Like the sophists of old, some believe words can harm the human body, and if they rid the world of the words their pain will end. — NOS4A2

I know, right? I mean can you believe such people?

:smirk:

They are almost as stupid as those who believe that words are completely powerless...

The primary issue was a belief that Trump had been elected, that evil forces had interfered with the election, and that Mike Pence was committing treason. — frank

I'm more interested in how it happened. Where did these ideas come from?

Ouch!

Roger that!

For folk like me who are working on a computer that is pretty much useless aside from being able to access this particular site, you'll have to provide a different link(compatible to pre chrome days I guess?) or copy and paste the part you want me to review.

:worry:

:lol:

It is our ability to discern meaning... — Wayfarer

"Discern" presupposes that meaning already exists.

"Attribute" does not.

:wink:

So all this talk about determinism, free will and physical processes - how does that have an impact on Free speech at campuses? — Ansiktsburk

It's about the effects/affects of free speech, and responsibility for behaviours of listeners... such as the recent insurrection attempt.

Some claim that free will precludes a speaker being held responsible for listeners' actions.

Let's talk about what we're doing when we say that the linguistic turn is over...

:rofl:

This makes sense to me. Much of what you have written is difficult for me to follow, but I get the sense that we’re roughly on the same page here...?
— Possibility
This reminds me of a Blackadder response - "Yes.. And no." — simeonz

:smile:

Get used to it with Possibility.

It was just another cult... — javi2541997

Freemasonry is alive and well... not 'was'... a cult? I'm not so inclined to say that.

To deny the power of words could be a defensive stance taken as a means to exonerate someone from bearing the responsibility of the results stemming from their own word use(free speech). It is self-defeating. In order for it work, the defender and/or defendant uses the power of words(free speech) to convince the jury that words(free speech) have no power. The key to defeat such a defense is to point this out to the jury.

Well, yes, that’s the point. — NOS4A2

Glad we're clear on that then.

I'm less inclined to agree that people always have a choice, but I think we both agree that folk bear responsibility for what they do.

The insurrection attempt...

Do you find that all the leaders perpetuating the big lie(that the election was stolen, that there was widespread election fraud, that Trump actually won, etc.) and the individual insurrectionists are responsible?

Do you think that people ought be held responsible for the effects/affects of their speech? — creativesoul

No, not unless they are in a position of great influence, but I do think that so-called hate speech should be banned.

Why do you ask? — Janus

There's seems to be a problem with holding a speaker responsible for the effects/affects of their speech if we also claim that the listener acted on their own free will, as if they were not influenced by the speech.

However, clearly you acknowledge the influence. How then do we draw the line between holding one responsible for the effects/affects of their speech and not?

Being in a position of "great influence" seems to need a bit more unpacking in terms of what warrants that as bearing responsibility. I'm inclined to agree in general that the responsibility one bears ought be determined by the harmful effects/affects of their speech. However, I'm just uncertain of your stance on matters of free speech, free will, and responsibility regarding who ought be held accountable for one's actions(or a group of people should they follower a leader).

I would wager on him escaping the country first...

The power of the written word cannot be understood by looking at the physical components. We cannot measure the power of the written word in terms of the equal sums of energy inherent to the physical components themselves; the ink and paper, etc.

The power of the written word is shown in it's effects/affects.

There have been wars over words. There have been sustained assaults on entire groups of individuals based upon words. Civilizations thrive based upon the power of the written word. Knowledge is both lost and gained via the power of the written word. Civilizations can also self-destruct based upon the power of words. People have openly espoused to be fighting a holy war based upon words. People on opposing sides of a war have shed each other's blood all in the name of the same god. That god remains pervasive due to the power of words.

The written word is a vehicle... by virtue of which meaning transcends time and individual language users. Words make people cry. Words make people rejoice. Words stoke emotions, memories, desires, fears. Words build civilizations, uphold dignity, offer condolence, cause confusion, add clarity, make promises, offer a bit of kindness, express gratitude, offer greetings, bestow namesakes, etc.

To deny the power of words could be a defensive stance taken as a means to exonerate someone from bearing the responsibility of the results stemming from their own word use(free speech). It is self-defeating. In order for it work, the defender and/or defendant uses the power of words(free speech) to convince the jury that words(free speech) have no power. The key to defeat such a defense is to point this out to the jury.

