Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 9th, 2017, 09:02 AM   #51

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 13,731
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by SufiMystic View Post
This is a non-question.

Those who spread hate for others based on ethnicity, skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion or nationality should be blocked from doing so. Newspapers, tv stations, youtube channels, radio shows should be legally required to not broadcast such material.
So a Ministry of Truth is required to censor every mode of communication; it is a non-question! Fortunately it has now become impossible to enforce such censorship if is it is introduced in any one country.
Linschoten is online now  
Remove Ads
Old November 9th, 2017, 09:37 AM   #52

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,557

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
So a Ministry of Truth is required to censor every mode of communication; it is a non-question! Fortunately it has now become impossible to enforce such censorship if is it is introduced in any one country.
Right, but these days, one doesn't a Ministry of Truth to shut down one's opponents - one merely needs a million Twitter followers which will let one shout down the things that one does not like - and the hordes will soon drown out any responses with abuse. And on this, there are no safeguards.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 09:41 AM   #53

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 13,731
Blog Entries: 11

It would seem that I'm justified in having nothing to do with all this twittering!
Linschoten is online now  
Old November 9th, 2017, 09:52 AM   #54

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,557

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
It would seem that I'm justified in having nothing to do with all this twittering!
You're not a fan of twits?
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 10:01 AM   #55

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 13,731
Blog Entries: 11

So much of it seems to be like those videos on youtube which present someone as being 'destroyed' or 'owned' by someone else; assuredly a game for twits.
Linschoten is online now  
Old November 9th, 2017, 10:51 AM   #56
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,607

Twitter honestly is bad IMO regardless of what you're saying and it's truth because it limits people to saying their piece in less and less detail. Even the truth gets distorted sometimes if you try to shoehorn it into a tweet.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 10:56 AM   #57

sparky's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Sydney
Posts: 2,019

.
the only limit on public expression in a proper democratic state is if a tort can be proven to have occurred through a lie .
All the rest is well meaning censorship
sparky is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 12:17 PM   #58

Nickname's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 41

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
Presumably a statement like "average global temperatures have fallen in the last 5 years" can be proven to be empirically true or false.

The causes and implications may be in dispute, but the fact of the temperature change should not be.
Well, a statement like that is provable within a certain context of scientific methods (which we have). However, we don't have the methods to predict future climate change or even to prove that the supposed negative economic or even the environmental impacts justify action.

I've been reading the IPCC reports for a number of years now and it should be (though not always is) fairly obvious to anyone with a background in science, looking at the massive variance in the predictions generated by the computer models, that climate change scientists don't know how the climate in full really works. And even for the models that end up generating fairly accurate predictions, one must approach under the assumption of false positive. I say this to most people who have jumped on the climate change bandwagon and they are usually incredulous towards my moderate skepticism.

Of course there are some important things to keep in mind. First off, as you point out, the data shows that the climate is indeed changing and the planet is warming. These data are incontrovertible. The second thing is that, while the variance in the computer predictions is large certain assumptions are shared across models. In other words, while we don't know how the total climate system works, we at least know how some of the components most likely work.

But let alone denying citizens freedom of speech and thought, I doubt we should even impose strict regulation on greenhouse gas emissions based on such shaky science. Especially when you consider the ecological footprint involved in making things like (conventional) solar panels and electric cars. And, anyway, if your sympathetic to economic theory anything left of Keynesian, I imagine you're supposed to actually think of global warming as a positive thing, as something that redistributes wealth and creates jobs for civil engineers and construction workers... or something.

Anyway, I don't want to start a debate on climate change here (there's already another thread for that which I'm not going to touch with a 20ft pole)... Maybe we can look for another example where everyone can agree on something empirical bad (say, Nazism), and work from there to figure out what suffices as a proof of its terribleness?

Last edited by Nickname; November 9th, 2017 at 12:26 PM.
Nickname is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 12:55 PM   #59

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 21,601
Blog Entries: 19

Probably we should remind that absolute freedom of speech isn't and cannot be.

