Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Goddess on January 10, 2019, 03:10:37 pm
-
I've been doing a bit of work with the JW Recovery board lately, and wanted to brush up on some stuff. Found this article, I thought was very good at explaining how fundamentalism hijacks people's brains.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201810/how-religious-fundamentalism-hijacks-the-brain
To start - t gives the definition of religious fundamentalism, which is important because everyone seems to have their own opinion on what religious fundamentalism is, what is seen as moderate by one person can be seen as fundamentalism to another:
In moderation, religious and spiritual practices can be great for a person’s life and mental well-being. But religious fundamentalism—which refers to the belief in the absolute authority of a religious text or leaders—is almost never good for an individual.
It compares fundamentalism to mental parasites:
It is not accurate to call religious fundamentalism a disease, because that term refers to a pathology that physically attacks the biology of a system. But fundamentalist ideologies can be thought of as mental parasites. A parasite does not usually kill the host it inhabits, as it is critically dependent on it for survival. Instead, it feeds off it and changes its behavior in ways that benefit its own existence.
Ideas spread through the behavior that they produce in their hosts, which is what enables them to be transmitted from one brain to another. For example, an ideology—such as a religion—that causes its inhabitants to practice its rituals and communicate its beliefs will be transmitted to others......
......Essentially, the brain is a biological computer, and an ideology is a set of coded instructions, or “cultural software,” that is running on the brain’s hardware.
Like genes and gene complexes, when an ideology is replicated—or passed from one person or group to another—it undergoes mutations. As a consequence, different versions of that belief system are produced, which generate different types of behavior. As such, there are often good and bad variants of any given religion. For instance, there are moderate versions of Christianity and Islam that promote qualities like a sense of community and a moral code that fosters ethical behavior. These ideas can be beneficial to the host organism, i.e., the religious-practicing individual. At the same time, there are harmful variants of Islam and Christianity—specifically the rigid fundamentalist versions—that cause the host mind to process information in a biased way, think irrationally, and become delusional. Similarly, a harmful ideology disguises itself as something beneficial in order to insert itself into the brain of an individual, so that it can instruct them to behave in ways that transmit the mental virus to others. The ability for parasites to modify the behavior of hosts in ways that increase their own “fitness” (i.e., their ability to survive and reproduce) while hurting the fitness of the host, is known as “parasitic manipulation.”
This jives with some of the new research coming out that shows religious fundamentalism can cause mental illness, as opposed to just attracting those already mentally ill.
This is a big step towards recognizing religious fundamentalism as dangerous and harmful to individuals and to society and hopefully provide some better tools for preventing it and helping people break free from it.
If we want to inoculate society against the harms of fundamentalist ideologies, we must start thinking differently about how they function in the brain. An ideology with a tendency to harm its host in an effort to self-replicate gives it all the properties of a parasitic virus, and defending against such a belief system requires understanding it as one. When a fundamentalist ideology inhabits a host brain, the organism’s mind is no longer fully in control. The ideology is controlling its behavior and reasoning processes to propagate itself and sustain its survival. This analogy should inform how we approach efforts that attempt to reverse brainwashing and restore cognitive function in areas like analytic reasoning and problem-solving.
I'm still looking for and researching if there are any new ways to break through that fundamentalist brain fog, but viewing it as a mental parasite does put it in a different light and I hope people smarter than me (like Steven Hassan maybe?) can come up with some better ways of inoculating society against dangerous cults/religions.
-
religious fundamentalism can cause mental illness
I guess I don't understand what mental illness is. I generally go by the causes the Mayo clinic uses:
Mental illnesses, in general, are thought to be caused by a variety of genetic and environmental factors:
- Inherited traits. Mental illness is more common in people whose blood relatives also have a mental illness. Certain genes may increase your risk of developing a mental illness, and your life situation may trigger it.
- Environmental exposures before birth. Exposure to environmental stressors, inflammatory conditions, toxins, alcohol or drugs while in the womb can sometimes be linked to mental illness.
- Brain chemistry. Neurotransmitters are naturally occurring brain chemicals that carry signals to other parts of your brain and body. When the neural networks involving these chemicals are impaired, the function of nerve receptors and nerve systems change, leading to depression.
-
I guess I don't understand what mental illness is. I generally go by the causes the Mayo clinic uses:
Mental illnesses, in general, are thought to be caused by a variety of genetic and environmental factors:
- Inherited traits. Mental illness is more common in people whose blood relatives also have a mental illness. Certain genes may increase your risk of developing a mental illness, and your life situation may trigger it.
- Environmental exposures before birth. Exposure to environmental stressors, inflammatory conditions, toxins, alcohol or drugs while in the womb can sometimes be linked to mental illness.
- Brain chemistry. Neurotransmitters are naturally occurring brain chemicals that carry signals to other parts of your brain and body. When the neural networks involving these chemicals are impaired, the function of nerve receptors and nerve systems change, leading to depression.
I'm not sure. Perhaps it could come under any of those categories - environmental, inherited, brain chemistry. This is the point of the article - religious fundamentalism changes how the brain processes information. It also says, "in general", so I assume that list is not an exhaustive one. New research has been fairly recent:
https://campuspress.yale.edu/perspective/religion-and-mental-health-the-connection-between-faith-and-delusion/
Studies have shown there is a complex connection between religion and mental issues. A 2014 study found that people who believe in a vengeful or punitive god are more likely to suffer from mental issues such as social anxiety, paranoia, obsessional thinking, and compulsions......The American Psychiatric Association issued a mental health guide for faith leaders to help those preaching the word differentiate between devout belief and dangerous delusion or fundamentalism.
It’s also possible that the beliefs and teachings advocated by a religion for example forgiveness or compassion, can become integrated into the way our brain works, this is because the more that certain neural connections in the brain are used, the stronger they can become. Of course, obviously then the flip-side is true too, and a doctrine that advocates negative beliefs, such as hatred or ostracization of non-believers, or even belief that certain health issues are a ‘punishment’ from a higher power, detrimental effects to an individual’s mental health can occur.
There is still a lot more research to be done:
https://www.thecut.com/2014/08/can-harsh-fundamentalism-lead-to-mental-illness.html
What’s fascinating and provocative here is the implication of adaptive versus maladaptive religiosity. Could it be that certain harsher perceptions of God make people particularly prone to mental illness? It certainly makes some intuitive sense — particularly to a nonbeliever like myself — but this is an area in which the findings are pretty new, so there’s a lot more research to be done.
Again, causation’s always difficult to establish — it could be that people who are already anxious are more likely to develop notions of God as a distant and/or angry figure. But it would be really interesting to see this research extended into, say, fundamentalist communities in which the perception of a harsh, angry God is delivered from on high at an early age, in which people don’t have a lot of flexibility to develop their own version of the supernatural.
-
Humans are hardwired to be obsessives and religion is only one of many pathways that can turn obsession into toxic extremism.
-
Humans are hardwired to be obsessives and religion is only one of many pathways that can turn obsession into toxic extremism.
Maybe politics is another. :D
You are correct, religion is one way. It's the one this thread is about.