...your accurately describing in different ways doesn’t have anything to do with such constituency. — Mww

Indeed. Elemental constituency doesn't seem to be considered... yet.

Exactly. Although it's hardly a big deal if the different ways are in no kind of conflict or competition. (E.g. if they are, at least, all accurate.) And then each different way seems bound to shrink in significance, or degree of informativeness. The aspiration to describe or otherwise represent an object "as it is" seems to react against that impression of relativism or subjectivity.

Goodman is (I think) objecting (there) to the notion that some pictures succeed in that aspiration and are intrinsically more realistic or informative than others. — bongo fury

I find no reason to say that all of the different ways are on equal footing aside from being about the same thing. The significance of each description is slightly different than the rest, again... with the same thing being talked about. I mean, that's what makes them different ways, assuming the language remains the same(say English). So, I'm not inclined to agree that each different way is bound to shrink in it's significance. Rather, it would sharpen the significance of each by comparison to the others, and some may rise above others in terms of importance. I'm not sure what being "more realistic" or "more informative" amounts to here. I suppose there would need to be something more added to the notion of "as it is"...

The thing before me is a man, a swarm of atoms, a complex of cells, a fiddler, and a fool simply because we've agreed to call it such. None of these descriptions exhaust the thing before me. None, when isolated from the rest, pick out the thing before me to the exclusion of all else aside from "the thing before me". However, prior to becoming a man, the thing before me was already a swarm of atoms and a complex of cells. Prior to becoming a fiddler or a fool the thing must have already become a man. So, perhaps here we can begin to see some semblance of existential dependency along a timeline.

Agree, but beware also the profundity of "as it is":

"To make a faithful picture, come as close as possible to copying the object just as it is". This simple-minded injunction baffles me; for the object before me is a man, a swarm of atoms, a complex of cells, a fiddler, a friend, a fool and much more. If none of these constitute the object as it is, what else might? If all are ways the object is, then none is the way the object is. — bongo fury

Fair point.

Cannot something be accurately described in more than one way?

Your position is self-contradictory.

You're granting exclusive censorship rights to owners of media platforms(which is to say that ownership is adequate reason to grant censorship rights), and simultaneously claiming that all censorship is unwarranted(which is to say that there are no adequate reasons for censorship).

Either you know this or not. Either way, it's unacceptable even before getting into all of the absurdity of granting exclusivity of censorship rights only to owners of means of discourse; even before getting into the absurdity of the very idea that anyone owns a means of discourse.

And...

You're claiming that there is no power in freedom of speech.

:brow:

Why then, is it so important???

I don't know what policy changes you have in mind, but if they are based on rejection of the idea of human agency and responsibility, they won't fly, in my opinion; and nor should they. — Janus

Do you think that people ought be held responsible for the effects/affects of their speech?

Edit - just to be absolutely clear - this is the grounds on which I don't believe your false virtue signalling about 'free speech'. If you really believed words were powerless, then banning all of them would be a trivial matter, like banning hats. Stupid, pointless, but ultimately harmless. We'd all just get used to wet heads and have done with it. No. The reason why you don't want certain words banned is because (despite your phoney nonsense to the contrary) you know perfectly well that words have the power to influence people and you don't want influence in your chosen direction to be taken away from you. — Isaac

A good point to make...

I never said censorship was warranted. I said that they can censor if they wanted to. This is because it is their property. — NOS4A2

You did answer "I do" earlier when asked if you found all censorship unwarranted.

So, on pains of coherency alone...

If all censorship is unwarranted then even in situations when an individual owns the means of discourse - say television, radio, or other social media outlet - that ownership does not provide warrant for them to censor.



More importantly, they also should not be granted completely unrestricted freedom to say whatever they so chose for whatever reasons they deem necessary, simply because they own the means of discourse, unless of course, they also bear responsibility for the effects/affects of what's said.

Yeah... omniscience is not required for knowledge. We need not know everything in order to know some things. Just because we do not see everything as it is does not mean that we cannot see anything as it is.

Not all individuals' speech is equivalent in it's power. The restrictions placed upon one's freedoms(speech notwithstanding) ought be determined in light of the known, observable, sometimes quantifiable effects/affects that that freedom has upon others when fully exercised.

When freedom of speech is being used to excuse deliberately defrauding the American public, it is an admission of guilt.

I am not so fearful of falsity nor doubtful of truth... — NOS4A2

Good... because, when discussing a representative form of government such as the one The United States of America is supposed to be, a well informed electorate is necessary for free and fair elections.

In fact, I cannot think of any man or group of people in history with the ability and moral superiority to decide what others cannot say and read. Can you? — NOS4A2

Not very good at history, I see...

:brow:

Um....

Errrrr....

Sigh.

All of 'em.

I am opposing the idea that some words, certain combinations of letters or articulated guttural sounds, are more dangerous than others. — NOS4A2

Well you'd better take that up with world around you, because it contradicts your belief about it.

Despite saying some of the stupidest possible shit one could say about potential treatments for the pandemic, he almost fucking won anyway.

How?

Because people believed him and nothing - evidently - could be done to stop him from dominating the discourse by defrauding the American public.
— creativesoul

But why? Why did so many people vote for Trump despite all his lies? — Number2018

The question doesn't lead to anything remotely useful.

When we ask "why" someone votes for Trump despite all his lies, we will not likely receive an accurate causal explanation of their actions.

The 2008 crash.

But a corporate criminal stealing for years and doing magnitudes greater harm and damage may only lose a year or a few years, and in many cases preserve his life and prospects for a return to life and well-being, even if he has destroyed the lives, prospects, and well-being of thousands of others. — tim wood

We call those politicians around here...

...no one has "an experience of red", they merely experience things as red, or as not red... — unenlightened

Which requires knowing which sorts of things we call "red"; knowing how to use "red". Such experience cannot rightfully be called "subjective" or "private" in any sensible way for experiencing red things as such cannot even happen without intersubjective public language use. If personal experiences are to count as subjective and/or private, then they cannot be existentially dependent upon intersubjective and public things like knowing how to use "red", and/or knowing which sorts of things are called "red".

The 2020 president of The United States of America based his own policy making decisions and all of his public speech regarding a worldwide pandemic upon the sound advice of many - perhaps most - of the world's best epidemiologists. <---------That's an accurate report of brute facts. He most certainly believed what they(Fauci, for example) said about the danger Americans were about to face... well he believed it at first anyway. That much is clear by his own account. It's a matter of public record.

It's the subsequent actions taken as a result of learning about the dangers that are criminal. Defrauding the American public is certainly a criminal act. When that fraud played an instrumental role in a few hundred thousand(and still counting) unnecessary deaths, then the perpetrator must be held responsible for the harm caused as a result of their behaviour. There are hundreds of thousands of dead Americans that would still be alive had their lives and livelihoods been put first.

In or around February of the year 2020, upon beginning to understand the horror of what was about to happen to US citizens - even if we took every possible precaution to mitigate the harm - this foolish man, this so-called leader, this crass inconsiderate fuck of a president of The United States of America deliberately and knowingly misrepresented the danger that he had just learned lie immediately ahead in Americans' future.

He lied about covid19 in every conceivable way that one can lie. Stating known falsehood. Omitting relevant information. Saying stuff that he himself did not believe. He also immediately attacked all others who said anything to the contrary of what he said publicly. Anyone who Trump did not believe had his back was undermined in the public arena. Again, all this is a matter of public record.

Instead of doing everything in his power to reduce the amount of harm suffered by American citizens as a result of covid19, he became more and more concerned with how the pandemic was effecting/affecting American voters. He was, in fact, beginning to believe that the pandemic was going to work against him by playing an influential negative role in an upcoming election. He strongly believed that taking the necessary actions to minimize the unnecessary harm that Americans would suffer would have negative effects upon the stock market. Given that the stock market(the 'American economy') was one of Trump's favorite things to point out and use for his own self-aggrandizement(an ace in the hole, so to speak), and given that Trump now needed to remain in the office of the presidency to avoid his own prosecution, that fat fuck would stop at nothing to remain in power long enough to disseminate all the evidence of his own wrongdoings both prior to and after winning the 2016 election.

Trump did not expect to win the first election(that much is clear and is also a matter of public record), and publicly pronounced genuine regret for having done so in an interview not long after(again, a matter of public record). Nonetheless he most certainly needed to win the second, because he knew damned good and well that the aforementioned regret was very well grounded. He had good reason to worry. While that attention whore loves being loved and focused upon, he's also quite particular about the kind of attention he gets. He did not like the attention of the law. He did everything in his own power to stop any and all investigations into him and/or his election campaign. Again, this is all a matter of public record.

Make no mistake about it though, the pandemic could rightfully be called a blessing in disguise, because had things been different, it could've been much worse. Hell, had that dumb fucker even considered the praise that would have been given to him had he just put American lives and livelihoods first instead of being paralyzed by the fear of losing the upcoming election, the uncontested incumbent re-election success rate of the office of the presidency of The United States of America would probably not have been tarnished. No, to quite the contrary, he was poised to win. In fact, he nearly did anyway, despite knowingly and deliberately defrauding the American public in very specific ways that had the very clear result of exponentially increasing the risk of unnecessary financial, physical, emotional, and/or biological harms to all Americans. Despite saying some of the stupidest possible shit one could say about potential treatments for the pandemic, he almost fucking won anyway.

How?

Because people believed him and nothing - evidently - could be done to stop him from dominating the discourse by defrauding the American public.

So...

I've a little different take on the notion of unfettered free speech.

Nice examples of unwarranted censorship. Do you find all censorship unwarranted?

I do. When I think about the sum total of linguistic expression, it pains me to think of all the history, knowledge, and art that has been stolen, suppressed, and destroyed because someone could not bear to look at it. I don’t envy the censors; they will forever be tied to what they stole from posterity.

I do think, however, that if someone owns their own means of discourse they can censor at their whim and fancy, ironically, on free speech grounds. — NOS4A2

I wouldn't characterize your having written that as "ironic". I'd say it was, is, and will forever remain self-contradictory, untenable, inconsistent, irrational, illogical, unacceptable rhetorical bullshit.

If all censorship is unwarranted, then none is warranted. <-------that points out the self-contradiction and/or untenability of what you've offered here.

It's really pretty simple and easy to understand...

If all censorship is unwarranted then even in situations when an individual owns the means of discourse - say television, radio, or other social media outlet - that ownership does not provide warrant for them to censor.




A theatre owner yells "fire" in their own theatre and is somehow not responsible for what happens as a result, because... they own the theatre.

Yeah, I'm not finding much moral/ethical value in your beliefs about free speech.

You’re talking about meaningful as a way of being or becoming in relation to a creature. — Possibility

You're not getting it.

I'm talking about how all things become meaningful.

Causality refers to a temporal relation... — Possibility

Causality is not the sort of thing even capable of referring.

I’m not suggesting we attribute possible meaning to your cat. — Possibility

:brow:

That's exactly what we're doing when we're talking about what's meaningful to her.

I’m saying that our awareness of the aquarium’s significance to your cat has meaning for us. — Possibility

Our awareness has meaning... for us, nonetheless?

:yikes:

Weird way to talk, if you ask me.

How does our awareness become meaningful... for us?

No greater excuse has been used to justify censorship than this action-at-a-distance, the magical thinking that words cause adverse effects on groups of people or society as a whole, as if it was poison, pollution, or a natural disaster. Examples of this are myriad. Whether expression is “corrupting the youth” in the case of Socrates, “adversely affect public health, safety, and morals” in the censorship of Bertrand Russel, or it leads to “disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith” in the case of Galileo. In each case some fearful authority attempts to raise expression to a species of dangerous sorcery somehow capable of manipulating matter. — NOS4A2

Nice examples of unwarranted censorship. Do you find all censorship unwarranted?

Is it okay - on your view - to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, for example? Is it ok to spread falsehood after falsehood as a means to effect/affect deliberately taken action, say to... oh, I don't know... how about... stop the certification process of an American presidential election by virtue of taking over the building in which the elected officials certify the aforementioned results on the day of certification? Is that protected under free speech? Seems like that speech was an instrumental element, without which, the insurrection attempt would not have even been attempted.

Trump did everything in his power to convince his followers that the election was stolen from him, and that if no one in the government would stop that from happening, that the people would have to stop it from happening.

Do you find that Trump's words over the previous year regarding the election are protected under free speech?

All lives matter... — Book273

Not if black lives don't.

They get harassed for being white in the wrong area of town, at the wrong time. And they don't get over looked because their name is unusual, they get over looked because of the distinctly white name, and not allowed into certain programs as they are immediately disqualified due to being white. — Book273

Are you denying that what I've said is true, or are you just wanting to change the subject?