« prev   random   next »

6
0

The Scientific Importance of Free Speech

By Patrick following x   2018 Apr 22, 9:26am 504 views   26 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


http://quillette.com/2018/04/13/scientific-importance-free-speech/

Today, there are many reasons to be concerned over the state of free speech, from the growing chill on university campuses to the increased policing of art forms such as literature and film. Discussion of scientific topics on podcasts has also attracted the ire of petty Lysenkoists. But there is also cause for optimism, as long as we stand up for the principle that no one has the right to police our opinions. As Christopher Hitchens remarked. “My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”


Hitchens could tell people to kiss his ass because his employment was not dependent on conformity. But in the SF Bay Area, James Damore simply could not make a polite and well reasoned argument about, say, women in engineering without losing his job because the Lysenkoists demanded that they had the right to police his opinion.
1   FortWayne   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 22, 9:36am   ↑ like (6)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Just got me thinking of this one Patrick.

I think that world history and bible teaches us by vast amount of examples that freedom of speech gets opinions out there and lets us solve problems. Without it, we are only allowed to think what a little intellectual ruling elite and their media pets what to feel and think. Lack of freedom of speech really limits nation's intelligence and opinion pool down to only a few rulers. Very anti American, we were founded on basic premise of freedom of speech and religion, because those are all good ideas.

As I always said, I rather listen to Dan's (what I consider as utterly wrong and misguided) comments, than to live in a nation where a man could not speak his mind freely.

Lately the left has been very Nazi about policing opinions, especially here in CA. Trump is literally bringing freedom back into America with running his mouth and twitter, and not giving a shit about thought police, who pretend to be shocked every day when it doesn't align with their thought policing policies.
2   curious2   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 22, 9:57am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick says
James Damore simply could not make a polite and well reasoned argument....


Damore made an argument, but to match that description would have required using better communication skills and more attention to the quality of evidence. His points about demographics and engineering failed to persuade partly because of those issues; his memo functioned more as a rallying cry for people who agreed already with him (and disagreed with his employer). He was more polite and used better reasoning than Charlie Sheen, but both failed to acknowledge that they needed the skills and efforts of others on their teams, and how to communicate effectively with team leadership. I respect James Damore and I love Charlie Sheen, but they could have done better.

Randa Jarrar presents an interesting test: her publc comments are neither polite nor well reasoned, and they reflect the divide and conquer deception strategy typical of her Muslim doctrine, but they are speech. Islam commands her to go to Mecca. I think it would be reasonable to offer her a free ticket, on condition she must never return. If she refuses, then she exposes herself as a hypocrite in addition to being a racist. The issues are (a) whether tenure will protect her, and (b) whether her employer will find even the courage to denounce her hypocrisy, racism, poor or deceptive "reasoning," and rudeness.

BTW, parts of the Bible prohibit blasphemy, and the OT 10 commandments prohibit taking the lord's name in vain, so it takes a really selective reading (wishful projection) to imagine it endorsing free speech. In the OT, the Israelites kill each other over forgetting the sabbath and worshipping a golden calf, for example. The Bill of Rights (10 Amendments) broke that Biblical tradition, with the First Amendment saying basically the opposite of the first 5 OT commandments.
3   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 22, 10:18am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Gore's banner "An Inconvenient Truth" was neither inconvenient, nor was it a truth. Coining a brittle "scientific" agenda for political purpose and then persecuting the "unfaithful" has been around since B.C.

"Lysenkoists tend to be liberal" Heh, Heh!
4   HEYYOU   ignore (13)   2018 Apr 22, 10:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The problem of Free Speech is that it may be coming from a delusional brain.

......
curious2
You are welcome to believe any religious scripture you choose.
......
Anyone that finds anything that can prove any theology,please post immediately.
I have no proof of UFOs,Bigfoot,ghosts,Santa,Easter Bunny but I have the right to believe.
Please don't question me. It could upset my tender sensibilities.
5   WarrenTheApe   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 22, 9:58pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Guess this means that the Left is really anti-science, then.
6   rocketjoe79   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 22, 10:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

WarrenTheApe says
Guess this means that the Left is really anti-science, then.


More like, the Left is just plain Fascist by attempting to block any kind of speech. Last I heard, words in and of themselves don't kill people.

I can choose not to believe any speech, but I have to use this thing called...reasoning. When simple words cause people so much hurt they curl up into a ball, they should stop and examine their mental fitness, toughness and wellness.
7   EBGuy   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 23, 12:38am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Our fearless leader is now posting articles from Quillette. PatNet may soon become part of the Intellectual Dark Tubez. Meanwhile, JBP continues to ascend dominance hierarchy. (Some thoughts about free speech in the video).
8   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 23, 7:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

curious2 says
He was more polite and used better reasoning than Charlie Sheen, but both failed to acknowledge that they needed the skills and efforts of others on their teams, and how to communicate effectively with team leadership. I respect James Damore and I love Charlie Sheen, but they could have done better.