-
Here’s a brilliant exhortation of religion by Sam Harris.
https://youtu.be/tW21P0BwnxQ
I don’t think it’s just the fundamentalism that is a problem. I think the moderate religions give cover, so to speak, for the fundamentalists.
-
Here’s a brilliant exhortation of religion by Sam Harris.
https://youtu.be/tW21P0BwnxQ
I don’t think it’s just the fundamentalism that is a problem. I think the moderate religions give cover, so to speak, for the fundamentalists.
I'm a fan, but I don't feel there is much use for podcasters to disparage individual religions. It only comes through a cultural lens. All religions should be free, with reasonable limits, and all are ridiculous also.
-
I'm a fan, but I don't feel there is much use for podcasters to disparage individual religions.
Why not? Is it better to dispariage all religions together?
It only comes through a cultural lens.
What do you mean?
All religions should be free, with reasonable limits, and all are ridiculous also.
I’ve never seen Harris, or anybody else for that matter, argue that people should not be free to follow whatever religion they choose.
They criticize the ideas and tenets, which is fair game for anything. Religion shouldn’t get a free pass.
The best thing Trudeau has done with his time in government was to get rid of Canada’s outdated blasphemy laws. Most people don’t even know this happened. Although, they weren’t actually being enforced and may have been struck down if they had.
Over the summer of 2016, a petition to Parliament asking that the blasphemous libel law be repealed was circulated by several Canadian humanist groups.[17] The petition was presented to the Government in December 2016. It responded in January 2017, stating that "blasphemous libel, along with numerous other provisions of the Criminal Code, are presently under review by the Minister [of Justice] and her officials".[18][19] On 6 June 2017, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould introduced Bill C-51 in the House of Commons, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code including repeal of section 296 of the Criminal Code relating to blasphemous libel and various other provisions of the Criminal Code which have been ruled or may be unconstitutional.[20] The Bill passed both the House of Commons and the Senate on 11 December 2018.[21] On 13 December 2018, the Governor General formally granted Royal Assent, making the repeal official.[22][23][24]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law#Canada
-
1. Why not? Is it better to dispariage all religions together?
If you are merely a popular orator, probably.
2. What do you mean?
Fat people point at medium people and say they're skinny. Skinny people point at the same people and say they're fat.
Fundamental Christians, seculars, Muslims.... what are you going to come up with that doesn't say anything about yourself ?
-
If you are merely a popular orator, probably.
Once again…. Why?
Fat people point at medium people and say they're skinny. Skinny people point at the same people and say they're fat.
Bizarre analogy that actually doesn’t happen. What are you going on about?
Fundamental Christians, seculars, Muslims.... what are you going to come up with that doesn't say anything about yourself ?
That question makes zero sense.
Questioning ideas is how we progress as a society…. Should we not have discussed whether we allow gay people the same rights as straight people? You are making zero sense.
Unless you think that religions should never be questioned. But this would be a truly bizarre point of view.
-
Once again…. Why?
I saw this great speaker ... he talked a LOT about the Jews and what's wrong with them.
Boy, he started making SENSE you know ?
And he got the crowd REALLY WHIPPED UP.
Bizarre analogy that actually doesn’t happen. What are you going on about?
Cultural relativism. Of course, if you think you are impossible of uttering anything wrong this sounds like Esperanto to you.
And I just realized who I'm speaking to... Mr. Perfect.
So please just ignore me, I am WRONG.
Unless you think that religions should never be questioned. But this would be a truly bizarre point of view.
Of course religions should be questioned.
Do you think it's ok if I run into shul and start calling them money grubbing Israel lovers ?
Your answer is YES OTHERWISE I AM NOT FREE TO SPEAK AND CHANGE THE WORLD.
------
Anyway - I won't proceed unless you answer this first: Can God make a Pad Thai too spicy for himself to eat ?
-
I saw this great speaker ... he talked a LOT about the Jews and what's wrong with them.
Boy, he started making SENSE you know ?
And he got the crowd REALLY WHIPPED UP.
You see no difference between criticizing religious ideas and demonizing people based on their religion?
Cultural relativism. Of course, if you think you are impossible of uttering anything wrong this sounds like Esperanto to you.
He’s from the same culture as the religious ideas he is criticizing! LOL
And I just realized who I'm speaking to... Mr. Perfect.
So please just ignore me, I am WRONG.
I might, if you continue to accuse people of bigotry when they are simply questioning/criticizing/mocking/ridiculing ideas.
Of course religions should be questioned.
Your response is all sorts of mixed up…. Conflating the criticism of religions with demonizing Jews and then you say religions should be questioned. Which is it?
Do you think it's ok if I run into shul and start calling them money grubbing Israel lovers ?
Now you’re equating criticism of religion on a podcast, or a book with going into a place of worship and insulting people with racial stereotypes.
Can you actually try and be honest about what we’re talking about without the hyperbolic stupidity?
-
I'm a fan, but I don't feel there is much use for podcasters to disparage individual religions. It only comes through a cultural lens. All religions should be free, with reasonable limits, and all are ridiculous also.
It's always useful for people to criticize ideas, especially bad ones, and/or ones that some feel are above criticism.
-
It's always useful for people to criticize ideas, especially bad ones, and/or ones that some feel are above criticism.
You can’t do that!!! That’s the same as going to a mosque and calling them all a bunch of camel-jockey terrorizers!!
-
You see no difference between criticizing religious ideas and demonizing people based on their religion?
This.
Criticizing Jews (a group of people) is not the same as criticizing Judaism as a set of ideas.
A free society means everyone is free to believe whatever they want just as much as everyone is free to criticize the beliefs of others as much as they want.
-
It's always useful for people to criticize ideas, especially bad ones, and/or ones that some feel are above criticism.
Why ?
Is there a purpose ?
And if there is one - could it be possible for some criticism to be pointless because it clearly doesn't advance the purpose ?
-
And please - you free speech people are infringing on my right to free speech by criticizing me. Shouldn't I be allowed to criticize religions or their people or their skin colour so they can change it ?
Jeez, it's so frickin' simple.
Stop blocking my free speech.
-
And please - you free speech people are infringing on my right to free speech by criticizing me. Shouldn't I be allowed to criticize religions or their people or their skin colour so they can change it ?
Jeez, it's so frickin' simple.
Stop blocking my free speech.
Anyone can criticize anything they want. Anyone else can disagree.
No one is under any obligation to change anything.
It is simple.
-
Anyone can criticize anything they want. Anyone else can disagree.
No one is under any obligation to change anything.
It is simple.
Agreed.
-
Why ?
Is there a purpose ?
And if there is one - could it be possible for some criticism to be pointless because it clearly doesn't advance the purpose ?
Refuting bad ideas is a noble cause.
The only objection to gay marriage was religious. Telling the religious that their ideas were **** worked to promote equality.
-
And please - you free speech people are infringing on my right to free speech by criticizing me. Shouldn't I be allowed to criticize religions or their people or their skin colour so they can change it ?
Jeez, it's so frickin' simple.
Stop blocking my free speech.
I’m not sure why you’re off on this free speech tangent. Another red herring. Equating being racist with criticism of religious ideas, or religions themselves, is patently dishonest.
