"Cancel Culture" 3

[OldGimletEye]

20 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Because they emotionally appeal. They give you a basis for blaming others, or making yourself feel good about things, or making your anger have an outlet, or because they back up your existing delusions. 

You might not like it, but they are crazily effective. The entire Republican party bought into the notion that Obama was not born in the US because they wanted to have a reason for their hate. They bought into the idea that immigrants were the source of all their problems because it's easier. Seriously, look around the US right now - do you think rationality is making decisions here?

Yes, some people are crazy. But, despite all the Republican horseshit, Obama was still able to crush Romney.

Also, I would never deny people are often persuaded by emotion. But, this raises many questions. Like whose emotional appeals are allowed and whose emotional appeals are disallowed. And whose emotional appeals are considered to better? Are emotional appeals better when they have facts to back them?

And the US as a whole may not be making rational decisions. But, based on polling it would see some people are thinking about Trump's antics.
 

20 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Totally moving the goalposts again. Again, why is it that there are only two things - rational debate with the other side, or complete and total banning of all speech? 

Nope. I am not. I merely made the point that the empirical evidence may not mean what you think it does.

And I have never made the suggestion that is only rational debate or complete banning of speech. What I’m trying to figure out is how far you would go to regulate it. And secondly, why you would allow free speech. Evidently, you don’t think it has any truth finding value. If it is all emotional appeal, then what is its justification?

20 hours ago, Kalbear said:

MLK's speeches were far more emotive than rational, and were effective. Watching AA people get beaten, spit on, hosed down - while doing nothing but standing there - that was FAR more effective than any rational debate. You continue to ignore this - why? Do you consider MLK's I have a dream speech a 'debate'? Because that's not what that word means. 

But wait, I thought the empirical evidence showed people don’t change their opinion. So why do his emotional appeals even matter?

Anyway for one MLK’s speeches were part of debate. Maybe not a direct debate. But, they were very much a retort to those who wanted to keep segregation. Secondly, would MLK’s have been effective if they weren’t in the background of segregation, racism, etc that were understood by some of the population? They weren’t just made in a fact free environment.
 

[Ran]

7 minutes ago, karaddin said:

 

And if the group of researchers that you're reading work from includes Kenneth Zucker

Steensma and his colleagues in the Netherlands have nothing to do with Zucker. Newhook et al in their critique chose their work and Zucker's separate work to level various criticisms about "desistance", which they seem to feel is a harmful research course or a poorly understood and discussed topic. Steensma and his colleague responded, which you can read above. Zucker also responded, which seems to be unavailable without journal access.

Winters and Newhook responded to the responses but that's also limited access. From what I can see, they seem to respect Steensma and co. much more.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I can't say you're wrong, and yet, I have heard, maybe incorrectly, that with these things there is a window of opportunity that, once closed, never reopens. If that is the case, waiting may not always be a healthy option. I think the law has to tread very carefully here--it seems to me it is hard enough to be trans without having activists and officials telling you what you need.

I'd like to hear from the trans members of the board on this topic. 

It's been a bit since I read any recent medical or psychological lit on the subject, but that was my understanding too. What I can't recall though is how it applied to which direction of transitioning was occurring. 

 

14 minutes ago, karaddin said:

No one is giving young trans kids any "invasive" steps in treatment. Its entirely social right up until puberty, and then its puberty blockers - which prevent a permanent invasive change - for a period of time before even the most trans friendly doctor is going to give us hormones to have the puberty we need at a later age than our peers. 

Sorry, I know it's a delicate subject. By invasive I meant the examples you see where parents are moving much too quickly with really young kids. There are certainly social practices you can introduce from a young age, such as non-gender binary clothes, toys, books, etc., but I do always get uncomfortable when I see stories of parents introducing hormonal treatments to kids at rather young ages.

[Ser Reptitious]

4 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

She absolutely should have done. I’m not defending her essay, but sadly she wrote it and has a large platform and so here we are. It’s in the limelight now, so it needs refuting. Tit for tat on the quality of your assertions isn’t going to get anyone anywhere.