It sounds like what you’re saying is that an expressed opinion should be executed with an appropriate level of skill in communications(or perhaps it’s not worthy of protections?). Obviously I added the bit in brackets, but your argument just appeared to lead in that direction.
9   curious2   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 23, 12:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Quigley says
It sounds like what you’re saying is that an expressed opinion should be executed with an appropriate level of skill in communications(or perhaps it’s not worthy of protections?).


I was trying to say that the way they expressed their opinions may have affected their employers' response. Wielding a machete on a rooftop while drinking "tiger blood," or telling senior managers that they "need" to do what a subordinate says, can distract from the opinion expressed. As for protections in the private sector, it will be interesting to see how James Damore fares vs Google.

Neither example got arrested or decapitated, as might have happened if they had disagreed with Islam in a Muslim country, no matter how polite and well reasoned their argument. That is literally policing opinion, and typically Islamic: in most countries with Muslim majorities, most Muslims demand it.
11   TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy   ignore (1)   2018 May 15, 4:08pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

What actually happened:



There was actually a lawyer who was disbarred for lying about video game violence (to a Court) the same way Sarkesian did.

12   HEYYOU   ignore (13)   2018 May 15, 4:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

1+1= 2
God damn it! I'm offended!
13   Aphroman   ignore (2)   2018 May 15, 8:37pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Is Free Speech always important, or is it only sometimes important?
14   Patrick   ignore (0)   2018 May 15, 8:59pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

It's important to show a little respect for the other side, or free speech will be wasted on deaf ears.
15   CovfefeButDeadly   ignore (3)   2018 May 15, 9:06pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick says
It's important to show a little respect for the other side, or free speech will be wasted on deaf ears.


You mean a phrase like "normalizing Trump supporting" is not helpful?
16   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 May 15, 9:08pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

FortWayne says
thought police, who pretend to be shocked every day when it doesn't align with their thought policing policies


People who are bothered by having a President that is as dishonest as TRump, are not "thought police."

You can't even admit to 1 10th of Trumps lies, and you ramble on with your fantasies about him being a free speech advocate.

We're talking about the same President that would very happily shut down the entire free press if he could.

Trump cucks really need to get a clue as to what's going on.

http://time.com/5261014/michelle-wolf-trump-white-house-correspondents-dinner/
17   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 May 15, 9:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

From that piece about the white house correspondents dinner:


They’re both missing what was missing: The President.

No matter what the comedian’s politics have been since the dinner began letting comics lead the event in 1983, the President of the United States was there to respond. The President got his chance to roast and counter-attack in the spirit of the evening and, yes, in the spirit of unity. President Trump is the first in decades to hold his office and not attend — which last occurred in 1981, when President Ronald Reagan, who called in by phone while recovering from an assassination attempt. Like all bullies, current President “I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon” is a coward. He’s capable of delivering his “witticisms” against the media, Democrats and others only from a safe distance. Like all bullies, he can never engage on an even playing field.

Yessiree, Saturday night he was the funniest guy in Washington, Michigan. No contest.

When I did the dinner in 1993, President Bill Clinton had just come off one of the worst first 100 days in office: the Tailhook scandal, the Branch Davidian fiasco, not getting his budget passed and so on. Yet he showed up, took the hits and brilliantly answered in the spirit of the evening. That takes intelligence.

Wolf was “wildly inappropriate” and “raunchy” and didn’t take the high road? The high road was demolished at Donald Trump’s first presidential debate and is now a sinkhole. Mocking the disabled is inappropriate. Raunchy and vulgar? Well, that’s just locker room talk. If only Michelle Wolf had smiled more…

Whatever you think of this dinner, it’s a venerable tradition in a free country that celebrates a free press. By not attending, this president continues his bulldozing of American traditions like decency, inclusiveness and fair play. His review from afar? “This was a total disaster and an embarrassment to our great Country.” He ought to know. The comic reflects the times.

18   Feux Follets   ignore (1)   2018 May 16, 3:44am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick says
free speech will be wasted on deaf ears


The difference between hearing and listening !

Btw - how much does "a little" in terms of respect calculated ?

This is quite interesting to me in that the entire concept of showing a little respect on a forum such as this could take many different forms.
19   Feux Follets   ignore (1)   2018 May 17, 5:57am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

FortWayne says
I think that world history and bible teaches us by vast amount of examples that freedom of speech gets opinions out there and lets us solve problems. Without it, we are only allowed to think what a little intellectual ruling elite and their media pets what to feel and think.


Seriously ? The bible is fundamental to be able to think for one's self ? Good Night Nurse...

FortWayne says
Trump is literally bringing freedom back into America




Bring freedom back by threatening to remove credentials from reporters in the Daily Press Briefings because they dared say something that didn't flatter the Golden Golem of Humility and Greatness ?

Labeling everything that is slightly derogatory in any fashion as "fake news" ?

FortWayne says
Lack of freedom of speech really limits nation's intelligence and opinion pool down to only a few rulers


No - that would be a lack of personal responsibility and group responsibility to take either the left or right leaning versions of the news without doing their own due diligence.

Then again the average American is too self absorbed to get beyond the headlines of anything.

All someone has to do is look at the comments on this forum against what is actually contained in an article.