-
They criticize the ideas and tenets, which is fair game for anything. Religion shouldn’t get a free pass.
Yes, you are free to criticize religion.
For me to question the usefulness of speech is not the same as me saying it shouldn't be allowed.
-
They criticize the ideas and tenets, which is fair game for anything. Religion shouldn’t get a free pass.
Yes, you are free to criticize religion.
For me to question the usefulness of speech is not the same as me saying it shouldn't be allowed.
Ah, I see.
I have to admit, they haven't changed the blasphemy law in Pakistan yet.
Still, it would be remiss of me to refrain from criticizing it.
-
Still, it would be remiss of me to refrain from criticizing it.
Pakistan or the religion ?
I don't care either way.
-
Pakistan or the religion ?
I don't care either way.
What's the difference when it comes to the blasphemy law?
You don't give the impression of someone who doesn't care either way.
-
They criticize the ideas and tenets, which is fair game for anything. Religion shouldn’t get a free pass.
Yes, you are free to criticize religion.
For me to question the usefulness of speech is not the same as me saying it shouldn't be allowed.
I find any speech that marginalizes mystical thinking to be extremely useful.
Beliefs inform opinions and actions. Things like anti-gay sentiments are almost exclusively the purview of religion.
-
You don't give the impression of someone who doesn't care either way.
I am not trying to tell you to not criticize Pakistan or Islam.
-
I find any speech useful that marginalizes mystical thinking to be extremely useful.
You just made Jesus cry. I hope you're happy.
Beliefs inform opinions and actions. Things like anti-gay sentiments are almost exclusively the purview of religion.
Development of a religion was part of the development of human culture. Mr. Perfect feels bigger about himself when he sees cave drawings.
-
I am not trying to tell you to not criticize Pakistan or Islam.
No, but you do seem irritated by the presumption.
But I could be wrong.
-
No, but you do seem irritated by the presumption.
But I could be wrong.
No - Mr. Perfect irritates me because he's unpleasant to talk to.
If I dare say anything about the usefulness of criticizing religion, well how dare I ?
-
Why ?
Is there a purpose ?
Yes, because criticizing bad ideas and proposing better ones is the way we improve as a society.
If you didn't want the enlightenment to happen you could go back in time to Martin Luther and wag your finger at him because he was going to offend somebody in the Catholic Church.
And if there is one - could it be possible for some criticism to be pointless because it clearly doesn't advance the purpose ?
Yes, if you don't like someone's criticism then you're free to criticize those ideas too. This is called "discussion" and "debate".
-
Ah, I see.
I have to admit, they haven't changed the blasphemy law in Pakistan yet.
Still, it would be remiss of me to refrain from criticizing it.
Apostates will die.
If 500 years ago they had killed Martin Luther the moment he opened his big mouth maybe we'd still be living in the Dark Ages like some of the societies in the middle east. Or is that racist?
-
Yes, because criticizing bad ideas and proposing better ones is the way we improve as a society.
People repeat that as a mantra, but they have forgotten that it is part of a process that includes discarding bad ideas. Otherwise, it becomes a cacophony of ideas that society/community/nation/public can't sort through.
You can parse through that process and never even come close to suggesting censorship, or ending freedom of speech. There are all kinds of guard rails around speech, some of them governmental and some of them social. Sometimes we just don't say certain things, we self-censor although we have no obligation too. Or we don't pay attention to speech because it's not helpful.
Liberals, for example, have picked up on the idea that men's views on abortion should somehow count *less*.
As such, a Jewish podcaster talking about Islam to a captive, American right wing audience is not something I find useful.
If you didn't want the enlightenment to happen you could go back in time to Martin Luther and wag your finger at him because he was going to offend somebody in the Catholic Church.
I don't care who is offended, and it seems to me you are jumping to conclusions when you bring that into it.
Luther had authority to start a dialogue among adherents about the tenets of their faith. The medium, the time, and the structure of interchange are all very different so the analogy fails.
Yes, if you don't like someone's criticism then you're free to criticize those ideas too. This is called "discussion" and "debate".
People need to stop equating broadcasting and electronic media with speech. They are not the same thing, and this is something we knew in the 20th century but have forgotten.
-
Sometimes we just don't say certain things, we self-censor although we have no obligation too. Or we don't pay attention to speech because it's not helpful.
It is helpful to criticize religion. We don’t do it nearly enough.
Liberals, for example, have picked up on the idea that men's views on abortion should somehow count *less*.
LOL
What? We liberals think this? Some might, I guess. I think they’re wrong.
As such, a Jewish podcaster talking about Islam to a captive, American right wing audience is not something I find useful.
If you think Sam Harris is Jewish, you haven’t ever actually listened to him.
People need to stop equating broadcasting and electronic media with speech. They are not the same thing, and this is something we knew in the 20th century but have forgotten.
Of course it is defined as speech. Speech is a particular legal term and electronic broadcasts clearly fall under that term.
How is it not speech? What is it?
-
It is helpful to criticize religion. We don’t do it nearly enough.
Why ?
What? We liberals think this? Some might, I guess. I think they’re wrong.
Well you are Mr. Perfect - go tell them !
If you think Sam Harris is Jewish, you haven’t ever actually listened to him.
I have. His mother was Jewish, so...
Of course it is defined as speech. Speech is a particular legal term and electronic broadcasts clearly fall under that term.
Waaaait a second ? Are you actually a ROBOT Mr. Perfect ? That would explain this nonsensical answer.
How is it not speech? What is it?
When you turn on the TV do you say to your wife or perhaps houseplant:
"Hey honey I'm about to watch a speech"
Or do you use another word ?
If the latter, what do you call it ?
-
Why ?
Well you are Mr. Perfect - go tell them !
I have. His mother was Jewish, so...
Waaaait a second ? Are you actually a ROBOT Mr. Perfect ? That would explain this nonsensical answer.
When you turn on the TV do you say to your wife or perhaps houseplant:
"Hey honey I'm about to watch a speech"
Or do you use another word ?
If the latter, what do you call it ?
I have to say, I find this response to be nonsensical.
Speech is speech regardless of medium. "A speech" would be different, being an actual event, but both would be covered by freedom of speech rules, and both could be delivered using any medium. Semaphore, if you want.
Perhaps I'm not getting what you mean, exactly.
As to the question at the top of your post. Criticism ought to be proportional to how much those being criticized deserve it. That's why.
-
I have to say, I find this response to be nonsensical.
Speech is speech regardless of medium. "A speech" would be different, being an actual event, but both would be covered by freedom of speech rules, and both could be delivered using any medium. Semaphore, if you want.
Have you ever heard of a US court ruling called 'Citizens United' ?
Perhaps I'm not getting what you mean, exactly.
I'm saying that any medium needs to be considered differently from another. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression is an abstract goal but never a standard. We have all kinds of modifications and stipulations against lying, misleading information, yelling "fire" in a movie theatre crowded or not, political advertising and other advertising limits.
We can call it 'free speech' but that doesn't preclude there from being lots of things about it that are not actually 'free'.
If you think about that a little, you see that we are actually working as a collective to make sure that the principles we rely on are applied in a way we all agree with. Every freedom eventually comes up against another freedom.
