist or bigoted speech - I'm more than confident in my ability to battle them with arguments. I'm also confident they won't convert me to their ideology. And while I may find their ideas disgusting or heinous, that by itself is not a good reason enough to shut them down. In fact, while they're spouting their nonsense, I don't want to complain how horrible it is that such people ever got the platform, I want to be right next to them, challenging their ideas and showing everyone how wrong they are.

On 8/28/2019 at 8:33 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No, it really does help to make sure everyone is of the mind if you’re a racist you’re a bad person, if you’re a misogynist  you’re a bad person, if you’re homophobic, etc because then people would be earnest to try be just that. You do not tolerate intolerance. The day David Duke isn’t seen by society at large as detestable for the ideas he espouses is a really bad day

I don't agree here. Being told by strangers what is ethical and what isn't is not a good way of convincing anyone of anything. In-group pressure, as Kalbear suggested, might work - but it's a different pair of gloves.

On 8/28/2019 at 8:33 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes, these women were given a platform to preach their ideals. And they convinced people. The success you’re remarking here does not showcase ineffectiveness of deplatforming. Hell it touches upon the point @Kalbear made earlier about public discourse not being as significant as people would like to be. Here women are being showcased to have suffered-Which in turn led to more change. 

Wait, doesn't it show the exact opposite? If these women managed to convince people, doesn't it show the effectiveness of public discourse?

Anyway, the point I way trying to make with this example was a case where both sides were too powerful and deplatorm the other, so they had to resort to other approaches. And it worked just fine.
 

On 8/28/2019 at 8:33 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

As a result of ostracizing them society by and large have come to recognize being a white-supremacist is a really bad thing. Which is why you’ll see plenty of white-supremacists try to argue than being a white-supremacist they’re just white-nationalists. 

While I generally agree with your idea that we can't rely on sanctity of good ideas to carry the day (we not only need to be right, we also need to be smart about it - smarter than nazis in your example), this is a point I'd like to address. Can you correlate ostracizing white-supremacists to the decline of white supremacy movement? I could just as easily argue that diverse society is the one that did the white supremacy in. After all, if you live in a community where whites, blacks, Asians and all kind of mixes between them are all present and have to interact with all of them - it becomes pretty hard to retain your view that one race in particular is somehow better then others.

Which is why I argue for inclusion and exposing to other beliefs, and against segregation and deplatforming. Bad ideas should IMO, not be actively promoted and platformed, but when they do appear (and appear they will) - we need other, more effective methods of combating them than outright shutting them down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

.
 

I did offer examples in my posts, and I can easily find more: gay rights movement, MLK, Gandhi etc. I'll be the last one to deny that violence and threat of violence has installed and toppled many ideologies and change the world for better or worse, but such approach has its limitations. The chief being the inability to use it when the group you're fighting for is much less powerful than other other group. In fact, this has been one of main themes of the recent (100-150 years) history: how can we construct a society in such a manner that violence is not necessary for the change?

This in particular seems overly excessive. On a personal level, have you ever been touched or moved by a picture or a paining you saw? Or a movie, poem, book or song? Have you ever changed your opinion after hearing some particularity well written speech? Have you ever changed as a person due to complete stranger's testimony, speech, book or film? Or have all your opinion changes been due to threat of violence or in-group pressure? Surely not.

And yes, I'm lumping all of these together under "public discourse" because all of them are indeed from of public discourse. Art and free speech are both variants of "freedom of expression" concept.

Oh, I agree here very much, people are irrational beings, first and foremost. And I'm thinking that's not a bad thing overall.

But who said that public discourse has to be done with rational arguments only? Feelings, ideals and thoughts are all equally valid tools in a discourse. In fact, all of mot effective public speakers and charismatic people use little to no "facts and data".

All in all, I get the feeling (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you're arguing from the position of perpetual majority and the comfort it provides. You advocate deplatforming without worrying that you'll be the one getting deplatformed; you speak of "threatening to ostracize those who disagree" , but have you considered that those whose disagree may actually be right?
 

The bolded weren't successful because of civil discourse, that's either ignorance of history or blatant revisionism.  The civil rights movement was loaded with violence and King didn't shy away from recognizing its power or the reality of it.  

And I'm not sure you understand what deplatforming is.  No one is being deplatformed here.  No one is being banned or having their posts deleted.  The OP is just dealing with the reality of freedom of speech and chose not to continue.

Making fun of a stupid idea isn't the same thing as a college deciding they don't want Milo Y to speak on their campus.  You're not connecting any of these things, you're just whining about how no one will give shitty ideas the time of day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

The bolded weren't successful because of civil discourse, that's either ignorance of history or blatant revisionism.  The civil rights movement was loaded with violence and King didn't shy away from recognizing its power or the reality of it.  

I think I disagree with both you and @Knight Of Winter regarding the Gandhi and King examples.  Satyagraha and the CRM were launched and directed explicitly as nonviolent movements, so while violence may have been involved with each, the entire point of each was to avoid use any type of violent action. 

At the same time, both movements were derived from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, also called Resistance to Civil Government.  While the movements may have been nonviolent, its equally important to recognize the strategy was about resisting unjust actions by the ruling regime and subsequently demonstrating its illegitimacy.  Gandhi and King had no interest in "discourse" with their oppressors, their movements and actions therein were designed to show the public that debate is not worthwhile - the moral superiority of their cause and urgent necessity for reform is manifest. 

So I would not describe any strategy structured around civil disobedience as "civil discourse."  Civil "discourse" is inherently passive, and in defining satyagraha Gandhi articulated its distinction from passive resistance:

Quote

I have drawn the distinction between passive resistance as understood and practised in the West and satyagraha before I had evolved the doctrine of the latter to its full logical and spiritual extent. I often used “passive resistance” and “satyagraha” as synonymous terms: but as the doctrine of satyagraha developed, the expression “passive resistance” ceases even to be synonymous, as passive resistance has admitted of violence as in the case of the suffragettes and has been universally acknowledged to be a weapon of the weak. Moreover, passive resistance does not necessarily involve complete adherence to truth under every circumstance. Therefore it is different from satyagraha in three essentials: Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatsoever; and it ever insists upon truth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

just whining about how no one will give shitty ideas the time of day.

au contrare! someone has in fact expended reasonable effort to read and review ayn rand's major texts (with several capsules) including some of her hapless epigones (with a repost here), plus bonus review of quasi-critical biography.

the lesson here is that we can take her ideas very seriously while crushing them under heel like cigarettes, even while alternating severe civility with glib incivility.

Edited by sologdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×