Just like trade, etc. - it's us, not them.
21   Feux Follets   ignore (1)   2018 May 17, 5:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Debunking the Myth of “Free Speech”

Contrary to popular mythology, the right to speak has always had limits in the US. In fact, we live in what amounts to a free speech Wild West compared to what existed in my childhood, and this isn’t due just to the Citizens United decision.

Consider broadcast television, which was a vastly more important political force in the 1960s and 1970s than now. The three major networks, along with the two national news magazines, Time and Newsweek, shaped mass culture. And they all stayed tightly within a relatively narrow spectrum of civic views and social norms.

Broadcast spectrum has always been explicitly recognized to be a commons, yet it has never been a “free speech” zone. From Michael O’Malley, Associate Professor of History and Art History, George Mason University:

Like radio broadcasters, television broadcasters operated under the authority of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC was established by Franklin Roosevelt with the assumption that the airwaves, the broadcast “bandwidth,” belonged to the people, much in the same way as, for example, federal forest land belongs to the people. Broadcasters applied for a license to use a section of that public property, a specific frequency.

Formal and informal censorship of television was extensive. By happenstance, I once met Dan Rowan of Rowan’s and Martin’s Laugh-In, which ran from 1968 to 1973. He described some of their regular fights with censors. I wish I recalled the details (this was over 30 years ago) but the impression I had was that Laugh-In was seen as being close enough to being transgressive that every show was reviewed before airing. Histories of censorship of television make clear that most of it was done by the broadcasters themselves, some of it presumably based on an understanding of what the FCC would tolerate, but also based on the advertisers’ view of what the mass audience and mass values were.

But what about “free speech” in the context of the Boston right-wing rally? Let us turn over the mike to Neil W, who weighed in via e-mail:

Charlottesville was not an exercise in free speech. There’s no such thing as free speech. Seriously. It’s a myth. An absolute tolerance for speech is neither defined in our Constitution nor our jurisprudence. There’s protected speech. And there’s speech that is not protected. Look at the list of types of speech defined in law as not being protected.

•Obscenity

•Fighting words

•Defamation (including libel and slander)

•Child pornography

•Perjury

•Blackmail

•Incitement to imminent lawless action

•True threats

•Solicitations to commit crimes

•Treason

•Plagiarism

Do you see the commonality in there? It’s harm. Speech that is not protected by law ultimately creates or perpetuates harm. Hate speech creates harm. Stanley Fish, discussing a Jeremy Waldron thesis:

“The very point of hate speech, [Waldron] says, “is to negate the implicit assurance that a society offers to the members of vulnerable groups — that they are accepted … as a matter of course, along with everyone else.” Purveyors of hate “aim to undermine this assurance, call it in question, and taint it with visible expressions of hatred, exclusion and contempt.” What the Vice video, and most of the other Charlottesville coverage, shows is an exercise in hate speech.

Hate speech creates harm that is arguably more egregious than any related to the types of speech in the above list. And yet, our political mythology demands that hate speech be tolerated regardless of the obvious and well documented harm it causes because there is some mysterious greater harm awaiting us should we act to extend to all of our citizens the implicit assurance incorporated into our Constitution and protections from harm found in our jurisprudence. Other countries have hate speech laws. The United States is long past due.

We don’t know what might have been said at the Boston event, particularly since the roster of speakers was changing up to right before the event. But we have clues.

More: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/08/debunking-myth-free-speech.html
22   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 May 18, 6:27am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Feux Follets says
Hate speech

If hate speech is defined as anything that can hurt feelings we got a problem.

Feux Follets says
hate speech be tolerated regardless of the obvious and well documented harm it causes

Harm? Hurt feelings? What ever happened to "sticks and stones "?

Snowflakes gotta toughen up. The world is harsh and there are way more harmful things than words, like being prosecuted for teaching your dog to salute like a nazi.
23   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 May 18, 6:39am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
Snowflakes gotta toughen up


Are we talking about Trump, who wants to relabel factual stories he doesn't like (or that hurt his feelings) as fake news.
24   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 May 18, 7:21am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says

Are we talking about Trump,

No. We are talking about people who get butthurt when you get their pronouns wrong or point out that men and women are different.
25   Feux Follets   ignore (1)   2018 May 19, 2:37am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Trump signs new executive order

President Trump signed into law a new executive order deleting “bad” words from the english language.

From now on these words cannot be used by anyone in the United States. Use of these words is punishable by up to 3 years in prison for the first offense.

The president is tired of hearing these words, especially from the media and special prosecutors.

From now on the words, sorry, Russia, collusion, impeach, liberal, science and especially Obama cannot be used in any context.

Complicating the issue is several mis-spellings of these words in the executive order, written by the President himself.

The White House expects legal challenges all the way up to the Supreme Court.

He also added “good words” to the executive order that he wants all american’s to use in every sentence. His favorites are “big boobies” and “Fire Mueller

https://www.whatthortoldme.com/trump-signs-new-executive-order/
26   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 May 19, 8:29am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Your politicians are skeevy, scurvy demonic conspiring liars. My politicians are invariably honest, selfless, honorable and prudent.




The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions