Having one of the speakers of the MSG rally held last night joke that Puerto Rico is garbage is going to piss off people on both sides of the political divide. The campaign seems to have forgotten where the hell they were. — Paine

Maybe, but they don't call him "Teflon Don" for no reason.

Some of Trump's supporters agree with the sentiment that Puerto Rico is garbage (they were the one's fired up by Trump's assertions that immigrants are "poisoning our blood"). This fires them up. These are the "deplorables" that Hillary correctly mentioned (although her math was wrong; it's probably less than half). Others will simply point to the fact that it wasn't Trump himself who made the "garbage" statement, and his campaign disavowed it. But maybe it will turn off some who are on the fence. We'll know next week.

They can't vote in general estados unidos elections, — javi2541997

Puerto Ricans who have moved to one of the fifty states can vote. 8% of the population of Pennsylvania is Puerto Rican. Pennsylvania is a must-win state for Harris, so maybe this will help.

I agree with a much of what you say. The populace is to blame because they elect the leaders, and the populace is (by and large) ill-informed and easily misled. I don't agree that a total collapse of the nations is either needed or is likely. What is needed is better education.

Trump is an opportunist, and the opportunity he takes advantage of is the disconnect between detailed policy and political rhetoric. Candidates can't win an election by presenting detailed policies; they need to dumb it down into slogans and soundbites. So the vast majority makes their decision on these soundbites, not by carefully examining the pros/cons of competing detailed policy positions. In many cases with Trump, he just has the soundbites that appeal to many - with little or no details.

If Trump is elected, I expect he will endeavor to do everything he promises. And there will be both positive and negative consequences. This will be a learning opportunity for the American public.

But if they're not the laws described by physics, then in what sense are those relations physical? — Wayfarer

I'll try to explain with an example.

Consider two specific electrons in close proximity. They each have a -1 electric charge, which results in there existing a repulsive force between them. This force is a physical relation between these two specfic electrons.

The electron is a universal- all individual electrons have the exact same set of intrinsic properties. Similarly, any pair of electrons in the same proximity to each other will necessarily have the exact same repulsive force between them - the physical relation. This is what it means to be a law (under Armstrong's account): the physical relation necessarily exists in the instantiations of the universals. He describes this as a relation between the universal: electron-electron.

I question that declaring everything to be physical, without any reference to physics itself, is even meaningful. — Wayfarer

What Armstrong is doing is acknowledging a distinction between the actual laws of nature and the academic discipline of physics. Physicists endeavors to uncover laws of nature, and is likely correct in many cases, but ontology is not dependent on them getting everything exactly correct. Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation seemed to be a law of nature for quite a long time, but in fact - it had an error, one that was corrected by Einstein's theory. The law of nature didn't change, but the law of physics did change.

But that is not true. Scientific realists, including Sir Roger Penrose and Albert Einstein, both criticize quantum physics precisely on the grounds that they provide no description of specification of what the 'state of affairs' of a quantum system is, prior to it being measured. This is why they both insist that quantum physics must be in some sense incomplete. Yet it has withstood every test that has been set for it. (I've published a Medium essay on this topic.) — Wayfarer

The state of affairs of a quantum system is perfectly describable as a Schroedinger equation. In that respect, the quantum system evolves in a strictly deterministic way over time. A state of affairs exists at each temporal point of its evolution, and a relation exists between any two such temporal points. This is the case under all interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Where so-called indeterminism comes in is when we consider interactions between a quantum system and the classical world. An interaction results in a physical collapse of the wave function. Repeated measurements (each measurement is such an interaction) will produce a range of results corresponding to a probability distribution. Armstrong describes this as "probabilistic determinism": the "law" results in an interaction measurement that fits this probability distribution. So Armstrong's model fits.