The idea of 'freedom of speech' is that if speech is free, it can be used to spread good ideas that the powerful may object to. It can also be used to criticize those in power and keep them in check, and so on. And yet I see people bring up "freedom of speech" as a defense of speech in many cases where the example begs closer examination.
So now, we are at a place where we are wondering why/how/when do we restrict speech ? To answer that, we look at whether the collective is served by the so-called free speech.
Some speech is simply modified socially, and is 'free' from legal action but is addressed and dispersed of socially. An example would be a madman raving on a corner. There's no utility in the speech, but any harm that is done by it is outweighed by the costs or even the harm of dealing with it legally.
Back to Sam Harris. I don't understand what the utility is of a podcaster, who is Jewish (Sorry whose mother is a non-religious Jew and who could thereby be described as an American cultural Jew) criticizing Islam, above other religions. In fact, I think that his efforts are misdirected and could result in people turning him off rightly or wrongly. And it makes me question why he even focuses on that topic.
I guess that's a long explanation of where I am with him.
As to the question at the top of your post. Criticism ought to be proportional to how much those being criticized deserve it. That's why.
I think that's subjective and even then is only one factor.
-
If the latter, what do you call it ?
You could call it the message but no one will know what the hell you mean.
-
As such, a Jewish podcaster talking about Islam to a captive, American right wing audience is not something I find useful.
If you find someone's speech not useful you're free to ignore it, condemn it, or whatever you want. Others are free to listen, and consider the ideas. The point is these ideas are allowed to be expressed and can't be shut down by force via government because we have legal rights to thought, belief, expression etc.
Luther had authority to start a dialogue among adherents about the tenets of their faith. The medium, the time, and the structure of interchange are all very different so the analogy fails.
Luther was dragged in front of court and then excommunicated. His speech was banned. Socrates was put to death by the state because his ideas were "corrupting the youth". Apostates are put to death in certain Muslim countries. Luckily in the West we have free speech precisely because these things used to happen when we were ruled by the whims of monarchs. In the US you can say basically anything you want as long as you don't threaten violence, which is the way it should be.
People need to stop equating broadcasting and electronic media with speech. They are not the same thing, and this is something we knew in the 20th century but have forgotten.
The courts luckily say you're wrong. The medium of communication is irrelevant regarding speech. Are you going to want to ban books next?
I think your ideas are more dangerous than anything Sam Harris has ever said, yet you're free to say them.
-
Have you ever heard of a US court ruling called 'Citizens United' ?
No. I googled it, but its Wiki page is longer than the book I'm currently reading, so still no.
I'm saying that any medium needs to be considered differently from another. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression is an abstract goal but never a standard. We have all kinds of modifications and stipulations against lying, misleading information, yelling "fire" in a movie theatre crowded or not, political advertising and other advertising limits.
We can call it 'free speech' but that doesn't preclude there from being lots of things about it that are not actually 'free'.
If you think about that a little, you see that we are actually working as a collective to make sure that the principles we rely on are applied in a way we all agree with. Every freedom eventually comes up against another freedom.
The idea of 'freedom of speech' is that if speech is free, it can be used to spread good ideas that the powerful may object to. It can also be used to criticize those in power and keep them in check, and so on. And yet I see people bring up "freedom of speech" as a defense of speech in many cases where the example begs closer examination.
So now, we are at a place where we are wondering why/how/when do we restrict speech ? To answer that, we look at whether the collective is served by the so-called free speech.
I disagree that the medium matters. Other than it's hard to shout fire in a crowded theatre over the radio, I don't see why someone's right to express themselves should change based on the medium. Always with the understanding, of course, that the owner of the medium has the same rights, and can tell anyone they want to to go and jump in the lake.
I think you're over complicating the issue. I don't think the idea of Freedom of Speech is what you describe here at all. It's neither based on its use to spread good ideas nor does it matter whether anyone is served by it.
It's simply based on the principle that the government doesn't get to tell anyone what they can and cannot say, whether you, or I, like it or not.
Some speech is simply modified socially, and is 'free' from legal action but is addressed and dispersed of socially. An example would be a madman raving on a corner. There's no utility in the speech, but any harm that is done by it is outweighed by the costs or even the harm of dealing with it legally.
Sure, don't listen. Or disagree. There would only be any need to deal with it legally if he had broken the law. Both utility and harm are immaterial. And even if he does break the law, there would still be an argument here, because who says the law is just?
Back to Sam Harris. I don't understand what the utility is of a podcaster, who is Jewish (Sorry whose mother is a non-religious Jew and who could thereby be described as an American cultural Jew) criticizing Islam, above other religions. In fact, I think that his efforts are misdirected and could result in people turning him off rightly or wrongly. And it makes me question why he even focuses on that topic.
I don't know Sam Harris from Adam, and I have no plans to get to know him any better, but I am sure that if what he is saying does not advocate violence against someone, I probably support his right to carry on saying it. Islam is certainly worthy of criticism above other religions.
I think that's subjective and even then is only one factor.
I suppose it's subjective in a way that all opinion is subjective. Pretty hard to argue with the opinion in a lot of cases though.
What other factors are there?
-
You could call it the message but no one will know what the hell you mean.
Honey, don't stand in front of the TV I'm watching the Football Message !
-
Why ?
Because religion is full of terrible ideas that are terrible for society and need to be refuted.
Because religious people are trying to legislate what I can/can’t do based on their twisted morality they get from an ancient book.
Because there are a bunch of anti-vaxxer nuts who are using religion as a reason to not get vaccinated through some sort of twisted tenet of their myths.
Because there are hundreds or thousands of indigenous children buried around the country because religious people didn’t consider their culture to be worthy of any respect. And they need to be made to pay reparations for that.
I find those reasons, and many more, to be “useful”.
Well you are Mr. Perfect - go tell them !
Everyone is entitled to an opinion on abortion. Mine isn’t worth less because I’m a man. That’s what men have been telling women for centuries about their opinions.
I have. His mother was Jewish, so...
I suppose his ethnicity is part Jewish…. He’s certainly not religious.
My mother was Lutheran. I’m not.
When you turn on the TV do you say to your wife or perhaps houseplant:
"Hey honey I'm about to watch a speech"
Or do you use another word ?
If the latter, what do you call it ?
WTF?
We are not talking about a formal speech like that given by a valedictorian. We’re talking about the legal definition of the word. Do you really not know the difference?
Have you ever heard of a US court ruling called 'Citizens United' ?
How is that of any relevance?
We can call it 'free speech' but that doesn't preclude there from being lots of things about it that are not actually 'free'.
Criticism of religions is absolutely not restricted in any way, so your diatribe on “free speech” is completely irrelevant. Unless you’re arguing in favour of blasphemy laws, then we could discuss whether that would be a good idea or not.
You seem to be confusing what you think people should talk about with what people are allowed to talk about.
Those are two completely separate topics.
Your opinion on what Sam Harris should talk about is, frankly, bizarre in my opinion. The clip I posted was him talking about Christianity, debating a Christian. Yet you go on like all he does is make disparaging comments about Islam. Simply not the truth. But even if he did, I think it would be useful, as the tenets in the Islamic religion, like in the bible, are despicable and should be criticized. Unlike with most Christians, there is a serious issue with Muslims taking their holy book more literally.