There’s a Medium article that was good, that eventually links here. I found a few others with experts claiming it’s a false assertion, but without links. “What does the science say on this” should be the first port of call for any refutation, and it took me far too long to find this, and then it was by googling very specific terms (JK trans “60-90%” claim).

EDIT: actually it was this link here I intended, one click further.

Sure, but it can sometimes be difficult and time-consuming to disprove a claim. I could claim that 30 percent of the world’s population has pedophilic tendencies. Given enough time and funding, someone could perhaps eventually conclusively prove that to be incorrect, but why should I get away with pulling such a claim out of my ass (if I happened to have a platform) without getting called on it?

 If JK Rowling makes such a bold assertion, it is sufficient to challenge her to back that up. If she somehow actually can in a convincing manner, then yes, the burden of proof shifts to those seeking to refute her. But not before that.

3 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Why? Rowling just pulled that number out of her ass, why do we have to do the work to disprove it?

Exactly.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

She didn't. All the stuff she mentions are not ideas she came up with. She just didn't provide sources, much as many in the media did not provide sources when writing about it. It's a blog post, not a research paper.

If you’re going to make a bold claim that you know will cause a lot of controversy, it’s probably a smart idea to link to some sound evidence, to show that you’re not just spouting off bigotry.

Quote

But of course, harm can be caused by denying something needed just as providing something unneeded. So science is needed, and debate is needed, to find the course that provides the most help and the least harm.

Sure, but that debate should mainly take place among the professionals and those affected (similar to abortion). Not sure why people who never have and never will be personally affected by this feel the need to stick their nose into it. If it’s a purely academic debate for you (generic you), then why not defer to people who are actually affected by this?

[karaddin]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sorry, I know it's a delicate subject. By invasive I meant the examples you see where parents are moving much too quickly with really young kids. There are certainly social practices you can introduce from a young age, such as non-gender binary clothes, toys, books, etc., but I do always get uncomfortable when I see stories of parents introducing hormonal treatments to kids at rather young ages.

Again, no one is giving hormones to young kids unless your definition of "young kid" is a couple of years after the average age for onset of puberty. And I don't see why non-gender binary clothes are any better than gender affirming clothes etc. 

Another piece of misleading information that is often trotted out on this subject has to do with the number of children that express gender non-conformity at a young age which subsides as they age. That's a completely different thing to children actively affirming a different gender which does not have that drop off at all.

[Kalbear]

38 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And what type of heavy restriction do you want? I’m not opposed to some restrictions, but those restrictions would have to be pretty narrow and tight.  Otherwise you end up getting likes of hate speech law, like what is being passed in Ethiopia, which is so broad and vaguely defined, that there are real concerns it will become an instrument of suppressing dissent. 

I've given several examples already. Canada has a decent one. Germany another.

38 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Anyway, I’d hope in advocating for more heavy restrictions you will realize two things. One, don’t assume it will be your side calling the shots. And two, make sure those laws are very well drafted so we can avoid situations like:

<snip>

No, we don't need to avoid those situations. That's what the justice system is for. The notion of having some airtight laws that prevent all possible future things is bullshit and always has been, and is a scare tactic and always has been. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

38 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I’m well aware that the United States puts limits on free speech. I have commented on that. But, where the US differs is that it is extremely hesitant to engage in subject matter or viewpoint regulations in open forums. I have commented before on the restricted environment versus open forum. It is an important distinction.
And I have just listed a number of troubling cases in countries that just “do fine”.

So what? Have you listed all the cases where people got off scot-free for their speech when it caused harm?

38 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And one wonders how this emotional appeal changed to make people change their mind. I guess reports of Trumps screwups, misdeeds, etc. had nothing to do with it.

Emotional reactions, not rational debate. People didn't change their mind when Trump was debated; they changed their minds when they saw pictures of kids in cages. Watching his screwups and misdeeds is not rational debate.