It could be that the world is strictly deterministic. One way it could be strictly deterministic is if the actual world is a quantum system and so-called interactions result in "world-branching" such that all possibilities are actualized (a "many worlds interpretation"). Not a problem for Armstrong. It could be deterministic is if there is a "pilot wave" of the universe, or if there are othewise some remote, hidden variables that results in a specific outcome when the wave function collapses. Again, none are a problem for Armstrong's model.

There are many interpretations of QM, and a scientific realist could embrace any specific interpretation based on their own analyses of the physics, and they could still account for it in Armstrong's model. Armstrong is careful to avoid making scientific judgements, while also endeavoring to fit everything we do know about the physics.

When Armstrong refers to "laws of nature", he's not pointing to scientific theories and equations in textbooks. He's referring to something ontological. Physics may approximate the law, or describe it in terms meaningful to us, but those descriptions and equations are not the law. The law is the physical relations that exist between (or among) types of things (a type of thing is a universal).

So when I said that laws of nature are necessarily natural, if naturalism is true, I was specifically referring to laws as something ontological, not descriptive.

Furthermore appealing to the entities of sub-atomic physics presents difficulties for Armstrong's style of physicalism. — Wayfarer

No, it doesn't. The standard model of particles physics is trivially consistent with his "states of affairs". The essential element of his ontology is that every thing that exists is a state of affairs (a particular with its attached properties and relations). Even quantum fields, or strings, fit this framework.

. I don't know if Armstrong ever touches on the thorny question of interpretation in quantum physics, but I'm not sure it would support his overall approach. — Wayfarer

He's agnostic to interpretations of QM, but I doubt there's an interpretation that isn't consistent with his model. Armstrong defers such matters to physicists.

observing subjects" are only 'objects' to other observing subjects who, it is hoped, will be sufficiently perceptive to recognise them as subjects, rather than regarding them as objects. — Wayfarer

From an Armstrong perspective, this is semantics, not ontology.

Ha! Isn't 'the observing subject who stipulates the axioms upon which it rests' another brute fact? — Tom Storm

No, because "observing subjects" are objects that exist as a consequence of the way the world is and the specific history that it has.

This just strikes me as mapping the common presuppositions of physicalism onto "what a complete metaphysical theory should be." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Of course. But What's wrong with that?

It seems to presuppose the subject - object dualism that a great deal of 20th and 21st century explicitly targets as the cardinal sin of early modern philosophy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What makes you think that? I'm referring to David Armstrong's ontology- which accounts for everything that (unarguaby) objectively exists.

Such a definition surely defines subjective idealism out of contention from the get-go, no? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes and no. Subjective idealism is not consistent with physicalism, and vice versa. What is in contention are complete metaphysical systems, and we can each judge which system a a better, or more compelling, description of reality.

But of course, probably the number one critique of (mainstream representationalist) physicalism is precisely that it axiomatically assumes an unresolvable dualism that makes skepticism insurmountable. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Please elaborate. I don't see how any sort of dualism fits into physicalism.

Are laws of nature natural? They’re never actually observed, only their effects can be discerned by measurement and observation. But the question why nature is lawful or what natural laws comprise, is not itself a question that naturalism has answers for. Naturalism assumes an order in nature, but it doesn’t explain it, nor does it need to explain it. That, I suppose, is what you’re getting at by saying that the existence of the world is ‘brute fact’ - which effectively forecloses any attempt to understand why things are the way they are, whether they are as they seem, and so on. — Wayfarer

I am representing David Armstrong's metaphysics, which I believe is the most comprehensive physicalist metaphysics out there.

"Are laws of nature natural? "
Yes. If they weren't, then all forms of naturalism would be false.

"Naturalism assumes an order in nature, but it doesn’t explain it, nor does it need to explain it."
The order in nature needs to be accounted for- and this theory does account for them: as relations between universals*. This portion of the theory is called "law realism" (Law realism was independently proposed by Armstrong, Tooley, and Sosa). Universals*, and the relations between them, are indeed part of the physical world. This as axiomatic to Armstrong's metaphysical system, but it's
(arguably) the best explanation for what we observe and measure.

