Against intellectual censorship and police states, for freedom of expression.
...
If anyone disagrees with any of these points, they had better not say it out loud
So for you and your friends, freedom of expression doesn’t extend to letting people say things you don’t like, and it isn’t censorship if you stop them doing it.
Certainly not: they are allowed to say them, the same way they’re allowed to say, for example, that they’re sexually attracted to small children: sharing this information about their state of mind will brand them as dangerous, repulsive, and immoral, they will be subject to suspicion and strong scrutiny, people will be wary of letting power in their hands, of associating with them in public… but no-one would tell them to shut up. In fact, people would want them to speak up, so that they can be identified and tagged.
So, we’re fully in favour of letting them say things we don’t like, we’re actually enthusiastically in favour of them saying them. When I say “they had better not say it out loud”, I mean that it would not be in their best interests to signal that state of mind, and that they would, as a matter of pure self-interest, censor themselves, without any input from us, and to our great regret.
For a moment I was going to say that I had misinterpreted you, but on reflection, I don’t think I did at all.
You just compared being against your favoured constellation of political ideas to child molesting, and called those who are against them dangerous, repulsive, and immoral. You want them subject to suspicion and strong scrutiny; they must be identified and tagged. Of course, you’re not going to personally suppress them, but—nudge nudge, wink wink—they’d better take care if they know what’s good for them, eh?
Now, imagine someone had read only that comment, but not its ancestors. What might they conjecture that this constellation of political ideas might be?
The manifest destiny of the Aryan race? Missionary Christianity? The white man’s burden of ruling the lesser peoples? Pan-Islamism? No, “liberal democracy”. (That was just the third of your five bullet points, but “liberal democracy” includes the other four already.)
Of course, you’re not going to personally suppress them, but—nudge nudge, wink wink—they’d better take care if they know what’s good for them, eh?
I’m not nudging, I’m not winking, and I’m not jocular or joyous: I’m dead serious, and state this as a matter of fact. Not as a threat or a warning, but as a statement of common sense. In fact, I like it better when they do not show this much common sense, so we can discuss their ideas in the open, and expose them for what they are.
You just compared being against your favoured constellation of political ideas to child molesting, and called those who are against them dangerous, repulsive, and immoral.
I chose paedophilia (not child molesting, I never said anything about actually having ever laid a hand on an actual child) because it’s something people get panicky about on a gut level, but is contingent to the local region of space and time one occupies. You may replace it with “racism”, “military expansionism/imperialism”, “support for the Death Penalty”, “support for banning guns”, “support for Cryonics and/or Transhumanism”, or “support for gay marriage”, depending on the social environment you’re moving in.
BTW, have you come across Mencius Moldbug?
I have. I am fairly unimpressed. Some interesting, daring, and refreshing new ideas, but I don’t know if it’s “rehearsing arguments”, “one argument against a thousand”, and so on and so forth, but I find his arguments un-satisfactory, ultimately.
The manifest destiny of the Aryan race? Missionary Christianity? The white man’s burden of ruling the lesser peoples? Pan-Islamism?
I find it telling that you conflate all of these and put them on the same level. In particular, you seem to be confused as to what missionary Christianity and Pan-islamism entail, respectively, by themselves.
I’m not nudging, I’m not winking, and I’m not jocular or joyous: I’m dead serious, and state this as a matter of fact. Not as a threat or a warning, but as a statement of common sense.
A statement of “common sense” that they will be seen as dangerous, repulsive, and immoral, and all the rest. If not by you, and not by them, then by whom?
I find it telling
I wish people who use this expression would go on to say what it tells them.
Those were just some examples of ideologies that have taken this attitude to their opponents. (Ok, maybe not all manifestations of missionary Christianity deserve to be in that list; consider it replaced by Stalinism or the Chinese Cultural Revolution.)
For “liberal democracy” to take that attitude doesn’t sound very liberal.
Er, yes, I have turned it into a draft at the behest of some readers who told me to reformat it in a way that would make it a proper top-level post, rather than a mere recapitulation/contextualization of the discussion so far. I’ll warn you as soon as it’s done.
If your regret over the consequences of punishing them for expressing their actual state is great enough, you might consider not punishing them. Conversely, if after considering it you decide to continue to punish them, you might want to calibrate your estimate of your regret more precisely.
No, no, I regret that they won’t speak up so we can’t identify them, I don’t regret the treatment they are given once they are identified. This is especially annoying when they start to act out on the opposites of these ideas as policies without announcing themselves, and in fact vehemently denying any type of association with the typical opponents of those ideas. It makes working to stop them harder.
You seem to have a fundamental confusion between “person is going to be punished for expressing beliefs outisde the Overton Window”, and “person is going to suffer negative consequences once it is publically known that they have beliefs outside the Overton Window”. The first would be institutionally enforced censorship, and wrong. The second would be simple social dynamics at work, and inevitable. If you can’t tell the difference, I suggest you live in a country like the one where I was born, where the very circulation of certain ideas can be paid with your own life.
That link doesn’t work for me. Do you have a preferred expression for people indicating that they are no longer interested in discussing a particular subject with you?