Burning witches is still a thing in parts of Africa…. It’s straight out of the bible. (Just another in the long line of reasons that religion should be criticized)
https://www.dw.com/en/witch-hunts-a-global-problem-in-the-21st-century/a-54495289
-
If you find someone's speech not useful you're free to ignore it, condemn it, or whatever you want.
I think I did that.
The courts luckily say you're wrong. The medium of communication is irrelevant regarding speech.
I don't think so. There is no 'FCC' or 'CRTC' mediating my comments on a streetcorner.
I think your ideas are more dangerous than anything Sam Harris has ever said, yet you're free to say them.
And yet, in your note in the top you said I'm 'free' to make comment. And now you say I'm dangerous. Hmmm.
-
Back to Sam Harris. I don't understand what the utility is of a podcaster, who is Jewish (Sorry whose mother is a non-religious Jew and who could thereby be described as an American cultural Jew) criticizing Islam, above other religions. In fact, I think that his efforts are misdirected and could result in people turning him off rightly or wrongly. And it makes me question why he even focuses on that topic.
Sam Harris criticizes all religions. It's not his fault that Islam has the worst ideas out of all of them. If Muslims aren't allowed to criticize their own religion then obviously a non-Muslim is going to have to do it. Women are basically slaves of men and treated like cattle, gays and apostates are put to death, music and dancing is banned, and you don't want anyone to criticize these beliefs?
I have no idea why you're trying to bring identity politics into Harris's discussion of religion, other than as a tactic to try and invalidate his discussions. This is a clear ad hominem attack and has nothing to do with the validity of his arguments.
-
I don't think so. There is no 'FCC' or 'CRTC' mediating my comments on a streetcorner.
The same legal standards to your speech (the legal sense…. Please try and keep that straight) apply whether on the street corner or on a TV or on the interwebs.
And yet, in your note in the top you said I'm 'free' to make comment. And now you say I'm dangerous. Hmmm.
YES! Now you’re getting it…. Speech can be dangerous, yet still allowable. And these dangerous ideas need to be allowed to be refuted freely.
Just like many religious ideas are dangerous and should to be refuted.
-
And yet, in your note in the top you said I'm 'free' to make comment. And now you say I'm dangerous. Hmmm.
That's right. Notice how i don't propose curtailing your speech. You're dangerous because you sound like you support the government sending men with clubs and guns to shut down other people's speech. They already do that in this country at human rights tribunals and whatnot.
-
That's right. Notice how i don't propose curtailing your speech. You're dangerous because you sound like you support the government sending men with clubs and guns to shut down other people's speech. They already do that in this country at human rights tribunals and whatnot.
You like to jump to hyperbolic examples when it’s not necessary. No one comes for people with guns or clubs at human rights tribunals.
And I bet you can’t even come up with an example of where someone’s right to speech has been infringed at one. If you can, start a topic about it.
-
No. I googled it, but its Wiki page is longer than the book I'm currently reading, so still no.
It says that political commercials are free speech. So that anybody with enough money to buy all the airtime to dominate the airwaves with their ideas is welcome to do so.
How do you feel about it ?
I disagree that the medium matters. Other than it's hard to shout fire in a crowded theatre over the radio, I don't see why someone's right to express themselves should change based on the medium.
So you don't believe in the CRTC ? You realize that it limits the airwaves and decides what can be broadcast right ?
Always with the understanding, of course, that the owner of the medium has the same rights, and can tell anyone they want to to go and jump in the lake.
That's a very American view but ok.
I think you're over complicating the issue. I don't think the idea of Freedom of Speech is what you describe here at all. It's neither based on its use to spread good ideas nor does it matter whether anyone is served by it.
Well, what do you think then ?
Why do you think 'free speech' is a good thing to have ?
Islam is certainly worthy of criticism above other religions.
I'm not saying it's not worthy of criticism.
What other factors are there?
"how much those being criticized deserve it"
I don't know - there are lots of reasons you could criticize something. But what is the positive effect of having free speech in a country above not having to worry about the government constricting you ?
Not that that's not a good reason - but I'm trying to understand why those who framed the idea of 'human rights' - the French Philosophers of the Enlightenment - valued it ? What good comes from it ?
As I said, popular dissembley of ideas, criticism of those in power - the promotion of the best ideas. Ok, so how do bad ideas die under this system ? The people are convinced and the bad idea goes away. And if it doesn't ? What happens to the idea ? Can it be used for other purposes ?
It seems to me conspiracy theories, hate theories and so on are bad ideas that are still with us. So what happened ? Did free speech work or did it fail ? I'm asking these without prejudice, I don't have an answer but I feel that these questions do depend on media and need to be asked.
-
That's a very American view but ok.
You just quoted an American Supreme Court ruling that has zero authority in Canada and you’re now complaining that the poster has an “American view” on free speech?
LOL
However, I’m not sure what’s so American about that view…. It sounds like what we do here in Canada. Media owners can tell people to go jump in a lake if they don’t want their message on their medium.
-
You like to jump to hyperbolic examples when it’s not necessary. No one comes for people with guns or clubs at human rights tribunals.
So if you don't show up after being summoned to a human rights tribunal what happens to you?
Do you know what a law is? Every single law in this country is enforced, ultimately, by people with guns and clubs breaking into your house and dragging you away and throwing you in a cage. Some are enforced by fines. Don't pay the fines? Here come the men with clubs and guns who will break into your house. If you are ordered under arrest by a cop and don't comply I guarantee you they will take out their clubs and beat the crap out of you until you comply to the point where they can cuff you, drag you into the back of a squad car, and then put you into a cage. Every law in this country is enforced with violence. They will even take out their guns and kill you if they have to.
And I bet you can’t even come up with an example of where someone’s right to speech has been infringed at one. If you can, start a topic about it.
Their favorite whipping boy:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-ezra-levant-wrote-a-book-critical-of-the-liberals-now-hes-being-investigated
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQnNCGN2ywE
-
Because religion is full of terrible ideas that are terrible for society and need to be refuted.
Because religious people are trying to legislate what I can/can’t do based on their twisted morality they get from an ancient book.
Because there are a bunch of anti-vaxxer nuts who are using religion as a reason to not get vaccinated through some sort of twisted tenet of their myths.
Because there are hundreds or thousands of indigenous children buried around the country because religious people didn’t consider their culture to be worthy of any respect. And they need to be made to pay reparations for that.
I find those reasons, and many more, to be “useful”.
Those seem like good reasons. What's next ? What 'speech' do you plan to employ to achieve your goals ? Are you going to post on here for example ?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion on abortion. Mine isn’t worth less because I’m a man. That’s what men have been telling women for centuries about their opinions.
I see - you're saying that even after centuries WOMEN DON'T LISTEN ! Great one, Perfect..
I suppose his ethnicity is part Jewish….
Thank you. What methods you think he should employ as a Jewish American liberal podcaster, to get the Taliban to convert ?
Like - a special episode - no Patreon needed or ?
We are not talking about a formal speech like that given by a valedictorian. We’re talking about the legal definition of the word. Do you really not know the difference?
You asked ME how broadcasting is not speech ? Now you are saying that it is.
It's this: I'm making a point that free "speech" was developed at a time when we were literally talking about speaking and sometimes expressing ideas through writing. By the very name of broadcasting, it is not 'speech'.
And legally it is not treated the same.
How is that of any relevance?
They determined that TV air time IS free speech in America. I'm not comfortable with that. It equates a medium that is very expensive and can only be purchased by the wealthy with speaking outside, or printing bibles in your native language.
The early days of radio and television were a test of what governments would do with these new media. It's telling that Germany valued complete Freedom and gave Mr. Hitler's ideas access into the home without a conflicting idea. Americans cared about making money with this new device.
Anyway, I digress.
The FCC (America) forbade political comment without a counteracting response for decades, until the 1980s. You folks might not care about these things so much but there are many people behind the scenes who do and they lobby government to make things go their way.
Criticism of religions is absolutely not restricted in any way, so your diatribe on “free speech” is completely irrelevant. Unless you’re arguing in favour of blasphemy laws, then we could discuss whether that would be a good idea or not.
My diatribe is on people who push the free speech button on everything without considering the history, the context and the complexity.
You seem to be confusing what you think people should talk about with what people are allowed to talk about.
I think you are confused. Please read back and tell me where I said people shouldn't be allowed to talk about something. I'll retract or clarify if you have an example.
Yet you go on like all he does is make disparaging comments about Islam.
Mea culpa I should have watched the clip. He's famous for an exchange on Bill Maher's show where he clashed with Ben Affleck who called him a racist for criticizing Islam.
-
So if you don't show up after being summoned to a human rights tribunal what happens to you?
You lose your case.
It’s not illegal to not show up. The Tribunal Police don’t come to your door. A letter is sent to you with the particulars of your case and the judgement.
You have no clue how they work, yet you’re ready to say that they come with clubs and guns!
LOL
Stop believing people like Ezra Levant. The man is a lying turd.
-
Sam Harris criticizes all religions.
I think Mr. Perfect asked me if it would be better if he did just that and I answered 'yes'.
It's not his fault that Islam has the worst ideas out of all of them.
Is that your opinion ? I can't tell from this.
you don't want anyone to criticize these beliefs?
Happy misunderstanding day !!!
Let me repeat: If I said people should be prohibited from expressing an opinion, please quote it back and I will retract or clarify.
-
The same legal standards to your speech (the legal sense…. Please try and keep that straight) apply whether on the street corner or on a TV or on the interwebs.
No, you are wrong there.
I can't broadcast a TV station with the star spangled banner all day and night and get a license for example.
And - maybe a more political example - they wouldn't grant FOX news a license in Canada for a time.
YES! Now you’re getting it…. Speech can be dangerous, yet still allowable. And these dangerous ideas need to be allowed to be refuted freely.
I'm not. I criticized something, used my free speech and my ideas were not welcomed. I was criticized for criticizing. I don't get that.
Just like many religious ideas are dangerous and should to be refuted.
Those ideas sure aren't dying, though.
Isn't there something else we can do, short of banning them, to kill those ideas ? Again - asking with an open mind and without prejudice.
It seems to me that bad ideas stick around too long. And the internet makes it much worse
-
You're dangerous because you sound like you support the government sending men with clubs and guns to shut down other people's speech.
Well that's a lie.
Thanks for the free speech though.
-
No, you are wrong there.
I can't broadcast a TV station with the star spangled banner all day and night and get a license for example.
And - maybe a more political example - they wouldn't grant FOX news a license in Canada for a time.
Those aren’t regulations on speech. You are very confused.
The exact same things are illegal to say whether they are on a street corner, a TV or the interwebs.
I'm not. I criticized something, used my free speech and my ideas were not welcomed. I was criticized for criticizing. I don't get that.
No, your ideas were criticized. Not the fact that you expressed them.
Why can’t you tell the difference? I think you actually can, but you are being deliberately obtuse for some reason.
Those ideas sure aren't dying, though.
They are dying…. For example, we have gay marriage now. Some churches have even started to ignore the tenets in their bible about gay people.
Isn't there something else we can do, short of banning them, to kill those ideas ? Again - asking with an open mind and without prejudice.
It seems to me that bad ideas stick around too long. And the internet makes it much worse
The only way to fight bad ideas is to debate/criticize/ridicule these ideas. I know of no other way.
-
You just quoted an American Supreme Court ruling that has zero authority in Canada and you’re now complaining that the poster has an “American view” on free speech?
How is it a complaint ? They agree with a US supreme court ruling that would never fly in Canada.
It's like me commenting on someone stating that they have the right to bear arms... same thing.
However, I’m not sure what’s so American about that view…. It sounds like what we do here in Canada. Media owners can tell people to go jump in a lake if they don’t want their message on their medium.
Are you even Canadian ? Do you know what CanCon is ? Do you know how it works ? We have a completely different approach to media here.
I'm really surprised by all of you. Not 'disappointed' but surprised.
-
I think you are confused. Please read back and tell me where I said people shouldn't be allowed to talk about something. I'll retract or clarify if you have an example.
If this is the case, then free speech laws are completely irrelevant to the discussion, yet you keep bringing them up.
The only thing relevant to the discussion is whether you think there is utility in criticizing religions…. Why did you bring up free speech laws in the first place?
Now you’ve got Graham in a tizzy over the HR Tribunal Gestapo going door to door with clubs and guns!
-
It says that political commercials are free speech. So that anybody with enough money to buy all the airtime to dominate the airwaves with their ideas is welcome to do so.
How do you feel about it ?
Does it matter? I support the decision, based on what you just said about it. I don't know why this has to be repeated so often. It doesn't matter what one thinks about the expression. The freedom to express it is what matters.
So you don't believe in the CRTC ? You realize that it limits the airwaves and decides what can be broadcast right ?
I don't know what else they do, but I don't support that.
I remember when I was having trouble with my internet someone suggested informing the CRTC, that they would sort it out. I would support that.
That's a very American view but ok.
The Americans are entitled to make whatever use they see fit of my views, if they want to. I have no problem with that.
Well, what do you think then ?
Why do you think 'free speech' is a good thing to have ?
It's not that free speech is a good thing to have. It's that denying free speech is a bad thing to do.
The person expressing themselves has no obligation to do so for the public good.
I'm not saying it's not worthy of criticism.
I know. I do think you have a problem with the notion that it is more worthy of criticism than other religions though.
"how much those being criticized deserve it"
I don't know - there are lots of reasons you could criticize something. But what is the positive effect of having free speech in a country above not having to worry about the government constricting you ?
Not that that's not a good reason - but I'm trying to understand why those who framed the idea of 'human rights' - the French Philosophers of the Enlightenment - valued it ? What good comes from it ?
As I said, popular dissembley of ideas, criticism of those in power - the promotion of the best ideas. Ok, so how do bad ideas die under this system ? The people are convinced and the bad idea goes away. And if it doesn't ? What happens to the idea ? Can it be used for other purposes ?