"Why is nature lawful?" That's easy: it's because laws of nature exist, and a law is a necessitation (i.e. an effect follows necessarily, not contingently). If you're asking, "why do laws of nature exist?" It's brute fact that they exist: it happens to be the way the world is.
----------
* A universal is anything that exists in multiple instantiations. Examples: proton and electron are universals. The attractive force between them is a relation between these universals.

They politicized the justice system. Biden’s DOJ went after him. Attorney Generals campaigned on going after him and they cooked up frivolous cases. They locked up at least two of his advisors. — NOS4A2

Trump's efforts to steal the election, and his obstruction of justice (and other aggravating issues) in his classified documents case, were hardly frivolous. When a public figure blatantly breaks the law in plain sight, I see nothing wrong with campaigning on prosecuting the crimes. I'll also point out there's no evidence Biden had any involvement in investigations of Trump, by contrast - during his Presidency, Trump tried to push the DOJ into going after people.

If a Trump DOJ goes after Democrats, I'd be fine if it was based on investigating crimes. However, Trump (and many GOP pundits) propose investigating PEOPLE to look for crimes - and that's indisputably improper.

The main issue with physicalism, as with many other broad philosophical and ideological categorizations, is that it is hard to define and articulate with any precision and consistency, while avoiding circularity. — SophistiCat

How's this (as a start):
Naturalism is a metaphysical system that assumes the totality of reality is natural. The "natural" is anything that exists* that is causally connected to the actual physical world through laws of nature.
Physicalism=a form of naturalism that adds the assumption that every existing object is physical.

Help me understand what is imprecise or circular.

Whereas physicalism seems to me to generally focus primarily on questions of "how." We have observable phenomena, but how do they come to be and how are they best predicted and forecast? (Dawkins for instance defines "reality" in terms of prediction). The "physical" is just that which is required for this "how" explanation. But the physical itself is often said to lack any "why." It simply is, a brute fact. Intelligibility is a "construct" of minds and need not be sought in nature or the physical, or might even be said to be mere appearance (and quiddity/phenoenology is usually demoted to mere appearance as set over and against objective physical reality). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting points, which I'd like to respond to.

Physicalism focuses on both what exists and how things happen (i.e. causation). Everything that exists is physical (this is axiomatic, but it can be defended epistemically), and causation is accounted for through laws of nature - and this explains how things come to be. It does depend on the physical world existing by brute fact (a metaphysically necessary brute fact), but AFAIK, every metaphysical theory depends on some metaphysically necessary brute fact.

Intelligibility and quiddity strikes me as related to theories of mind and of truth. Something is "intelligible" if it is understood (i.e. it is describable by propositions that are known). Quiddity seems a subset of intelligibility. A complete metaphysical theory (whether physicalist or anything else) is a description of the way things actually are objectively (not merely what we perceive), albeit that we learn about the world phenomenologically.

I don't think physicalism re philosophy of mind has all that much to do with physicalism as an ontology. It seems perfectly possible to accept the former while rejecting the latter. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree with your latter statement, but I'll state the obvious: a committed physicalist will necessarily believe in a physicalist theory of mind.

Elite Hollywood pedophiles, to be precise. — NOS4A2

This caught my attention. Please educate me on this - which Hollywood elites are pedophiles, and how do you know they are?

This will be an opportunity for you to explain how you learn what is going on in the world (at least this one allegation), given the fact that you distrust the mainstream media.

there seems to be a consensus there that he did try to overturn the election results (rather than just the soft-ball wording of NOS4 that he was merely contesting the results), and that his actions throughout this ordeal were illegal. — flannel jesus

Raffensberger certainly believed he was being pressured, and even hired a lawyer because he feared Trump would push a wrongful prosecution against him (source).