38 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Look I’m a fan of Robert Schiller’s work. Asset price bubbles happen because people are often driven by emotion and herd mentality etc. But, then at some point reality sets in. The rational exuberance may go on for quite awhile, but then the bubble pops. 

Oh, that's the problem - you're an economist. Right, right. Forgot that. You really want the world to have nothing but rational actors who always behave in their own interests in a reasonable way. Wow. Right, that frames everything so much better now. Of course. This isn't just you willfully misreading every single thing - this is you with skin in the game. 

Here's another way you're moving the goalposts. I didn't say truth doesn't change people's minds. I said rational debate and facts don't. One telling people about climate change doesn't seem to change people's minds. One showing polar bears dying does a little. One experiencing crops dying for years does more. But that's not rational debate - that's actual lived experience. So yeah, you warning of a recession won't change people's minds, but people experiencing a recession will. 

38 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Let’s be thankful that Trump doesn’t have the ability to shut down the press and silence his critics. Though the US is not all that great when it comes to freedom of the press compared to some other countries. Finally, even if your preferred speech regulations had been made law, that is no guarantee that would have stopped Trump from winning. Maybe some kind of regulation combats the extreme supporters and nuttjobs at the margin.

I didn't say it would stop Trump from winning, nor is that my goal. It would help some, but my thesis is that people are always going to be vulnerable to emotional manipulation, and the US in particular is very good at being used by hate.

[Kalbear]

41 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yes, some people are crazy. But, despite all the Republican horseshit, Obama was still able to crush Romney.

Obama won by 2-3%. And as we saw later, the main reasons were that Obama had a better than normal turnout because he was popular and well-liked, not because he won the debates and Romney was not as well liked. 

41 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Also, I would never deny people are often persuaded by emotion. But, this raises many questions. Like whose emotional appeals are allowed and whose emotional appeals are disallowed. And whose emotional appeals are considered to better? Are emotional appeals better when they have facts to back them?

Strawman. I didn't ever say that emotional appeals should be disallowed. I said that rational debate isn't particularly effective in changing people's minds.

41 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And the US as a whole may not be making rational decisions. But, based on polling it would see some people are thinking about Trump's antics.

From polling, they're saying that Trump is doing a bad job, and it's probably because they're seeing people wearing masks, seeing people die, and seeing businesses close.

41 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And I have never made the suggestion that is only rational debate or complete banning of speech.

You literally said just that.

41 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

What I’m trying to figure out is how far you would go to regulate it. And secondly, why you would allow free speech. Evidently, you don’t think it has any truth finding value. If it is all emotional appeal, then what is its justification? 

First off, why is emotional appeal somehow bad to allow? Second, truth is not the only value one can care about. There are a whole lot of reasons to support free speech beyond 'finding truth'. 

As to how far I'd go to regulate it, again - Canada is a good example. Germany as well. 

41 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But wait, I thought the empirical evidence showed people don’t change their opinion. So why do his emotional appeals even matter?

Strawman and willful misreading. I didn't ever say people don't change their opinion. I said rational debate doesn't change people's mind.

41 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Anyway for one MLK’s speeches were part of debate. Maybe not a direct debate. But, they were very much a retort to those who wanted to keep segregation. Secondly, would MLK’s have been effective if they weren’t in the background of segregation, racism, etc that were understood by some of the population? They weren’t just made in a fact free environment.

MLK's speeches were not a rational debate, no. Another goalpost moving. What facts did MLK mention in his speeches? 

And another moving the goalposts on the 'background of segregation'. I am not arguing for the nonexistence of the universe. This all started with you saying that it was better to rationally debate and expose people to their arguments and that was the way to shut things down - which is obviously wrong. You stated how you can use facts to change people's minds - not by telling them those facts. If you want people to change their minds based on facts, they have to have a personal, visceral connection to them. They have to be unemployed or know people who are before recession actually hurts them. They have to see the results of racism and violence and segregation before anyone actually cares about it. They have to know a trans person before their rights actually matter to them. That sucks, but that's people, and the sooner you understand that the sooner you can actually get change happening. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

I've given several examples already. Canada has a decent one. Germany another.

Well it seems to me that Germany is far more restrictive than Canada. So which one do you prefer?

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

No, we don't need to avoid those situations. That's what the justice system is for. The notion of having some airtight laws that prevent all possible future things is bullshit and always has been, and is a scare tactic and always has been. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

The justice systems decision though will be based on how the restrictions are written.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So what? Have you listed all the cases where people got off scot-free for their speech when it caused harm?

Well a lot of speech can be alleged to cause harm. Would you ban it all?

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Emotional reactions, not rational debate. People didn't change their mind when Trump was debated; they changed their minds when they saw pictures of kids in cages. Watching his screwups and misdeeds is not rational debate.

So those emotional reactions are just purely arbitrary,

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Oh, that's the problem - you're an economist. Right, right. Forgot that. You really want the world to have nothing but rational actors who always behave in their own interests in a reasonable way. Wow. Right, that frames everything so much better now. Of course. This isn't just you willfully misreading every single thing - this is you with skin in the game. 

Here's another way you're moving the goalposts. I didn't say truth doesn't change people's minds. I said rational debate and facts don't. One telling people about climate change doesn't seem to change people's minds. One showing polar bears dying does a little. One experiencing crops dying for years does more. But that's not rational debate - that's actual lived experience. So yeah, you warning of a recession won't change people's minds, but people experiencing a recession will. 

I don't think people are rational all the time. But they do learn over time.

And, again, are some emotions better grounded than others. Or is it all an exercise in arbitrariness.

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 I didn't say it would stop Trump from winning, nor is that my goal. It would help some, but my thesis is that people are always going to be vulnerable to emotional manipulation, and the US in particular is very good at being used by hate.

Well sure people can be vulnerable to emotional manipulations. That is why it is why it is important to have a robust system of civil liberties that a con man like Trump can't easily change. Another important check is to  make sure people like Trump can't suppress criticism.

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Obama won by 2-3%. And as we saw later, the main reasons were that Obama had a better than normal turnout because he was popular and well-liked, not because he won the debates and Romney was not as well liked. 

So people voting for Obama was just an arbitrary act?

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Strawman. I didn't ever say that emotional appeals should be disallowed. I said that rational debate isn't particularly effective in changing people's minds.

Why should they be allowed is what I'm asking you.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

From polling, they're saying that Trump is doing a bad job, and it's probably because they're seeing people wearing masks, seeing people die, and seeing businesses close.

Is it possible that their perception matches the reality of the situation?

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You literally said just that.

Nope.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

First off, why is emotional appeal somehow bad to allow? Second, truth is not the only value one can care about. There are a whole lot of reasons to support free speech beyond 'finding truth'. 

Like which ones?

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Strawman and willful misreading. I didn't ever say people don't change their opinion. I said rational debate doesn't change people's mind.

But, I thought the evidence proffered up said people generally form their political opinions when they are young adults and then tend to be stable throughout their lives.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

MLK's speeches were not a rational debate, no. Another goalpost moving. What facts did MLK mention in his speeches? 

And another moving the goalposts on the 'background of segregation'. I am not arguing for the nonexistence of the universe. This all started with you saying that it was better to rationally debate and expose people to their arguments and that was the way to shut things down - which is obviously wrong. You stated how you can use facts to change people's minds - not by telling them those facts. If you want people to change their minds based on facts, they have to have a personal, visceral connection to them. They have to be unemployed or know people who are before recession actually hurts them. They have to see the results of racism and violence and segregation before anyone actually cares about it. They have to know a trans person before their rights actually matter to them. That sucks, but that's people, and the sooner you understand that the sooner you can actually get change happening. 

So in other words the factual circumstances around those speeched mattered?

[karaddin]

...I'm really confused why you think emotions are arbitrary? It really feels like you're operating on completely different definitions for a whole bunch of words in this discussion

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, karaddin said:

...I'm really confused why you think emotions are arbitrary? It really feels like you're operating on completely different definitions for a whole bunch of words in this discussion

Are emotions arbitrary. Or are some better grounded than others? That is what I'm trying to get a clarification on.

[karaddin]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Are emotions arbitrary. Or are some better grounded than others? That is what I'm trying to get a clarification on.

Emotions aren't spat out by a random emotion generator, they are informed by what you're seeing/experiencing and your prior history, your values and so on. They're an omnipresent part of every human and the primary driver of everything we do. The basis for many peoples view of "rational debate" on the other hand, high school debates in which you are expected to argue for or against something based on what you're assigned...that is actually arbitrary.

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Emotions aren't spat out by a random emotion generator, they are informed by what you're seeing/experiencing and your prior history, your values and so on. They're an omnipresent part of every human and the primary driver of everything we do. The basis for many peoples view of "rational debate" on the other hand, high school debates in which you are expected to argue for or against something based on what you're assigned...that is actually arbitrary.

Both George Wallace and MLK made emotional appeals. Who got the better of the argument?

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well it seems to me that Germany is far more restrictive than Canada. So which one do you prefer?

Probably Canada's. 

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The justice systems decision though will be based on how the restrictions are written.

Some - they're also based on public opinion, and new laws can be written. 

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well a lot of speech can be alleged to cause harm. Would you ban it all?

No. I've said what I'd ban. 

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So those emotional reactions are just purely arbitrary,

No, those emotional reactions are emotional reactions. They aren't based on rational debate.

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don't think people are rational all the time. But they do learn over time.

Citation needed.

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And, again, are some emotions better grounded than others. Or is it all an exercise in arbitrariness. 

They're largely based on people's priors. 

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well sure people can be vulnerable to emotional manipulations. That is why it is why it is important to have a robust system of civil liberties that a con man like Trump can't easily change. Another important check is to  make sure people like Trump can't suppress criticism.

You're making this about Trump somehow. I don't care. I care much more about stopping people like Alex Jones and Richard Spencer than I do people like Trump as far as free speech goes. 

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So people voting for Obama was just an arbitrary act?

You keep using the word 'arbitrary'. 

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Why should they be allowed is what I'm asking you.

What, why should rational debate be 'allowed'? Lots of things are ineffective. As an example, me attempting to reason with you when you refuse to read the words I wrote and continue to attribute opinions to me is obviously ineffective. So what? What does that have to do with it? Why does 'something must work' be the criteria for government allowance?

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Is it possible that their perception matches the reality of the situation?

Certainly, but they didn't get their from rational debate.

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Nope.

"If free speech has no value, then how is there a right way? Why not just heavily restrict it?"
"If debate has no truth finding value, then why not advocate for more heavy restrictions by the government. What is your theory about the value of free speech?"

"Truly, this is some authoritarian malarkey right here. If fundamentally believe that argument can't change opinion, then you really don't believe in free speech at all. You believe that the correct opinions have to be fed to the populace."

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Like which ones?

Joy. Fun. Anger. Connection. Outrage. Sadness. Porn. How is this a question?

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, I thought the evidence proffered up said people generally form their political opinions when they are young adults and then tend to be stable throughout their lives.

Yes, barring large emotionally-laden personal experiences that change people, this is accurate. I'm not sure that this is the slam dunk that you think it is. 

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So in other words the factual circumstances around those speeched mattered?

Never said they didn't - but here's the thing. People didn't care about those speeches until they actually saw things. And not just see things - see people beaten by police for doing nothing. They didn't care about those speeches until they were emotionally connected to that. We have had years and years of people speaking out about police violence against black people in the US, as an example. We have a litany of names to recite of unjust killings. Why did people's minds change about BLM now instead of before? It's not because of facts - people had plenty of facts. It's because they got to see a video of someone being killed unjustly, and that caused an emotional reaction. They had all the facts they needed before. But George Floyd's killers are arrested. Breonna Taylor's are not - because there's a video. Armaud Arbery's case was dismissed for TWO MONTHS even though facts were out there - only the video being released changed people's minds. 

