How to answer/address a comment made by my Daughter-in-law

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Esrom said:

I didn't align with his views but I found it so offensive that people wanted to silence him.

I find it much more offensive and dangerous to promote rape.

[Esrom]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find it much more offensive and dangerous to promote rape.

To clarify, that snippet you just quoted was in reference to the LDS conservative tv host I mentioned.  I am sure no one here supports rape.  

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Esrom said:

To clarify, that snippet you just quoted was in reference to the LDS conservative tv host I mentioned.  I am sure no one here supports rape.  

Okay.  I thought you were essentially including the poster who was banned.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Esrom said:

Fascism, extreme, toxic, gas lighting...all terms that no one can agree on.  It's because they're used subjectively to create wider division.  I used unpopular to differentiate from the common accepted view.  Mormonism itself fits that very definition since it began.

“Words have no meaning! Everything is subjective and fluid! Therefore all speech must be tolerated in all forums!”

What?

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Jean-Paul Sartre

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, Esrom said:

so which of my statements do you disagree with?  1) banning unpopular views undermines free speech.  2) echo chambers are dangerous.  3) brave souls died for our freedoms.  4) pile ons are but modern day mobs?

Because all I see is you trying to derail my argument into a convoluted denial of allowing free speech in forums without resorting to the weak minded "lets ban him".  Geez.

1. Those who exercise free speech to spread unpopular views (presumably with the intention of making them popular) have always walked a hard road even in countries where free speech is not prosecutable. They have to find ways to spread their words. This is not going to change. Those with worthwhile views tend to find ways. Those who are lazy and usually have vile views whine about it.

2. Echo chambers can be dangerous but kicking out radical elements does not create an echo chamber. There are very few areas on the internet that have no moderation. They are filled with racists and fascists and usually die quickly. 

3. They didn’t die for this stupid freedom to be allowed to speak in any environment that you seem to advocate for.

4. Social scorn is not always a negative. I think we could use a hell of a lot more of it in the United States. Once danger of the internet is it allows the vilest humans to find each other and reinforce each other where before they would be shamed into silence.

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Esrom said:

I am sure no one here supports rape.  

I am not.

[Canadiandude]

Are we certain Esrom wasn’t talking about Ahab?

What was the original post Esrom was responding to?

 

Either way, even as a self-professed ‘Red Tory’, I’m more than a little concerned as to the direction many on my side of the court are leaning towards. 

 

 

[Esrom]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

1. Those who exercise free speech to spread unpopular views (presumably with the intention of making them popular) have always walked a hard road even in countries where free speech is not prosecutable. They have to find ways to spread their words. This is not going to change. Those with worthwhile views tend to find ways. Those who are lazy and usually have vile views whine about it.

2. Echo chambers can be dangerous but kicking out radical elements does not create an echo chamber. There are very few areas on the internet that have no moderation. They are filled with racists and fascists and usually die quickly. 

3. They didn’t die for this stupid freedom to be allowed to speak in any environment that you seem to advocate for.

4. Social scorn is not always a negative. I think we could use a hell of a lot more of it in the United States. Once danger of the internet is it allows the vilest humans to find each other and reinforce each other where before they would be shamed into silence.

One day you'll realize, but probably too late, that defining words subjectively (and falsely) is a clever weapon.  Possibly when a view of your own is labeled as fascist, dangerous, toxic, gas lighting to be followed by efforts to ban it.  Ever read 1984?  Maybe read it again.  People with your viewpoint love to conflate what you disagree with as poison as a means of suppression.  "Stupid freedom"?  Are you serious?   You possess either no appreciation, or understanding, of the rights men and women lost their lives to protect.  You go on about shame and then freely apply it to silence those you disagree with.  Conflating disagreement with hate speech!   I was not condoning anything remotely classified as hate speech, but you need to make it about that.  I've said my piece.  It's pointless to debate with anyone so arrogant as to claim such foolish ideas could ever serve to ensure and uphold free expression.  And while I think your views are idiocy, I'd fight tooth and nail if someone tried to ban them. And that's the difference between us.  

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Esrom said:

One day you'll realize, but probably too late, that defining words subjectively (and falsely) is a clever weapon.  Possibly when a view of your own is labeled as fascist, dangerous, toxic, gas lighting to be followed by efforts to ban it.  Ever read 1984?  Maybe read it again.  People with your viewpoint love to conflate what you disagree with as poison as a means of suppression.  "Stupid freedom"?  Are you serious?   You possess either no appreciation, or understanding, of the rights men and women lost their lives to protect.  You go on about shame and then freely apply it to silence those you disagree with.  Conflating disagreement with hate speech!   I was not condoning anything remotely classified as hate speech, but you need to make it about that.  I've said my piece.  It's pointless to debate with anyone so arrogant as to claim such foolish ideas could ever serve to ensure and uphold free expression.  And while I think your views are idiocy, I'd fight tooth and nail if someone tried to ban them. And that's the difference between us.  