There are two kinds of judgements that can be considered:

1) the threshold for a criminal prosecution

I'm not sure, but NOS4A2 may be trying to argue that there's reasonable doubt about whether Trump's intent was to pressure Georgia officials. The prosecution will have the burden to prove this. I think they CAN, but that will be decided in a courtroom. I also think this is moot at this point. This will only go to trial if Trump loses the election.

2) the reasoned judgement of an objective voter
I suggest that a voter can, and should, judge this for himself. I don't think NOS4A2 can make a case that it's MORE likely Trump was merely encouraging an investigation rather than actually applying pressure. I'm aware of no exculpatory evidence - and there's an abundance of evidence that Trump had been disabused of the notions that any of the fraud claims were valid. So IMO, the most benign interpretation is that Trump is exceedingly stupid or pathologically incapable of accepting a reality he does not like. No reasonable person should vote for someone who is either exceedingly stupid or incapable of accepting reality - much less if he actually broke the law.

That’s false. He explicitly asked them to investigate illegal voting. You keep repeating the one phrase his enemies do, but leave out the rest of the call. The elector scheme wasn’t to “overturn the election”, but to force a recount. You have problems with recounts? You don’t like to investigate illegal voting? Fine, but lying about it turns people away from your cause. One of these days your comrades are going to say “I’m tired of being lied to”. — NOS4A2

Be specific: what exactly did I say that was false?

I have not repeated the "one phrase". In fact, I a knowledged the irrelevance of that one phrase.

You claim Trump "asked them to investigate illegal voting". Provide a quote of Trump's where he explicitly asks for this.

It is an unequivocal fact that Trump was asserting he won the state, and was repeating allegations that had been investigated and debunked directly to him. This includes the allegations against Dominion and the "ballots pulled from under the table" at State Farm Arena.

That's because you haven't read the transcript of that call. That's the going rate, and you're in good company, but it's wrong. It's been misconstrued that he is pressuring the governor to magically come up with votes, not that he wants to find the illegal votes he's been speaking about the whole call. — NOS4A2

As I've discussed before, the mere fact that he stated the number of votes he needed is not relevant. What IS relevant is that he was pressuring the state officials to change the result using lies (here's a list of lies he told on the call).

"It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election," he said following his November 2020 defeat, according to a witness who overheard the remark. "You still have to fight like hell." (as noted in Smith's filing).

“The details don’t matter,” Trump said, when told by an adviser that a lawyer who was mounting his legal challenges wouldn’t be able to prove the false allegations in court, the filing states.

There are two fundamental issues:
1) should individual human beings be protected by government policy?
2) what constitutes an individual human being?

The answer to #1 is: yes, of course. I don't think anyone disagrees.
#2 is the source of disagreement.

There are religions (e.g. Roman Catholicism) that teach that zygotes are individual human beings. For them, this is non-negotiable. However, their religious view should not be imposed on everyone else. There's a rock-solid reason to think zygotes are not individual human beings: monozygotic twins. If a zygote is an individual human being, then monozygotic twins are a single human being, which is non-sensical.

There is no well-defined set of necessary and sufficient properties that unequivocally delineates when something is an IHB. Everyone would probably agree that a newborn infant is an IHB, and this implies an IHB is something that emerges gradually during fetal development. But there is no right answer regarding when the fetus constitutes an IHB: it's a fuzzy concept, not a well-defined one. Any definition we create would be arbitrary

What gap? — Wayfarer

That the core principle of scientism (that the scientific method is the only way to render truth about the world and reality) cannot be established with the scientific method. This implies the core principle is an unjustified belief- that's the gap.

The point here is that the metaphysics involved in physicalism and the metaphysics that I would argue is present in methodological naturalism are adjudicable and non-arbitrary, and therefore they do not succumb to the critiques of metaphysics that many have leveraged. We don't need to be afraid of metaphysics, or believe that it represents some kind of unadjudicable free for all. — Leontiskos

100% agree.