And the reason it changed people's minds is because the facts by themselves don't matter; you must cause that emotional, moral connection. 

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Both George Wallace and MLK made emotional appeals. Who got the better of the argument?

The person who had showcased a whole lot of people being beaten unjustly. 

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Probably Canada's. 

Okay, this what I'm trying to figure out. I'd probably be okay with Canada's approach. Germany's not so much. Though it seems to me that Canada's approach still lets in speech you probably wouldn't want to hear.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Some - they're also based on public opinion, and new laws can be written. 

While I'd probably be okay with updating the constitution to reflect a free speech regime that is close to Canada's, I'm not okay with giving legislatures unlimited discretion. Whatever provisions that would go into the Constitution would need to be carefully drafted.

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No. I've said what I'd ban. 

Well since you've clarified that you would prefer Canada's approach over other countries, I have closer understanding of where you at on this.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, those emotional reactions are emotional reactions. They aren't based on rational debate.

Then they are based on what?

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Citation needed.

In your opinion has general public opinion changed since 1776. Is it better or worse?

Also, economic systems do seem stable at times. Would be difficult to achieve if people's opinions didn't match reality at times. You can read it about in the learning literature. I recommend the book by Evans. Lastly, if people didn't learn, then it would be easy to make arbitrage profits in gambling markets, financial markets etc. But, while those markets aren't purely efficient, they are difficult to make profits in.

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They're largely based on people's priors. 

And where do those priors come from? Is it always a Dutch Book situation. Do priors evolve? Why?

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You're making this about Trump somehow. I don't care. I care much more about stopping people like Alex Jones and Richard Spencer than I do people like Trump as far as free speech goes. 

Well this is a clarification I'm wanting. If your intended speech regulations are just about stopping the Richard Spencers of the world from preaching ethnic cleansing and such of the world, I don't really object. It seems to me that regulation could be tightly crafted to stop that, without removing legitimate speech.

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You keep using the word 'arbitrary'. 

Do some emotional appeals count more than others? That is what I'm trying to nail down here.

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

What, why should rational debate be 'allowed'? Lots of things are ineffective. As an example, me attempting to reason with you when you refuse to read the words I wrote and continue to attribute opinions to me is obviously ineffective. So what? What does that have to do with it? Why does 'something must work' be the criteria for government allowance?

On the contrary I'm learning more about your precise position. If your inclined to be on the Canada side of speech regulation, we might be able to reach some sort of agreement about where we should go. I'm also learning about or trying to clarify your position on why you think free speech, to some extent, is good.

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Certainly, but they didn't get their from rational debate.

So the reporting of Trump's missteps aren't part of the debate about his presidency?

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

"If free speech has no value, then how is there a right way? Why not just heavily restrict it?"
"If debate has no truth finding value, then why not advocate for more heavy restrictions by the government. What is your theory about the value of free speech?"

"Truly, this is some authoritarian malarkey right here. If fundamentally believe that argument can't change opinion, then you really don't believe in free speech at all. You believe that the correct opinions have to be fed to the populace."

It's a lot easier for me to take your position on free speech more seriously if you can offer up a reason why you think it is valuable. After reading your prior comments, certainly you think that is the case.

30 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Joy. Fun. Anger. Connection. Outrage. Sadness. Porn. How is this a question?

It's the most fundamental question to ask when we start to think about regulating free speech.

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, barring large emotionally-laden personal experiences that change people, this is accurate. I'm not sure that this is the slam dunk that you think it is. 

Many people who sided with MLK didn't have his "personal experiences".

