That Harpers Open Letter

[_honorentheos]

It's a tuning fork that you resonated to. Yay!

Wow... it must be awesome to be the only unbiased person in the world, honor. You're sooooo lucky.

Christ.

Alrighty, then. You just keep fighting the good fight, SQW.

Like I said to MG in the terrestrial forum - the correct use of recognizing bias is to gain the tools to see it in one's self to then resist caving into the simplicity it offers. Consider the above a helpful pointer in recognizing just a couple of minor tells in that article you can use going forward. Free of charge. You're welcome.

[_Some Schmo]

Like I said to MG in the terrestrial forum - the correct use of recognizing bias is to gain the tools to see it in one's self to then resist caving into the simplicity it offers. Consider the above a helpful pointer in recognizing just a couple of minor tells in that article you can use going forward. Free of charge. You're welcome.

Your example sucked (largely exposing the bias you'd like to deny), given that it was written from the perspective of someone who clearly sees themselves in that light. If he thinks he's fighting for social justice, he'll think how he perceives himself is "the reality."

Try arguing against that. And why are you trying to cancel him, anyway?

Round and round we go.

[_honorentheos]

Like I said to MG in the terrestrial forum - the correct use of recognizing bias is to gain the tools to see it in one's self to then resist caving into the simplicity it offers. Consider the above a helpful pointer in recognizing just a couple of minor tells in that article you can use going forward. Free of charge. You're welcome.

Your example sucked (largely exposing the bias you'd like to deny), given that it was written from the perspective of someone who clearly sees themselves in that light. If he thinks he's fighting for social justice, he'll think how he perceives himself is "the reality."

Try arguing against that. And why are you trying to cancel him, anyway?

Round and round we go.

Since we both agree it represents his bias in a debate I'd say I argued successfully. We agree it's an opinion piece that is representing a side in a debate over the threat to freedom of expression. And it should be recognized as a propoganda piece and we know exactly who it's arguing for and against.

That's not canceling it. That's letting it exist as it is in the space it occupies. No letters to Vox, no Twitter campaign. Just good old fashioned debate. You can love it, I can think it added no value to the debate, others can read it and decide for themselves.

That's also a lesson you can have for free.

[_Some Schmo]

That's not canceling it. That's letting it exist as it is in the space it occupies. No letters to Vox, no Twitter campaign. Just good old fashioned debate. You can love it, I can think it added no value to the debate, others can read it and decide for themselves.

Oh, so what you're saying is that criticizing something is not the same as cancelling it. Glad we're on the same page.

So why did you quote the letter then? Sounds like they're whining about something we agree is not real.

[_honorentheos]

That's not canceling it. That's letting it exist as it is in the space it occupies. No letters to Vox, no Twitter campaign. Just good old fashioned debate. You can love it, I can think it added no value to the debate, others can read it and decide for themselves.

Oh, so what you're saying is that criticizing something is not the same as cancelling it. Glad we're on the same page.

So why did you quote the letter then? Sounds like they're whining about something we agree is not real.

The issue is in the belief that having a view with which one doesn't agree is actionable immoral conduct that demands punishment.

[_Lemmie]

The issue is in the belief that having a view with which one doesn't agree is actionable immoral conduct that demands punishment.

Good point. As an example, see Carmack’s response to Hardy disagreeing with aspects of Carmack's work regarding his assertion of Early Modern English language not attributable to Smith. Hardy has expressed his disagreement quite politely, but Carmack can’t seem to fathom that disagreement is just that:

I’ve found that you can't always trust what [Hardy] publishes....

So, why did he choose to write something that is far from accurate, and certainly leaves the wrong impression on readers?

Probably to appeal to a constituency that he values or to signal that he wasn't going to give aid and comfort to a position that so strongly argues against the text being merely a 19c production.

Or, much more probably, because he simply disagrees with Carmack.

Sorry to bring Mopology to this thread, but it was just too exact of an example of Honor’s point to leave out.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

And this is the reason why this board is so important. The long-form debate taking place has been interesting, fairly thorough, and vigorous. It's basically a unicorn on the Internet these days. I hope Shades or whomever can figure out how to fix the ongoing issues so this forum doesn't go away. It'd be a real shame if it did. Big loss.

Also note how EA tips his ideological hand by consistently going back to White supremacy examples, but not hard-Left ones as examples of bad faith argue-ers who use free speech as a shifty gambit to push their BS. As much a EA wants to promote the idea he's totes a Libertarian (whatever that means in any given moment), he seems to come down on the anarcho-syndicalist-Socialist's side around 90% of the time. <- I did the math. It's 90%.

- Doc

[_Some Schmo]

The issue is in the belief that having a view with which one doesn't agree is actionable immoral conduct that demands punishment.

Yeah, but that's just an opinion. Why do you give a fu-ck?

It's one thing to demand punishment. It's another for it to happen. I've been demanding Trump be removed from office for his idiotic viewpoint for 3.5 years. For some reason, it hasn't happened yet.

[_Chap]

As much a EAllusion wants to promote the idea he's totes a Libertarian (whatever that means in any given moment), he seems to come down on the anarcho-syndicalist-Socialist's side around 90% of the time.

Really?

Anarcho-syndicalism

Anarcho-syndicalism[1] is a political philosophy and anarchist school of thought that views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and thus control influence in broader society. The end goal of syndicalism is to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery. Anarcho-syndicalist theory therefore generally focuses on the labour movement.[2]

The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are solidarity, direct action (action undertaken without the intervention of third parties such as politicians, bureaucrats and arbitrators) and direct democracy, or workers' self-management. Anarcho-syndicalists believe their economic theories constitute a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and creating an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production that is centered on meeting human needs. Anarcho-syndicalists view the primary purpose of the state as being the defense of private property in the forms of capital goods and therefore of economic, social and political privilege. In maintaining this status quo, the state denies most of its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy that springs from it.[3]

Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism is centered on the idea that power corrupts and that any hierarchy that cannot be ethically justified must either be dismantled or replaced by decentralized egalitarian control.

I wonder if EAllusion recognises himself in that?

[_Chap]

The issue is in the belief that having a view with which one doesn't agree is actionable immoral conduct that demands punishment.

I think it is normally acts (or the omission of acts that one might or should have performed) that we judge as moral or immoral. And having a view would in itself not normally be described as 'conduct'. So it would at least be a mistake to say that 'having a view' of some given kind might be immoral.

Thus, for instance, the view that taking hydroxychloroquine is a cure for COVID-19 is pretty well certainly baseless and wrong. However, to hold that view despite the increasing amount of scientific evidence against it is in itself no more than an error of fact and judgement. But spending your time and energy on social media propagating this belief without paying serious attention to the scientific arguments tending to show that it is not only useless as a cure, but is even dangerous to health under certain circumstances would be immoral conduct. For if we openly advocate a view, we may reasonably be supposed to take responsibility for any harm caused to others who are persuaded by our advocacy and act on its basis. Thus we should only propagate a view on a question known to be both contested and crucial to the health of others when we have carefully examined the counter-evidence, and we should at least indicate to our hearers the existence of the counter-evidence. If we do not do so, we are at fault, and may deservedly condemned.

When people act so as to cause a speaker who is discovered to advocate a false and harmful view (such as that all gay men wish to rape children) to be disinvited, it is not the view itself that deserves sanction. The fact that the public advocacy of it causes undeserved harm to others (in this case gay men) may however cause the sanction to be merited. And so on.