It seems to me conspiracy theories, hate theories and so on are bad ideas that are still with us. So what happened ? Did free speech work or did it fail ? I'm asking these without prejudice, I don't have an answer but I feel that these questions do depend on media and need to be asked.
It doesn't matter what good comes of it. There is no need for a positive effect. The trick is in avoiding the negative effect of denying the speech. There is no good that comes from denying the Holocaust. But can you really imagine punishing someone for doing so?
It's like the example I brought up the last time we discussed this issue. The poor fellow who went to jail for the racial abuse, on Twitter, of some footballer who died for a while during a game. Absolutely no good would come from allowing his comments. But he went to jail because they weren't.
That's far worse.
-
Those aren’t regulations on speech. You are very confused.
Yes. For example the Citizens United judiciary said exactly that.
If Broadcasting is 'speech' and broadcasting is restricted by law why are such restrictions not limits on free speech ?
You don't get a license to speak in public, so very difficult for me to understand you. It feels like I'm telling you things that you haven't heard before and you are answering for the first time.
Which is fine if that's the case.
No, your ideas were criticized. Not the fact that you expressed them.
Well ok.
They are dying…. For example, we have gay marriage now. Some churches have even started to ignore the tenets in their bible about gay people.
I guess you are right. It's taking a long time to kill the beast though.
The only way to fight bad ideas is to debate/criticize/ridicule these ideas. I know of no other way.
You missed a big one: IGNORE
-
Yes. For example the Citizens United judiciary said exactly that.
If Broadcasting is 'speech' and broadcasting is restricted by law why are such restrictions not limits on free speech ?
You don't get a license to speak in public, so very difficult for me to understand you. It feels like I'm telling you things that you haven't heard before and you are answering for the first time.
Stop bringing this into an American perspective. I’m not interested in it whatsoever. Don’t have any clue about that ruling, don’t know what it means for broadcasting on the TV in the USA.
Telecommunications is regulated by the CRTC. So what? So we don’t have the same uses of media as the USA. So what? It’s completely irrelevant.
Well ok.
Are you actually starting to understand the difference?
I guess you are right. It's taking a long time to kill the beast though.
You missed a big one: IGNORE
Ignoring it doesn’t work.
-
If this is the case, then free speech laws are completely irrelevant to the discussion, yet you keep bringing them up.
I bring them up to illustrate that not all speech is considered the same.
The only thing relevant to the discussion is whether you think there is utility in criticizing religions…. Why did you bring up free speech laws in the first place?
I said this: People need to stop equating broadcasting and electronic media with speech
I said there's no utility in Harris' podcast to convert the Taliban, or whatever it is.
I would love it if people went back to putting ideas in the boxes where they can be sorted by people who matter, instead of Trans issues in the Toronto Sun and Islam problems on podcasts.
People are not talking about the right things, in the right places with the right people.
Now you’ve got Graham in a tizzy over the HR Tribunal Gestapo going door to door with clubs and guns!
That's an unintended consequence, sorry.
-
Does it matter? I support the decision, based on what you just said about it. I don't know why this has to be repeated so often. It doesn't matter what one thinks about the expression. The freedom to express it is what matters.
It matters inasmuch as anything I talk to you about.
Well I'm surprised. It's pretty much open season for the wealthiest people to buy the limited thing that is 'commercial airtime'.
I don't feel like this is good for democracy.
It's not that free speech is a good thing to have. It's that denying free speech is a bad thing to do.
Why ?
I know. I do think you have a problem with the notion that it is more worthy of criticism than other religions though.
Probably, but that doesn't come into any of this. I wouldn't deny someone the right to express an opinion based on my disagreeing with it.
It doesn't matter what good comes of it. There is no need for a positive effect.
What if there's a negative effect ?
The trick is in avoiding the negative effect of denying the speech.
Why is denying speech automatically negative ? Some speech is disallowed and not just hate speech.
There is no good that comes from denying the Holocaust. But can you really imagine punishing someone for doing so?
Well, they do in Canada all the time. They fired people, and I think prosecuted and sanctioned newspapers and deported one guy as well.
It's like the example I brought up the last time we discussed this issue. The poor fellow who went to jail for the racial abuse, on Twitter, of some footballer who died for a while during a game. Absolutely no good would come from allowing his comments. But he went to jail because they weren't.
I believe allowing rudeness in personal interactions is far better than trying to legally sanction behaviour.
-
Stop bringing this into an American perspective. I’m not interested in it whatsoever. Don’t have any clue about that ruling, don’t know what it means for broadcasting on the TV in the USA.
Telecommunications is regulated by the CRTC. So what? So we don’t have the same uses of media as the USA. So what? It’s completely irrelevant.
But but... broadcasting is SPEECH and therefore there should be no license for it right ? Or...
The point I'm making is that people talk about free speech as though it's an across-the-board thing we have but we don't.
We should and do control speech all the time. And that is because we use free speech for the good it will provide us as a collective.
Now - I pivot to say we as "the" public should think about the utility of communication more broadly than we do. So let's leave behind questions of legality or CRTC. We as a collective have free speech because it does good things for us.
So ask yourself - is this broadcast helpful ? Does it move a positive agenda forward ? Is it economical ?
Then you can make a more substantial statement about what this speech provides us, and criticize it from a wider perspective than whether you agree with the message or not.
Which seems to be what a lot of people are doing here.
Ignoring it doesn’t work.
Sometimes it does.
-
I haven't done one of these Friday extended discussions in awhile... I really didn't have time but f*** work seriously I have been working 8 AM to 5 PM all week, do not care...
-
I bring them up to illustrate that not all speech is considered the same.
I said this: People need to stop equating broadcasting and electronic media with speech
Except you’re arguing a position no one put forward. I didn’t say broadcasting is speech.
I said there's no utility in Harris' podcast to convert the Taliban, or whatever it is.
No one claimed that it would. However, it is religious moderates, by virtue of believing in the same fairy tales as their fundamentalist brethren that provide a shield for them.
Here’s an interesting essay written by Harris on the topic:
But by failing to live by the letter of the texts—while tolerating the irrationality of those who do—religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots, because they are merely practising their freedom of belief. We can’t even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. It is time we recognised that religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.
Religious moderates imagine that theirs is the path to peace. But this very ideal of tolerance now drives us toward the abyss. Religious violence still plagues our world because our religions are intrinsically hostile to one another. Where they appear otherwise, it is because secular knowledge and secular interests have restrained the most lethal improprieties of faith. If religious war is ever to become unthinkable for us, in the way that slavery and cannibalism seem poised to, it will be a matter of our having dispensed with the dogma of faith.
https://samharris.org/the-virus-of-religious-moderation/
So if one holds that any religious dogma, even watered down to the point of seeming benign, is still harming society, then criticism of religion is entirely useful. It doesn’t matter that the Taliban will keep doing the same thing…. The outcry by “moderate” Muslims over the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and the absolute terror that media outlets had of offending “moderate” Muslims by actually showing the cartoons is a good example of this.
I would love it if people went back to putting ideas in the boxes where they can be sorted by people who matter, instead of Trans issues in the Toronto Sun and Islam problems on podcasts.