How about “I have lost interest in closing this discussion”, or even not answering at all? Anyway, that’s not what you indicated, you indicated that I had “won”, somehow. I’m not interested in winning arguments, I’m interested in finding out the truth. “(You have satisfactorily proven that) my (implcit) accusations were precipitated/groundless/undeserved. I now see where you are coming from (even though I disagree with your conclusions).” would have been my preferred outcome, “You are clearly insane and not worth talking to” would have been my least preferred.
...
So for you and your friends, freedom of expression doesn’t extend to letting people say things you don’t like, and it isn’t censorship if you stop them doing it.
Certainly not: they are allowed to say them, the same way they’re allowed to say, for example, that they’re sexually attracted to small children: sharing this information about their state of mind will brand them as dangerous, repulsive, and immoral, they will be subject to suspicion and strong scrutiny, people will be wary of letting power in their hands, of associating with them in public… but no-one would tell them to shut up. In fact, people would want them to speak up, so that they can be identified and tagged.
So, we’re fully in favour of letting them say things we don’t like, we’re actually enthusiastically in favour of them saying them. When I say “they had better not say it out loud”, I mean that it would not be in their best interests to signal that state of mind, and that they would, as a matter of pure self-interest, censor themselves, without any input from us, and to our great regret.
For a moment I was going to say that I had misinterpreted you, but on reflection, I don’t think I did at all.
You just compared being against your favoured constellation of political ideas to child molesting, and called those who are against them dangerous, repulsive, and immoral. You want them subject to suspicion and strong scrutiny; they must be identified and tagged. Of course, you’re not going to personally suppress them, but—nudge nudge, wink wink—they’d better take care if they know what’s good for them, eh?
Now, imagine someone had read only that comment, but not its ancestors. What might they conjecture that this constellation of political ideas might be?
The manifest destiny of the Aryan race? Missionary Christianity? The white man’s burden of ruling the lesser peoples? Pan-Islamism? No, “liberal democracy”. (That was just the third of your five bullet points, but “liberal democracy” includes the other four already.)
BTW, have you come across Mencius Moldbug?
I’m not nudging, I’m not winking, and I’m not jocular or joyous: I’m dead serious, and state this as a matter of fact. Not as a threat or a warning, but as a statement of common sense. In fact, I like it better when they do not show this much common sense, so we can discuss their ideas in the open, and expose them for what they are.
I chose paedophilia (not child molesting, I never said anything about actually having ever laid a hand on an actual child) because it’s something people get panicky about on a gut level, but is contingent to the local region of space and time one occupies. You may replace it with “racism”, “military expansionism/imperialism”, “support for the Death Penalty”, “support for banning guns”, “support for Cryonics and/or Transhumanism”, or “support for gay marriage”, depending on the social environment you’re moving in.
I have. I am fairly unimpressed. Some interesting, daring, and refreshing new ideas, but I don’t know if it’s “rehearsing arguments”, “one argument against a thousand”, and so on and so forth, but I find his arguments un-satisfactory, ultimately.
I find it telling that you conflate all of these and put them on the same level. In particular, you seem to be confused as to what missionary Christianity and Pan-islamism entail, respectively, by themselves.
A statement of “common sense” that they will be seen as dangerous, repulsive, and immoral, and all the rest. If not by you, and not by them, then by whom?
I wish people who use this expression would go on to say what it tells them.
Those were just some examples of ideologies that have taken this attitude to their opponents. (Ok, maybe not all manifestations of missionary Christianity deserve to be in that list; consider it replaced by Stalinism or the Chinese Cultural Revolution.)
For “liberal democracy” to take that attitude doesn’t sound very liberal.
Please see here.
I don’t have access to the link. Is it an unpublished draft?
Er, yes, I have turned it into a draft at the behest of some readers who told me to reformat it in a way that would make it a proper top-level post, rather than a mere recapitulation/contextualization of the discussion so far. I’ll warn you as soon as it’s done.
If your regret over the consequences of punishing them for expressing their actual state is great enough, you might consider not punishing them. Conversely, if after considering it you decide to continue to punish them, you might want to calibrate your estimate of your regret more precisely.
No, no, I regret that they won’t speak up so we can’t identify them, I don’t regret the treatment they are given once they are identified. This is especially annoying when they start to act out on the opposites of these ideas as policies without announcing themselves, and in fact vehemently denying any type of association with the typical opponents of those ideas. It makes working to stop them harder.
You seem to have a fundamental confusion between “person is going to be punished for expressing beliefs outisde the Overton Window”, and “person is going to suffer negative consequences once it is publically known that they have beliefs outside the Overton Window”. The first would be institutionally enforced censorship, and wrong. The second would be simple social dynamics at work, and inevitable. If you can’t tell the difference, I suggest you live in a country like the one where I was born, where the very circulation of certain ideas can be paid with your own life.
Tapping out.
Please see here. This is not a fight, and I’m not trying to knock you out.
That link doesn’t work for me.
Do you have a preferred expression for people indicating that they are no longer interested in discussing a particular subject with you?
How about “I have lost interest in closing this discussion”, or even not answering at all? Anyway, that’s not what you indicated, you indicated that I had “won”, somehow. I’m not interested in winning arguments, I’m interested in finding out the truth. “(You have satisfactorily proven that) my (implcit) accusations were precipitated/groundless/undeserved. I now see where you are coming from (even though I disagree with your conclusions).” would have been my preferred outcome, “You are clearly insane and not worth talking to” would have been my least preferred.