 

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Never said they didn't - but here's the thing. People didn't care about those speeches until they actually saw things. And not just see things - see people beaten by police for doing nothing. They didn't care about those speeches until they were emotionally connected to that. We have had years and years of people speaking out about police violence against black people in the US, as an example. We have a litany of names to recite of unjust killings. Why did people's minds change about BLM now instead of before? It's not because of facts - people had plenty of facts. It's because they got to see a video of someone being killed unjustly, and that caused an emotional reaction. They had all the facts they needed before. But George Floyd's killers are arrested. Breonna Taylor's are not - because there's a video. Armaud Arbery's case was dismissed for TWO MONTHS even though facts were out there - only the video being released changed people's minds. 

Certainly police beatings opened many people's eyes to the reality of the situation. But, I'd submit their moral revulsion at seeing those things weren't arbitrary.

 

35 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The person who had showcased a whole lot of people being beaten unjustly. 

Requires people to have a notion of "unjust".

[Fury Resurrected]

46 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Both George Wallace and MLK made emotional appeals. Who got the better of the argument?

You and others who keep referring to MLK- you know that despite what white written history books would tell you, he didn’t singlehandedly convince a nation on civil rights- you know that, right? You know that in his time he was one of the most hated men in America and was assassinated? Because it is extremely frustrating to constantly see people throwing him out like he didn’t see pushback identical to what BLM is getting today. The FBI was actively trying to blackmail him. They sent him threats. When they learned of a plot to assassinate him they allowed it to succeed. The people who are mad and calling BLM a hate group and saying “they have a point but I can’t support how they do it” would be saying the exact same thing to MLK back then. They were not convinced, they just saw how history viewed it and applaud It and set out a false narrative like MLK made a good speech and changed America. He didn’t win an argument- he challenged the status quo and they literally fucking murdered him for it with the support of the FBI

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

You and others who keep referring to MLK- you know that despite what white written history books would tell you, he didn’t singlehandedly convince a nation on civil rights- you know that, right? You know that in his time he was one of the most hated men in America and was assassinated? Because it is extremely frustrating to constantly see people throwing him out like he didn’t see pushback identical to what BLM is getting today. The FBI was actively trying to blackmail him. They sent him threats. When they learned of a plot to assassinate him they allowed it to succeed. The people who are mad and calling BLM a hate group and saying “they have a point but I can’t support how they do it” would be saying the exact same thing to MLK back then. They were not convinced, they just saw how history viewed it and applaud It and set out a false narrative like MLK made a good speech and changed America. He didn’t win an argument- he challenged the status quo and they literally fucking murdered him for it with the support of the FBI

As it stands to today, do people go around quoting George Wallace.

Now, maybe, I've misremembered something, but I don't think I was the first to bring him up. (Correction I did  now that I think about it.). Still what would have happened if he had been suppressed by the government.

And finally what is your explanation for the 1964, 1965 civil rights act.

[Fury Resurrected]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

As it stands to today, do people go around quoting George Wallace.

Now, maybe, I've misremembered something, but I don't think I was the first to bring him up.

And finally what is your explanation for the 1964, 1965 civil rights act.

No, of course they don’t- but when MLK was alive, they did. America likes to whitewash history and act like it wasn’t as racist as it was to make it look like it is less racist currently than it is. Often, quoting MLK is a tactic they use to try and silence current movements for civil rights and I refuse to believe you are too dumb to see that most of the time quoting MLK is a self serving thing.

I explain the civil rights act that one very powerful white man was convinced, who happened to live in the White House. The nation at large still vehemently opposed it, and would today too. They let the voting rights act expire for the express purpose of disenfranchising black voters, ffs.

[Ran]

13 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

You and others who keep referring to MLK- you know that despite what white written history books would tell you, he didn’t singlehandedly convince a nation on civil rights- you know that, right? You know that in his time he was one of the most hated men in America and was assassinated?

You need to contextualize this.

Leading up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and his Nobel Prize in 1964, his favorability and unfavorability in polling was about even; I'm not sure he'd be considered the most hated man in America at that time.