I don't think this argument holds water. — T Clark

The author's argument against scientism doesn't claim to show science is irrational, but rather that it's core principle (that the scientific method is the only way to render truth about the world and reality) cannot be established with the scientific method - which he asserts makes it self-defeating.

The author of the paper I linked is Ed Feser, a proponent of Thomist metaphysics (the theistic metaphysics developed by Thomas Aquinas). Feser is basically trying to claim is system is superior to scientism because it has no such gap. My point is that metaphysical naturalism provides a similarly complete metaphysical system, one in which science fits perfectly - with no gap.

But it doesn't sound like you treat physicalism as unfalsifiable. In fact it seems like you believe physicalism would be falsified insofar as you encounter things which are not explainable within the physicalist framework. — Leontiskos

Interesting observation - it is falsifiable in one sense. But I don't think it's falsifiable in the scientific sense:

"Falsifiability (or refutability) is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test."

2. Physicalism is unscientific.
The core metaphysical assumptions of most metaphysically naturalist / physicalist positions may be summarized as follows:

A. All known and all potentially knowable phenomena can be considered physical [Edited to properly distinguish vs materialism]
B. The universe is deterministic. [Correction: Only applies to some versions of physicalism, not most]
C. The universe is comprehensively and ultimately law-given and law-abiding.

None of these are falsifiable. They can better be described as articles of faith consistent with the observable universe, but not derivable from it.

This might seem obvious, but I'm not convinced it is to all physicalists.

3. Physicalism’s close association with methodological naturalism and the confusion there engendered risks denigrating the latter.

Methodological naturalism stands as a respectable framework for the employment of the scientific method. It has nothing necessarily to say about whether the universe contains supernatural elements or not, only that it may be investigated as if it were entirely natural. — Baden

It appears to me that you miss the point. Physicalism is a metaphysical theory, not a scientific theory. All coherent metaphysical theories are unfalsifiable. It's certainly reasonable to remain agnostic to metaphysical theories, but it's not UNreasonable to treat some metaphysical theory as a working hypothesis to see if it can account for everything we know about the world. Personally, I treat physicalism is the most reasonable default position- my working hypothesis, so I label myself a physicalist. I haven't encountered anything that isn't explainable from this framework, and it gives me a basis for discussions with supernaturalists (particularly theists). Metaphysical naturalism/physicalism is a counter to the epistemological problem posed by scientism, which is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. Here's an excerpt from an article exposing the flaw in scientism:

"... scientism...is either self-refuting or trivial. Take the first horn of this dilemma. The claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific methods. Indeed, that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle. And if it cannot even establish that it is a reliable form of inquiry, it can hardly establish that it is the only reliable form. Both tasks would require “getting outside” science altogether and discovering from that extra-scientific vantage point that science conveys an accurate picture of reality—and in the case of scientism, that only science does so.-' source.

Metaphysical naturalism (or physicalism) fills in the gap that scientism leaves. Of course, it's not necessarily true, but it does defeat the claim (of some theists) that we "need" supernaturalism to account for aspects of the world.

Do you believe that since something is a necessary condition it therefor contributed to the act? — NOS4A2

My impression is that you're narrowly focusing on the immediate cause of an act, and ignoring the fuller context.

A necessary condition is both a contributing cause and a necessary cause of the act.
Necessary causes
If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the prior occurrence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.

Contributory causes
For some specific effect, in a singular case, a factor that is a contributory cause is one among several co-occurrent causes. It is implicit that all of them are contributory. For the specific effect, in general, there is no implication that a contributory cause is necessary, though it may be so. In general, a factor that is a contributory cause is not sufficient, because it is by definition accompanied by other causes, which would not count as causes if it were sufficient.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Sassy Justice is satire, not a fraud. — NOS4A2

Adding a watermark does not hinder satire. Even if satire is evident in its original context, a video can be copied, truncated, and distributed on social media without the context.

vandalizing someone’s work violates their free speech.

Does a person not have the right to control the use of one's image? Using someone's image without permission to convey a falsehood is fraud, and if it casts a negative light on the person, it constitutes slander. The alternative to a watermark would be more draconian fraud and slander laws and/or laws against using a person's image without permission.

Deepfakes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It will eventually become impossible to determine if they're real. Video/ audio evidence has traditionally the best possible evidence of acts (whether by politicians or petty criminals). Sophisticated deepfakes make it harder than ever for rational people to discern what is true.

So why not get better at discerning what is true than giving some people the power to be the final word on truth? — NOS4A2

You completely ignored my point. Deepfakes can make it harder to discern the truth, and this is a case of unequivocal truth. It does not entail empowering some person or group to make a judgement- it entails exposing an unequivocal falsehood at its source.

So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?"

Misinformation cannot control a motor cortext. It did not plan the attack or load the weapon. Information cannot act. It did not contribute to the act because it is incapable of contributing. — NOS4A2

You agreed the disinformation was a necessary condition to the bad act. That logically implies that in the absence of the disinformation, the act would not have occurred. In your defense of your position, you're coflating "necessary and sufficient" with "necessary". I haven't suggested that the disinformation alone caused the bad act, but you keep treating it that way- so you aren't confronting the issue I brought up.

who's harmed by such a requirement?

I did answer this question. — NOS4A2

I can only find you falsely asserting it's a violation of free speech. This doesn't stop anyone from saying whatever they want, nor does it prevent them creating fake videos- so no rights are being infringed. (There's no right to commit fraud).

deep fakes are not "unequivocal lies", — NOS4A2

That's utter nonsense. They depict a person saying/doing things they did not do - and they appear real. It's fraud. It's fine to parody, and watermaking wouldn't prevent that.

for us to figure out on our own accord what is true or false without a third party such as yourself. — NOS4A2

Deepfakes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It will eventually become impossible to determine if they're real. Video/ audio evidence has traditionally the best possible evidence of acts (whether by politicians or petty criminals). Sophisticated deepfakes make it harder than ever for rational people to discern what is true.

This has been addressed already. Do you believe that playing violent video games leads one to shoot up schools? Should we ban violent video games, or sue the developers? Not everyone that plays violent video games goes and shoots up a school. Why? — Harry Hindu

False equivalence. Deep fakes are inherently falsehoods, whereas videogames are inherently fictional. I haven't suggested banning them - I just proposed identifying what they are. Video games are clearly identified as GAMES; no one is being deceived.

So are you saying that we should depend on the person who knows he is faking it to add watermarks to their own video? — Harry Hindu

Software is used to create them, and these software tools could automatically add a watermark. If someone removed the watermark, hacked the software, or developed their own, they would be criminally liable.

If not, who decides what is a deep face video and what isn't if not logic and reason?

Deepfake can entail faking a voice and image of a public figure. There's nothing ambiguous about it. Logic and reason can't identify it, if it's sufficiently sophisticated- and the sophistication is getting increasingly better.

In the absence of deepfakes, logic and reason would dictate treating videos as among the best evidence for determining what a person has said or done. If we can't even trust videos, our ability to discern truth is severely hampered.

Doesn't the deep fake video need to be released so that it is exposed to public criticism - to logic and reason. If it isn't released and circulates among a private group, how are we suppose to stop that? Your proposals to solve the problem do not seem to fit with the way these things work.

If sufficiently sophisticated, they will become impossible to distinguish from actual videos. Further, their existence provides an excuse for a public figure to deny incriminating video evidence of wrongdoing. No longer will we be able to say "seeing is believing".

Understand that we aren't quite at the point where deepfakes are indistinguishable from real videos. But we're heading in that direction, so now is the time to get out ahead of the projected future problem.

Fox News lost a big lawsuit to Dominion Voting Systems for spreading lies that hurt their businss. Was that inappropriate?
— Relativist
But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about misinformation. Who gets to define what misinformation is, if not logic and reason? — Harry Hindu

I've personally been discussing DISinformation: lies. Disinformation that is repeated becomes misinformation - a tougher problem to deal with. But knowingly spouting falsehoods isn't so fuzzy. Fox knew they were telling falsehoods, and were appropriately held to account.

The person who creates a deepfake video knows he's faking it - lying. That's not a matter of alternative opinions, it's an unequivical fact. That's worth addressing, and entails no ambiguity.

No, you’ve addressed nothing I’ve said, while I’ve answered countless of your questions and tried to follow your logic in good faith. — NOS4A2

You didn't answer these specific questions:

Regarding Edgar shooting up the Pizzaria: you agreed the disinformation he received was a necessary condition to his action, but then you (bizarrely) claimed the disinformation did no "contribute" to his bad act. I asked, and you did not answer: "So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?"

Regarding my proposal to require watermarks on deepfaked videos, I asked (and you did not answer): who's harmed by such a requirement?
In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?"

What questions of yours did I fail to answer?

You addressed nothing I said. You seem to be unable to think beyond "censorship bad".

The damage of fraudulent speech, as demonstrated through Common Law, is measured by its demonstrated result. The level of criminality that may be involved concerns the question of malicious intent — Paine

So you agree it's a reasonable infringement on free speech, because it can cause damage.

So far, I have made exactly one proposal: to require watermarking of deepfake videos, which are fraudulent by their nature. Do you agree this would be a reasonable step?

Why not just leave everyone alone instead of harming them and their work? It would be better for all of us. — NOS4A2

Such deepfakes are unequivocally a lie, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's free speech. Identifying them for what they are benefits those of us who seek facts. So who's harmed by such a requirement? In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?

Deepfake videos are becoming increasingly lifelike. 100% of them are unequivocal lies, so I suggest some level of governance over them is reasonable. For example: requiring a watermark identifying them as fakes. This wouldn't impede free speech, it would just require disclosure that the content isn't real.

People here don't seem to realize that censorship and free speech is a double-edge sword. — Harry Hindu

Free speech has never meant the freedom to say whatever you want wherever you want. Are laws against fraud and libel to be dispensed with because they infringe free speech?

Fox News lost a big lawsuit to Dominion Voting Systems for spreading lies that hurt their businss. Was that inappropriate?

Axios is a left-leaning source of information. It seems to me that both sides engage in misinformation equally and reject science when it is politically expedient. .. — Harry Hindu

The Axios article linked to a Pew survey that showed Republicans are more likely than Democrats to mistrust scientists.

...Many Democrats have rejected biological facts regarding sex

I've never seen anyone denying the biological facts regarding sex. Are you perhaps referring to the trend to treat gender as a social role that can sometimes be inconsistent with biological sex?

What really sucks is the level of politicization that has infiltrated society today. — Harry Hindu

Yes, that's unfortunate and it's exacerbated by the political parties. GOP leaders have to cater to their base by appealing to their anti-science trends and the embrace of conspiracy theories. In the process, they draw in more of the lunatic fringe - to which they will them endeavor to continue to court. The only remotely similar thing I see the Dems doing is to tiptoe around policies and attitudes toward transgenders.

Here's an idea: how about we take campaigning for a position of power out of the equation? Impose term limits on Congress. — Harry Hindu

Everyone gets one term? I'd support that, but it won't happen - it would take a constitutional amendment. I'd like to see critical thinking skills taught in schools- but I anticipate Christian groups would oppose it.

The right to question authority is a type of free speech — Harry Hindu

Of course, but there has been an unhealthy trend toward treating expert opinion as no more credible than the opinion of a blogger on the internet- especially among Republicans. See: https://www.axios.com/2023/05/28/misinformation-science

Questioning authority is healthy. Countering it with disinformation is not.

