“There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world.” — Thomas Jefferson — Gladiator of Truth

Sally Hemmings?

My view is best reflected in the quote below, but it is apparently not shared by many on here:

“There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world.” — Thomas Jefferson — Gladiator of Truth

Whatdabout the truth of who fathered Sally Hemings's children? :joke:

These claims regarding Thomas Jefferson & Sally Hemings were well-known during his lifetime and although they were used as a bludgeon against him by both personal enemies and political rivals, he made no attempt (that I know of) to silence these individuals. That said, a desire to want "truth known" does not imply that the world at large has a right to know one's bathroom habits or bedroom activities, for instance, nor the combination to one’s safe. Nor does belief in it means you give carte blanche to every Tom, Dick, & Harry to question you about the personal details of your life. It simply means that there are no universal truths that should not be known by all, even if some of those truths do not reflect well on others.

there are no universal truths that should not be known by all, even if some of those truths do not reflect well on others. — Gladiator of Truth

He could have said that, but he did not. Instead, he opened himself up to questions that he damn well could have put to bed (pun intended) back in his day. Apparently he did not.

I wonder if that failure had something to do with his knowing slavery was fundamentally wrong and against everything he said he stood for, but he was unwilling to walk the walk? That has jack shit to do with bathroom habits, bedroom activities, the combination to his safe or personal details of his life. It has everything to do with a founding father and a signatory of the Declaration of Independence.

Hey, like America, I love Tommy. He's a hero of mine. But as a gladiator of truth, I'm not afraid of it, and if he's a hypocrite, let the truth be known.

I support that we should be able to question whatever we feel will result in a decent conversation/discussion, however, as I have had threads deleted due to the question I was asking, clearly there are topics that are not supported. Which is unfortunate, I had been hoping for a less restrictive discussion environment. As for being "woke" and "politically correct", I certainly hope the forum does not go that way too far as it will spell the end of reasonable discussion. I can get flavour of the week on CBC.

"I support that we should be able to question whatever we feel will result in a decent conversation/discussion, however, as I have had threads deleted due to the question I was asking, clearly there are topics that are not supported." — Book273

I agree. In fact, I know of no place on the Internet that permits free speech (as commonly defined) because many people fear the truth if it threatens to topple their long-held beliefs. And this is true with both the Left and the Right, as well as all who lie in between.

I support free speech. Not hate speech, but actual free open discussion to expand understanding of a topic. Disagreeing with the other posters greatly improves the discussion. If I only want my views, I need only find a mirror.

Let's take an inflammatory/racist claim such as "Chinese people are inferior to Europeans" — Andrew4Handel

What is the standard which is being used to evaluate inferiority vs. superiority? Inferior in regards to what?

As example, the evidence suggests that on average, generally speaking, black men are superior to other races when it comes to playing professional basketball. This is a claim about some specific activity.

I support free speech. Not hate speech, but actual free open discussion to expand understanding of a topic. Disagreeing with the other posters greatly improves the discussion. If I only want my views, I need only find a mirror. — book273

"Hate speech" is a designation widely used as a means to silence someone whose views you do not like.

Example: Someone says that Mexico has dangerous criminal cartels and the immediate response is, "Well, you obviously hate Mexicans," as a means to invalidate the fact that Mexico does indeed have dangerous cartels.

Now, granted, such a person may well "hate Mexicans" but dismissing the fact that there are dangerous cartels in Mexico based on that is akin to dismissing 2 + 2 = 4 as being true simply because the person who says it hates you. In other words, "hate speech" has become the go-to "accusation" of many people today as a means to "win" an argument. Therefore, I'm not sure what you mean by "hate speech".

"Hate speech" is a designation widely used as a means to silence someone whose views you do not like. — Gladiator of Truth

So is bolding.

What is the standard which is being used to evaluate inferiority vs. superiority? Inferior in regards to what? — Foghorn

Nothing exists in a vacuum, although many seem to believe that. In other words, anything can be objectively evaluated in regard to another thing. The old saying, "Oh, you're just trying to compare apples to oranges!" But stop and ask yourself: "Can apples and oranges be objectively compared?" The answer is yes. Here's one example of such a comparison: "Which has more Vitamin C?" Answer: the orange. Thus, an objective comparison was made and within that context the orange was superior. Here's another one: "I need to type a term paper. Which is superior, the orange or my desktop computer?" Answer: the desktop computer. So your question, "Inferior in regards to what?" means you understand that without context no proper evaluation can be made.

Is bolding text against the rules? The text is so small I have difficultly reading it. The bolding makes a big difference, however. Or can the font size be increased?

Thus, an objective comparison was made and within that context the orange was superior. — Gladiator of Truth

Yes, agreed, if we define the context, the goal, then we can measure something against that goal.

Or can the font size be increased? — Gladiator of Truth

You should be able to do that in your browser. I do that myself. Sometimes a site's layout will get destroyed by larger fonts, but it seems to work here pretty much.

Please don't do that. It won't help you to read other's posts anyway. So, it's pointless as well as ugly. Just use your browser as suggested.

I've been listening to NPR daily for years, and they've gone way off the deep end in the "woke" direction. I've taken to calling them the "Fox News Of Political Correctness". :-)

Therefore, I'm not sure what you mean by "hate speech". — Gladiator of Truth

I mean speech specifically designed to promote hatred and subsequent violent response, for example "all french Canadians are less than human and so should have no rights or property and are less worthy than cattle." That, to me, qualifies as hate speech. I am French Canadian, so hopefully no one gets pissy about my example.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie has written a great essay on cancel culture.

“(young people) who are choking on sanctimony and lacking in compassion”, who she says are part of a generation “so terrified of having the wrong opinions that they have robbed themselves of the opportunity to think and to learn and to grow”.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/16/chimamanda-ngozi-adichie-social-media-sanctimony

I wish people defined their terms more.

The way words like "woke" and "politically correct" - not to mention "racist" are thrown around, they are undistinguishable from "grrr me no like."

When someone says something like "Bob is racist" or "Sergio is a woke snowflake" the only thing that this tells me is that the speaker doesn't like Bob, or Sergio, respectively. These are words almost entirely devoid of meaning.

On a mac, hold down cmd and press +.
On a PC, hold down ctrl and press +.

The site takes care of formatting, your zoom in is preserved during site navigation (eg clicking onto new threads).

agree. In fact, I know of no place on the Internet that permits free speech (as commonly defined) because many people fear the truth if it threatens to topple their long-held beliefs. — Gladiator of Truth

Yes, the vast majority of sites that have anything to do with ideas are tribal sites. People of like mind gather to validate their own perspective. It's an incredibly popular activity.

Philosophy forums are somewhat unique because, at least in theory, everything is supposed to be challenged.

I am a little unsure of your topic. I can see that it can appear that we are in a culture of seeing the point of view of minorities. Also, looking at prejudice and discrimination it probably is so much deeper. I am sure that many people, including philosophers had prejudices, and it is extremely complex, because these are probably deep rooted. I am aware that wokism is seen as a problem, but, how do we find the right balance between wokism and tolerance of all prejudices?