By deduction of the validity of what someone says is meant to stir up hate as in point 3, or is valid criticism, as in point 4. — Christoffer
How do we get to "This isn't factual and reasonable" if someone doesn't decide that? — Terrapin Station
Who gets to make those decisions and why do they get to make them? — Terrapin Station
We don't all agree though. Not at all. — Terrapin Station
So someone has to make the decisions about what counts and what doesn't, etc. — Terrapin Station
Who gets to make those decisions and why do they get to make them? (And what do we do with the folks who don't agree with those decisions?) — Terrapin Station
Purple Pond
275
Freedom of speech is important in that censorship can be abused by powerful institutions as a tool to disenfranchise certain people, making them less influential. If liberals and their ideas such as freedom, democracy, human rights are censored, their messages will not reach everyone. However, on the same coin, if fascist, Nazi, racist, and other hateful speech are censored, their toxic can be contained.
Some speech harms society, some speech hurts society, most speech does neither. The question is who should stem the flood of harmful speech? Well, it depends on the domain. In the public domain, the government can do something about harmful speech. But here's the key question, can we trust them? Governments have been known not to act in the interest of the people. As for the private domain (such as here in the philosophy forum), it's really the owners pejorative prerogative. Your house, your rules. For example, I see nothing wrong with YouTube banning Alex Jones form their website.
So it comes down to two questions:
In the public domain, can we trust the government to censor "harmful" speech?
In the private domain, do you agree that what can be said is the owner's pejorative prerogative? — Purple Pond
Okay, I'm sorry. There-there, hush now, mummy make it better. Would you like a tissue? How about a hug?
Are you done now? Can we continue? Or would you rather drag this out some more? — S
If the deduction of a speech that criticizes a specific ethnic group, concludes that it is not based on facts and that the criticism is coming from an emotional reaction out of a fear of the unknown (fear of another ethnicity). The deduction itself has proven it to be a harmful speech against this group and that the possible consequences of such a speech may stir up hate against this ethnic group, further pushing a division between people and the rise of racism between them. No one decided this, the deduction and breakdown of the speech decided this. — Christoffer
If the arguments lead to a justified conclusion, that's how we decide. If not, then no decision, except a random one, seems possible. — Pattern-chaser
No, deduction bypass personal opinion, that's the point. — Christoffer
That is beautiful! :hearts: That is the kind of thinking that attracts me to the forum and gives me hope for humanity. — Athena
If we all understood the reasoning you gave us, we wouldn't need moderators because logical and social agreements would rule. We need moderators now because we have neither the understanding of logic nor the social agreements and things spin out of control without authority over us. That reality pushes the question of who has that authority and what qualifies someone to be a moderator, and should the accused have a defense and a trail? — Athena
have you considered if the inevitable end to most of your assertions on this thread lead to a form of destructive Nihilism? — Mr Phil O'Sophy
To Joe, they lead to a justified conclusion. To Bill, they do not. Now what do you do? — Terrapin Station
And we non-personally figure out if we've deduced a correct conclusion via? — Terrapin Station
Because it's based on facts outside of Bill's and Joe's opinions, biases, and past down doctrines. — Christoffer
And so who decides? — Terrapin Station
If the argument is solid it's the argument that decides — Christoffer
Even if it were somehow possible for an argument to "decide for itself," we'd need to be able to recognize this, wouldn't we? — Terrapin Station
Generally, this is the majority of how people behave with these types of questions, tribalism rather than actually thinking. — Christoffer
You see a blue pen. Someone says it's green. There's a definition of blue by measuring the spectrum of light bouncing from that blue pen. The spectrum shows its green. You are wrong, it is green — Christoffer
Even if "the world itself" can do all of that somehow, for us to know about it, note it, do anything about it, someone has to think and assert those things, right? — Terrapin Station
Some individual has to know this, and has to note it--that is, make a claim about it and so on, in order for us to take any action with respect to it, correct? — Terrapin Station
Has to know what? — Christoffer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.