We agree on the necessary condition. We disagree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring... — NOS4A2

It was bad that Edgar shot up the Pizzeria.
A necessary condition for this occuring was his hearing the disinformation.

So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?

That’s misinformation. You last sentence in the post to which I disagreed was “ So are you open to considering ways to limit the spread of disinformation, if it doesn't infringe on free speech rights?” — NOS4A2

You're wrong. Here's the entirety of the post:

↪Relativist

My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree?

I do not. — NOS4A2

So you believe Edgar would have driven to the Pizza Parlor and shot it up even if he'd never heard the falsehood. That's irrational.

Nope. I believe it didn’t cause him to. — NOS4A2

You're being evasive. I agreed that under a strict definition of cause as that which is necessary and sufficient to resultvin the effect , the disinformation was not the cause. If you read carefully, you'd know that was not on dispute. And yet you repeated the assertion that the disformation didn't cause it.

I have repeatedly asked you if you agreed the information was a necessary condition. You have not clearly answered that. Your "nope" seemed to imply that you do not believe Edgar would have shot up the Pizza Parlor.

You started this thread, so its odd that you seem to want to avoid serious discussion.

And as John Milton argued, the censors deny themselves (and others) the opportunity to see falsity collide with truth. By giving the authorities the right to determine truth and historical fact, they push for the stupidity of mankind. — NOS4A2

Censorship is not the only way to deal with disinformation.

Well, it should have been clear because I linked to the post I was replying to, as I always do. — NOS4A2

The last sentence in the quote was my question: "do you disagree?" You responded. "I do not".

I agree that it was a necessary condition to the event. So is air, water, guns, and pizza. I disagree that it contributed to the event you mentioned and therefor ought to be minimized. — NOS4A2

So you believe Edgar would have driven to the Pizza Parlor and shot it up even if he'd never heard the falsehood. That's irrational.

I haven't suggested any actions (yet). I was just pointing out that more free speech doesn't address the problem...and also that the problem is very real.

It seems pretty simple to me that the obvious solution to the existence of misinformation is more free speech, not less of it. — Harry Hindu

Why didn't free speech prevent a man from shooting his way into a Pizza Parlor to rescue nonexistent child victims of sex trafficking from a nonexistent basement?

You know as well as I do that I was disagreeing with this claim:

So you agree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring. It therefore follows that it would be good to minimize it. — NOS4A2

No, that wasn't at all clear. I asked you a specific yes/no question - that you answered. Now you're blaming me for your answering it wrong.

You are trying to maximize rather than minimize misinformation. And still nothing bad has become of it. All of it reflects on your own behavior instead of threatening me and my safety.

I first need to clarify the distinction between misinformation and disinformation. Disinformation entails falsehoods being promulgated. Misinformation is broader, and includes people being misinformed for a variety of reasons.

In my first post, I listed a number of bad things that disinformation led to. You focused narrowly on the personal responsibilty of the individuals who acted. You correctly noted that the disinformation wasn't necessary and sufficient for the act to occur. I didn't dispute that, but I pointed it that it was a NECESSARY condition for those acts. Edgar, the Pizzagate shooter, never would have done it had the disinformation not existed.

That doesn't excuse Edgar from his crime. It doesn't mean his personal responsibility for his act is less important than the lie. But it's still the case that this bit of disinformation was a necessary condition for Edgar's act to occur. I don't see how you can rationally deny that.

I do not agree, and am not open to considering ways to limit the spread. — NOS4A2

I had previously asked:

My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree? — Relativist

You answered:

I do not. — NOS4A2

Did you misunderstand the first question?

If so, then explain why you deny that in the cases I cited, disinformation was a necessary condition.

Great! So you agree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring. It therefore follows that it would be good to minimize it.

So are you open to considering ways to limit the spread of disinformation, if it doesn't infringe on free speech rights?