I can but applaud your ability to keep a fair mind even in the middle of controversies, Jesse. Someone said that you sounded angry... if this is you being angry, you are a Zen monk.
This that we see, which we have been seeing for years now, is a reflection of a form of mental ailment that masquerades as politics -- something that Haidt an…
I can but applaud your ability to keep a fair mind even in the middle of controversies, Jesse. Someone said that you sounded angry... if this is you being angry, you are a Zen monk.
This that we see, which we have been seeing for years now, is a reflection of a form of mental ailment that masquerades as politics -- something that Haidt and Lukianoff have identified pretty well: the hunger for censorship is the desperate call for protection of personalities that refuse to grow up, or who happily revert to this form of infantilism. "Mummy, daddy, Peter pulled me a tongue, make him stop!", "Mummy, daddy, the cat hissed at me, I don't like it, kick it out, kick it out!" They will never get tired of it. There will always be things that offend and irritate them and make them sad, because they are becoming increasingly incapable of dealing with reality, and it is always all or nothing, it is always maximalist, no compromise and no reflection: THIS THING IS OFFENSIVE AND IT HAS TO GO.
They have learned that mobbing works to get what they want, like children with poor parenting learn that throwing tantrums gets them what they want. They learned this because they did not get any substantial pushback, except from the hysteria on the opposite end (THIS IS INTOLERABLE! THE WORLD IS FALLING APART! SOCIETY WILL DISSOLVE INTO SHEER ANARCHY IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO EXIST, AND THE OGRES WILL EAT OUR INNOCENT CHILDREN! SAVE US GOD! BRING IN A STRONGMAN!) -- the few remaining reasonable adults were to cowed by the screams or stunned by the insurgence of so many "harms" (for harm is a concept which they rightfully learned to be very sensitive about), to make a firm stand for the principles of liberalism. One can debate about the many who ride these tigers for self-aggrandizement, but I am afraid that many have convinced themselves of the righteousness of the cause. Feels good to be an Elect, ask any cult member. So here we are.
There need be more people refusing to bend the results of inquiry to a desired narrative, even if it hurts, and more communities and organizations willing to stand on principle on free speech and not be budged.
There are bad attitudes and ugly ideas, yes. They must be countered, not silenced. Banning symbols, banning words, it is a temporary spike of satisfaction that changes nothing. In Europe we banned Nazis since the end of WWII; in Germany it is still illegal, and carries criminal charges, to make a gesture resembling the Nazi salute. So we have no Nazi, right? Wrong. The Nazis have multiplied everywhere... and right-thinking people have no resource against them than fits of outrage, because the imposed silence produced an inability to counter that ideology (the name is enough! -- no, the name is not enough) and to address the reasons why people may become attracted to that ideology.
For example. I am a paid subscriber of Freddie de Boer, and I continue to be, despite my disagreement on some of his opinions, and despite the fact that I find his position on Israel revolting on a human, political and personal level. His thinking head is worth listening to, and those of his opinions that are abhorrent to me should be heard and countered (even if I do not have the stomach to do so, I simply do not read those articles of his).
But I am beating a dead horse here.
P.S.
"5. is defamatory or libellous [sic];" <== That's British English. I do not know if this is the reason why, but the Ghost Foundation is based in Singapore, where they use British English. (Now I am tempted by a pun about American cultural imperialism but I will refrain)
I can but applaud your ability to keep a fair mind even in the middle of controversies, Jesse. Someone said that you sounded angry... if this is you being angry, you are a Zen monk.
This that we see, which we have been seeing for years now, is a reflection of a form of mental ailment that masquerades as politics -- something that Haidt and Lukianoff have identified pretty well: the hunger for censorship is the desperate call for protection of personalities that refuse to grow up, or who happily revert to this form of infantilism. "Mummy, daddy, Peter pulled me a tongue, make him stop!", "Mummy, daddy, the cat hissed at me, I don't like it, kick it out, kick it out!" They will never get tired of it. There will always be things that offend and irritate them and make them sad, because they are becoming increasingly incapable of dealing with reality, and it is always all or nothing, it is always maximalist, no compromise and no reflection: THIS THING IS OFFENSIVE AND IT HAS TO GO.
They have learned that mobbing works to get what they want, like children with poor parenting learn that throwing tantrums gets them what they want. They learned this because they did not get any substantial pushback, except from the hysteria on the opposite end (THIS IS INTOLERABLE! THE WORLD IS FALLING APART! SOCIETY WILL DISSOLVE INTO SHEER ANARCHY IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO EXIST, AND THE OGRES WILL EAT OUR INNOCENT CHILDREN! SAVE US GOD! BRING IN A STRONGMAN!) -- the few remaining reasonable adults were to cowed by the screams or stunned by the insurgence of so many "harms" (for harm is a concept which they rightfully learned to be very sensitive about), to make a firm stand for the principles of liberalism. One can debate about the many who ride these tigers for self-aggrandizement, but I am afraid that many have convinced themselves of the righteousness of the cause. Feels good to be an Elect, ask any cult member. So here we are.
There need be more people refusing to bend the results of inquiry to a desired narrative, even if it hurts, and more communities and organizations willing to stand on principle on free speech and not be budged.
There are bad attitudes and ugly ideas, yes. They must be countered, not silenced. Banning symbols, banning words, it is a temporary spike of satisfaction that changes nothing. In Europe we banned Nazis since the end of WWII; in Germany it is still illegal, and carries criminal charges, to make a gesture resembling the Nazi salute. So we have no Nazi, right? Wrong. The Nazis have multiplied everywhere... and right-thinking people have no resource against them than fits of outrage, because the imposed silence produced an inability to counter that ideology (the name is enough! -- no, the name is not enough) and to address the reasons why people may become attracted to that ideology.
For example. I am a paid subscriber of Freddie de Boer, and I continue to be, despite my disagreement on some of his opinions, and despite the fact that I find his position on Israel revolting on a human, political and personal level. His thinking head is worth listening to, and those of his opinions that are abhorrent to me should be heard and countered (even if I do not have the stomach to do so, I simply do not read those articles of his).
But I am beating a dead horse here.
P.S.
"5. is defamatory or libellous [sic];" <== That's British English. I do not know if this is the reason why, but the Ghost Foundation is based in Singapore, where they use British English. (Now I am tempted by a pun about American cultural imperialism but I will refrain)