People are not talking about the right things, in the right places with the right people.
I don’t share this opinion. I think there needs to be more criticism. More cartoons showing Muhammed…. More debate.
-
It matters inasmuch as anything I talk to you about.
Well I'm surprised. It's pretty much open season for the wealthiest people to buy the limited thing that is 'commercial airtime'.
I don't feel like this is good for democracy.
It doesn't have to be good for democracy. There's an election in Canada on Monday and I see a different number of different sized signs of varying colours with no effort whatsoever made towards equality of representation. I understand the scale issue.
Why ?
See my last post about the racist and the footballer.
What if there's a negative effect ?
Such is life.
Why is denying speech automatically negative ? Some speech is disallowed and not just hate speech.
It's not. As I said before, no-one is allowed to deliberately incite violence against someone else. Fire in the theatre, disturbing the peace, etc. All are justifiably curtailed.
Well, they do in Canada all the time. They fired people, and I think prosecuted and sanctioned newspapers and deported one guy as well.
A private company can fire whoever they want, if their behaviour does not meet the company's standards. I would be against the rest of your examples.
I believe allowing rudeness in personal interactions is far better than trying to legally sanction behaviour.
So do I.
-
I didn’t say broadcasting is speech.
Ok. You did say:
"The same legal standards to your speech (the legal sense…. Please try and keep that straight) apply whether on the street corner or on a TV or on the interwebs. "
criticism of religion is entirely useful.
In the general framework and 'of religion'... ok but criticizing a cultural variant of a religion to an audience that has no contact with them is yelling at a wall, effectively. The message isn't going anywhere. Furthermore, it will be misinterpreted as criticism of all adherents including moderates who do criticize the fundamental version.
I think there needs to be more criticism. More cartoons showing Muhammed…. More debate.
Are you interested in expressing yourself more or achieving your goal more ?
What do you think of the 'hearts and mind' approach to defense.
-
Jesus **** this convo is still going on?
-
You lose your case.
It’s not illegal to not show up. The Tribunal Police don’t come to your door. A letter is sent to you with the particulars of your case and the judgement.
You have no clue how they work, yet you’re ready to say that they come with clubs and guns!
When you lose your case, they give you a fine, and what if you don't pay the fine? They tack it onto your taxes. You don't pay that amount of taxes? They put you in jail. How do they get you in jail? Clubs and guns. I would never pay any taxes, fines, parking tickets, or pull over for the cops if they weren't going to commit violence against me if I didn't. That's how the law works.
Stop believing people like Ezra Levant. The man is a lying turd.
Believe what? So Ezra Levant, despite being a giant turd, should be bullied by the state to STFU?
-
It doesn't have to be good for democracy. There's an election in Canada on Monday and I see a different number of different sized signs of varying colours with no effort whatsoever made towards equality of representation. I understand the scale issue.
Ok. Even then, the issue is mitigated by the fact that signs appear on someone's property and properties fall out to similar sizes in a neighbourhood.
So the democratic angle is built in here. But you are starting to see my point that not all forms of expression are equal.
The ideas of free speech developed at a time of new media - the printing press. And they were developed for utilitarian purposes - because there were bloody and horrible wars tearing people apart.
The idea had to be developed to live and let live.
See my last post about the racist and the footballer.
But why is it bad ? I gave a reason - did you agree with me ?
Such is life.
That's not a rationale for free speech, though. To say it's good just because, and when I ask what about negatives... it's shrugged off.
A private company can fire whoever they want, if their behaviour does not meet the company's standards. I would be against the rest of your examples.
What if they don't like you you voted for ?
They deported a German who denied the holocaust. They sanctioned a Newspaper who published an excerpt of Leviticus that called for the death of homosexuals I think. Thoughts ?
So do I.
So having Twitter disallow negative comments and rudeness is a private channel but also a heavy restriction of free speech. That would, though, have solved this rude footballer thing. Utility, see ?
-
Jesus **** this convo is still going on?
Blasphemy GO HERE BLASPHEMER. Click this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqdDjNAyPdA)
-
Ok. Even then, the issue is mitigated by the fact that signs appear on someone's property and properties fall out to similar sizes in a neighbourhood.
So the democratic angle is built in here. But you are starting to see my point that not all forms of expression are equal.
The ideas of free speech developed at a time of new media - the printing press. And they were developed for utilitarian purposes - because there were bloody and horrible wars tearing people apart.
The idea had to be developed to live and let live.
I've never argued that all forms of expression are equal. Just that freedom of speech should not be denied based on the form of expression.
But why is it bad ? I gave a reason - did you agree with me ?
That's not a rationale for free speech, though. To say it's good just because, and when I ask what about negatives... it's shrugged off
It's bad because you can go to jail for an opinion. If something bad happens then that's just too bad. It's not shrugged off. It's an acknowledgement that the fault lies with whoever did the bad thing, not with whoever expressed an opinion, no matter what the perpetrator says. Unless there was deliberate incitement, but we agree on that.
What if they don't like you you voted for ?
They deported a German who denied the holocaust. They sanctioned a Newspaper who published an excerpt of Leviticus that called for the death of homosexuals I think. Thoughts ?
They could try. It would come down to competing rights, and the courts would have to decide. If a member of Joe Biden's staff, say, voted for Donald Trump, It would make for an interesting case.
As for your other examples, I think the first is ridiculous, if that's all he or she did. The second would have to be assessed to see if it represented an incitement to behaviour. If it was just, simply, "God hates you, and this proves it", then no problem with no sanction.
So having Twitter disallow negative comments and rudeness is a private channel but also a heavy restriction of free speech. That would, though, have solved this rude footballer thing. Utility, see ?
Twitter can certainly do whatever they want. They did ban the fellow, but it was too little, too late. I don't know if they have the capability to vet posts before they are posted. Given the volume, I doubt it. Like I said, free speech is something the government takes away, not Twitter or Facebook or this site.
The University of Swansea kicked him out. Again, their right. I would have let him apologise and put him on probation.
-
Here's the guy who was deported. Ostensibly it was for ties to Neo-nazi folks
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel
-
Here's the guy who was deported. Ostensibly it was for ties to Neo-nazi folks
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel
Yeah, I thought it might be Ernst Zündel. I remember following it at the time.
-
It seems to me conspiracy theories, hate theories and so on are bad ideas that are still with us. So what happened ? Did free speech work or did it fail ? I'm asking these without prejudice, I don't have an answer but
It does seem that a lot of bad ideas get more entrenched as time goes on, unless there is a very clear and persistent consequence - ie: people who take random cures based on nothing more than rumor, where no benefit is noticed, and sometimes sickness or death ensues.
The Salem witch trials did end, but religion continues.
I feel that these questions do depend on media and need to be asked.
I feel that in many ways, media is a reflection of who we are - it is a follower as much as it is a leader. What media chooses to focus on is also what people respond to. Putting the responsibility on media doesn't absolve us of our own responsibility to know if an idea is good or bad.
A good or bad idea might also depend on context: it's a bad idea to kill someone next door, but a good idea to kill the enemy you are at war with. Religion is a bad idea when it's used to divide people, and a good idea if it's used to bring people together.