In Italy "Radio Radicale" [a historical Italian political radio] made the experiment to leave the listeners intervene, live without filters. They called the radio and they had 60 seconds to say [live] what they wanted to say.

I confess I participated [attacking Andreotti, but this is just a detail].

The result was that justice courts were going to take action. Radio Radicale stopped that "freedom service".

But those days were epic ... tons of insults for everybody ...
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 02:11 PM   #60
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,607

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickname View Post
Well, a statement like that is provable within a certain context of scientific methods (which we have). However, we don't have the methods to predict future climate change or even to prove that the supposed negative economic or even the environmental impacts justify action.

I've been reading the IPCC reports for a number of years now and it should be (though not always is) fairly obvious to anyone with a background in science, looking at the massive variance in the predictions generated by the computer models, that climate change scientists don't know how the climate in full really works. And even for the models that end up generating fairly accurate predictions, one must approach under the assumption of false positive. I say this to most people who have jumped on the climate change bandwagon and they are usually incredulous towards my moderate skepticism.

Of course there are some important things to keep in mind. First off, as you point out, the data shows that the climate is indeed changing and the planet is warming. These data are incontrovertible. The second thing is that, while the variance in the computer predictions is large certain assumptions are shared across models. In other words, while we don't know how the total climate system works, we at least know how some of the components most likely work.

But let alone denying citizens freedom of speech and thought, I doubt we should even impose strict regulation on greenhouse gas emissions based on such shaky science. Especially when you consider the ecological footprint involved in making things like (conventional) solar panels and electric cars. And, anyway, if your sympathetic to economic theory anything left of Keynesian, I imagine you're supposed to actually think of global warming as a positive thing, as something that redistributes wealth and creates jobs for civil engineers and construction workers... or something.

Anyway, I don't want to start a debate on climate change here (there's already another thread for that which I'm not going to touch with a 20ft pole)... Maybe we can look for another example where everyone can agree on something empirical bad (say, Nazism), and work from there to figure out what suffices as a proof of its terribleness?
Yes we do because carbon takes several decades to effect us, so even if we were to stop burning fossil fuels right now, we generally know how much average temperatres will increase based on how much we burned the last few decades.

No ones talking about critiquing the negatives of some clean options, some of them are double edged swords but there's a difference between critiquing one of many solutions and saying the problem isn't real and we should't do anything.

The issue is calling it shaky science is misleading cause it's not shaky science it's true far beyond any standard of proof which we'd use to convict a person of a crime. Period, not my opinion, it's a fact. Even if it weren't and there was let's say a 5% chance climate change was false(hypothetical), leveraging a 5% chance you are correct and risking the future habitation of your planet for some vague idea of "economic harm" is freaking dumb as hell. Heck if there was a 20% climate change was real, it'd still be pretty darn risky to do nothing and why not. Not like lowering our carbon emissions is going to really hurt anyone except fossil fuel companies who are responsible for the problem.

Anyway back to suppressing dangerous speech. If Climate Change deniers shouldn't be suppressed there's really no one else deserving of that by the standard of harmful speech. Nazi's and other offensive speech is offensive speech not harmful and something being offensive(not the Nazi's) is fr more subjective than something being harmful and can get out of hand much more easily. There's also no actual benefit except feeling good you took away some horrible people's rights. Offensive things also don't need active censorship in a market economy things that are offensive are going to get censored by themselves if a large portion of society concurs, things that are dangerous and untrue are not in most cases.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
acceptable, freedom, limitations, speech



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Freedom of Speech 1917 Harpo American History 1 April 26th, 2015 01:45 AM
Freedom of speech or freedom for idiocy. Vladimir1984 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 42 July 3rd, 2014 01:12 AM
Should we curb freedom of speech? Son of Cathal Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 47 August 6th, 2011 10:01 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.