Total Workup
New member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2019
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
I would like to address the foundations of free speech = FS. They say it's one of the cornerstones of the western society, and those in favor often use it to great oratorical effect, crafting an imposing story – a foundational myth if you will – with themselves as the heroes. Those ready to censor are of course the villains in that story, and those claiming to be in favor, but making excuses for censorship are the false friends.
There's something to be said for a good oratorical flow, and I enjoy it as much as anyone. But let's see if the story holds up when we check even slightly under the surface.
It appears FS is nowhere near as clever or useful as the common wisdom would have you think. FS is rooted in a fundamental lack of understanding of where to move or how to move there. From the very beginning it showed utter contempt for science / reason / logic / evidence and instead embraced willful stupidity, where no designer or supporter ever sincerely declared on the subject of FS: "Let's be intelligent." I hope you fine folks can prove me wrong, but tell me this: would our society have any sizable preventable suffering left if FS were well-conceived? After 200+ years of running, probably not.
I'm not sure if people will like this topic, so how about this: I'll give you a preview, and you tell me if it's interesting to you at all?
If you agree, here are the problems I find with FS in order of discovery:
....1. no real goal.......................=> no criteria for assessment
....2. bad results........................= no healthy discussion
....3. bad intent.........................= intentionally broken flow of good ideas from source to destination
....4. FS proponents are not real...= they are actually in favor of brutal censorship of the flow of ideas
....5. FS is not desirable..............= to maximize the flow of good ideas, we need science-regulated speech
I feel like these should be conducive to an exciting and productive discussion, but you tell me.
Thank you.
There's something to be said for a good oratorical flow, and I enjoy it as much as anyone. But let's see if the story holds up when we check even slightly under the surface.
It appears FS is nowhere near as clever or useful as the common wisdom would have you think. FS is rooted in a fundamental lack of understanding of where to move or how to move there. From the very beginning it showed utter contempt for science / reason / logic / evidence and instead embraced willful stupidity, where no designer or supporter ever sincerely declared on the subject of FS: "Let's be intelligent." I hope you fine folks can prove me wrong, but tell me this: would our society have any sizable preventable suffering left if FS were well-conceived? After 200+ years of running, probably not.
I'm not sure if people will like this topic, so how about this: I'll give you a preview, and you tell me if it's interesting to you at all?
If you agree, here are the problems I find with FS in order of discovery:
....1. no real goal.......................=> no criteria for assessment
....2. bad results........................= no healthy discussion
....3. bad intent.........................= intentionally broken flow of good ideas from source to destination
....4. FS proponents are not real...= they are actually in favor of brutal censorship of the flow of ideas
....5. FS is not desirable..............= to maximize the flow of good ideas, we need science-regulated speech
I feel like these should be conducive to an exciting and productive discussion, but you tell me.
Thank you.