It was afterwards, when he began to campaign for desegregating neighborhoods in Northern cities, promoted labor and unions, harshly criticized Vietnam (which led to LBJ breaking off contact with him), and started talking about a complete revolution of American values that opinion turned much more strongly negative. He had shifted from narrow but deep gains (CRA, VRA) to broader goals that put him at odds with the greater establishment in a way that he had never been before.

It's absolutely true that the history they teach students doesn't really talk about what went on post 1965 in terms of his goals and aspirations and how they were at that time divisive (including among some segments of the African American activist groups). "He just putters around for a few years after the Nobel Prize and then gets assassinated in Memphis" is pretty much how I learned it in school right through AP  US History nearly 25 years ago.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Then they are based on what?

Mostly? Their personal experiences, largely with their family at first and then later in their youth their peer groups and popular culture. Sometimes their teachers. There's a reason things like MRA and incel culture work - and it's not based on facts.

What doesn't make them change? Random people spouting facts at them on message boards.

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

In your opinion has general public opinion changed since 1776. Is it better or worse?

I have no idea what this is supposed to be as a gotcha. I assume you're implying that rational debate is the reason things have gotten better. I will say that instead of rational debate, it is literally everything else. 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Also, economic systems do seem stable at times. Would be difficult to achieve if people's opinions didn't match reality at times. You can read it about in the learning literature. I recommend the book by Evans. Lastly, if people didn't learn, then it would be easy to make arbitrage profits in gambling markets, financial markets etc. But, while those markets aren't purely efficient, they are difficult to make profits in. 

Didn't say people didn't learn. That's again you misreading things I said. 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

And where do those priors come from? Is it always a Dutch Book situation. Do priors evolve? Why?

They do evolve based on personal experiences, and not usually because of scientific evidence. 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well this is a clarification I'm wanting. If your intended speech regulations are just about stopping the Richard Spencers of the world from preaching ethnic cleansing and such of the world, I don't really object. It seems to me that regulation could be tightly crafted to stop that, without removing legitimate speech.

BUT WHAT ABOUT DEBAAATE
SHOULDN'T WE JUST DEBATE HIM AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT IT ISN'T RATIONAL TO ADVOCATE FOR ETHNIC CLEANSING

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

On the contrary I'm learning more about your precise position. If your inclined to be on the Canada side of speech regulation, we might be able to reach some sort of agreement about where we should go. I'm also learning about or trying to clarify your position on why you think free speech, to some extent, is good.

This was never about free speech, so...yay? You're the one who was advocating for debating Ben Shapiro and how successful that would be in discrediting him. 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

So the reporting of Trump's missteps aren't part of the debate about his presidency?

Not in any reasonable usage of the term 'debate', no.

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

It's a lot easier for me to take your position on free speech more seriously if you can offer up a reason why you think it is valuable. After reading your prior comments, certainly you think that is the case.

I didn't offer a position on free speech to start with, so...go you. Again, debating someone is not equivalent to free speech, and the notion that it is is really stupid. 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

It's the most fundamental question to ask when we start to think about regulating free speech. 

Which I wasn't. 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Many people who sided with MLK didn't have his "personal experiences".

That's not what I'm talking about, and I literally provided examples of what I was talking about in the very next sentence. They had the personal experiences of people he was talking about, or they had the personal experiences of witnessing people being beaten and segregated, they had the personal experiences of watching national guardsmen to open schools, they had the personal experiences of watching Selma. 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Certainly police beatings opened many people's eyes to the reality of the situation. But, I'd submit their moral revulsion at seeing those things weren't arbitrary.

On some fundamental level they are innate. All humans have certain moral feelings that get triggered regardless of culture, and unfairness is one of the strongest ones. Their moral revulsion comes from that innate viewpoint. No one has to teach a baby that if you give one baby candy for doing nothing that they should also get candy too. No one has to teach someone that getting beaten while sitting in a restaurant is unfair. 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Requires people to have a notion of "unjust".

All humans have that built in.