Of course it is a clever weapon but words have meanings. Saying that everything is subjective is saying that you can never accurately label anything.

I have read 1984 three times. The primary methods used to control people were brazen lies that changed by the day so everyone accepted that objective reality is inferior to the party view, dumbing down language so that anything opposed to the state is inexpressible, and intense surveillance combined with weeding out those with too healthy an interest in most things.

Again, you are conflating social disapproval with political bans. I would be terrified if people started getting persecuted by the government for free speech. I don’t care at all if someone is booted from a web forum or social media site. Acting like this is somehow tearing down the First Amendment is idiocy. Save your defense of free speech for when free speech is actually under threat. Catastrophic complaints about how someone being banned from a platform is white noise. If an actual threat to free speech did pop up it would be lost in the din of hysterical complaints about Twitter banning people. So stop making white noise.

[Esrom]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Of course it is a clever weapon but words have meanings. Saying that everything is subjective is saying that you can never accurately label anything.

I have read 1984 three times. The primary methods used to control people were brazen lies that changed by the day so everyone accepted that objective reality is inferior to the party view, dumbing down language so that anything opposed to the state is inexpressible, and intense surveillance combined with weeding out those with too healthy an interest in most things.

Again, you are conflating social disapproval with political bans. I would be terrified if people started getting persecuted by the government for free speech. I don’t care at all if someone is booted from a web forum or social media site. Acting like this is somehow tearing down the First Amendment is idiocy. Save your defense of free speech for when free speech is actually under threat. Catastrophic complaints about how someone being banned from a platform is white noise. If an actual threat to free speech did pop up it would be lost in the din of hysterical complaints about Twitter banning people. So stop making white noise.

Its unfortunate you don't understand slippery slopes, that banning voices from social media because they might express ideas contrary to the prevailing and accepted view, IS but a few short steps removed from burning books.  I live in an area where the prevailing religions tried to prevent construction of an LDS temple.  So I'm acutely aware of suppression tactics by the majority.  Follow me here...if the first amendment matters, and yet virtually ALL public discussion occurs on social media, how is it not relevant when voices are silenced? 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Esrom said:

Its unfortunate you don't understand slippery slopes, that banning voices from social media because they might express ideas contrary to the prevailing and accepted view, IS but a few short steps removed from burning books.  I live in an area where the prevailing religions tried to prevent construction of an LDS temple.  So I'm acutely aware of suppression tactics by the majority.  Follow me here...if the first amendment matters, and yet virtually ALL public discussion occurs on social media, how is it not relevant when voices are silenced? 

The slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason.

And no, shunning someone is not close to burning books.

The solution is to destroy Facebook and Twitter and admit they were mistakes. Calling what happens there a “discussion” made me giggle.

As to being silenced…..

….I call bovine excrement.

[Esrom]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason.

And no, shunning someone is not close to burning books.

The solution is to destroy Facebook and Twitter and admit they were mistakes. Calling what happens there a “discussion” made me giggle.

As to being silenced…..

….I call bovine excrement.

You're impossible. I can think right now of 10 subjects that social media is limiting from free and open discussion, which I can't specify further lest I venture into forbidden realms here.  If you can't see that as a deeply concerning societal trend, there's no hope.  No, the slippery slope argument has proven to be VERY valid.  I could give you three examples I clearly recall (except I can't here)...that people cried "oh silly, that'll never happen"...all three have happened.  And book burning (nowadays packaged differently) isn't far from suppression of speech.  Enjoy your utopian disaster.

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Esrom said:

You're impossible. I can think right now of 10 subjects that social media is limiting from free and open discussion, which I can't specify further lest I venture into forbidden realms here.  If you can't see that as a deeply concerning societal trend, there's no hope.  No, the slippery slope argument has proven to be VERY valid.  I could give you three examples I clearly recall (except I can't here)...that people cried "oh silly, that'll never happen"...all three have happened.  And book burning (nowadays packaged differently) isn't far from suppression of speech.  Enjoy your utopian disaster.

I have burned books. Garbage books I hated so I used them to start a fire. Book burnings are not a serious threat unless they are destroying access to knowledge.

Slippery slopes sometimes happen. The fallacy is that you can argue against something solely on the basis that it means something else catastrophic will inevitably happen.

Well I would love to confront your 10 forbidden topics and your 3 things that would never happen but sadly you HAVE BEEN SILENCED!!!!!

[MustardSeed]

This site is hardly literature. In my opinion this site is more like a dinner party. If you’re annoying to me, you’re no longer invited to my dinner party. It takes a lot to get me that annoyed and quite frankly Ahab Booboo  fit the bill.  He gone.  If you truly think alternative thought gets one tossed out around here I disagree.  

Edited November 11, 2021 by MustardSeed