Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
- TeckelDackel
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: February 28th, 2018, 7:33 pm
Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cn4cnpv6Y
- TeckelDackel
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: February 28th, 2018, 7:33 pm
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
A Society of Cowards
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
A Word To Left-Wing Students;
(restricting free speech, not studying philosophy and not listening to different opinions)
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
Perhaps, in a society where ugly speech is not legally hindered, the shout down precisely what is called for in a place where fascist lunatics have a voice.
Who am I to decide who should and shouldn't be heard? I am not a right wing, conspiracy mongering, racist, vulgarian, that's who.
- TeckelDackel
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: February 28th, 2018, 7:33 pm
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
Sorry to tell you this "Here and Now" but the content and vitriolic polemical tone of your comments in post above just proved Pinker's point.Hereandnow wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 12:40 am And if someone were to have the foulest ideas imaginable, should these be brought to light under the rubric of free speech? One can easily say yes, it's a free country and we believe in free speech, but in South Korea there are laws against encouraging pro-north rhetoric, and today nazi symbols are banned in Germany, and for good reason.
Perhaps, in a society where ugly speech is not legally hindered, the shout down precisely what is called for in a place where fascist lunatics have a voice.
Who am I to decide who should and shouldn't be heard? I am not a right wing, conspiracy mongering, racist, vulgarian, that's who.
- TeckelDackel
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: February 28th, 2018, 7:33 pm
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
I believe the pros of Free Speech outweigh its cons, re prevention of tyranny.
However there should be a system [to be developed and continually improved] in place to ensure the permission given for free speech is not taken to the extreme.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
Brought to light, yes. Provided with a public platform, not necessarily.Hereandnow wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 12:40 am And if someone were to have the foulest ideas imaginable, should these be brought to light under the rubric of free speech?
How can you show the wrongness, or the stupidity of an idea, without examining it? All ideas must be heard and should be discussed, if only to disprove them.
BUT
There is no such thing as a free country, or free speech. Everything has limits and a cost.
When a society sets its limits on individual freedom (makes laws) its governing body has to estimate and balance the cost of all the liberties it allows and disallows. No legislature ever gets that balance just right; they're all jugglers and they all drop a few balls.
There is also a when, where and how to be considered in each case. Nobody gets them all right all the time.
They have their reasons. Whether those reasons are good is a matter of opinion.One can easily say yes, it's a free country and we believe in free speech, but in South Korea there are laws against encouraging pro-north rhetoric, and today nazi symbols are banned in Germany, and for good reason.
Be more afraid of silent fascist lunatics. If they yell, at least you hear them coming.Perhaps, in a society where ugly speech is not legally hindered, the shout down precisely what is called for in a place where fascist lunatics have a voice.
If you don't listen to what people think, everything they do will take you by surprise.
The biggest danger of legal hindrance to expression is that outlaws go underground, where they're a lot harder to fight. Suppressed ideas and feelings tend to fester; problems, unsolved and buried, always erupt in crises. The arguments and confrontations over any public issue need to take place out in the open; need to be analyzed fairly, need to be made available for every citizen to evaluate and make an informed decision.
That doesn't mean anyone is at liberty to say anything, anywhere.
We all have the right to decide the rules of our own domain. If something offends you, ban it from your house. You have the right to ask people to take off their shoes when they come in - equally, you can ask visitors to leave their racism, dirty jokes, religious cant, sales pitch or political rhetoric outside your door.
If you have a business, you have a right to devise a code of conduct, just as you can institute a safety code. You can ban hate speech on your premises, just as you can ban smoking, for the the well-being of your employees and clients.
If you're responsible for children in any capacity, you are charged with their protection from harm, both physical and psychological. That makes it not only your right, but your duty, to make decisions regarding what kind of ideas, what kind of opinions and influences they'll be exposed to, at what age.
That's not an easy assignment, and is usually not done without consultation and debate.
If you're taking care of any disenfranchised or incapacitated population, such as a hospital, prison or other institution, you are just as responsible for the emotional environment of those residents as for the physical one. You have to use judgment in deciding what outside influences are beneficial and what might be harmful.
If you're officiating in an organization, you have to abide by the principles mandate of its constitution. You have uphold its mandate, and sometimes that includes judgment of member's demeanour, or the language of an in-house organ or the content of advertising material.
If you are in charge of a communications medium, you have to balance the requirements of audience, sponsors, correspondents and staff against the law of the land, the terms of your license, regulatory agencies and your own civic duty. The language and tone of a news outlet will reflect that juggling act, whether it's successful or not.
There are always limits to freedom. By what guiding principle they're set, and by whom enforced, is a subject of unending contention.
That depends on your purview.Who am I to decide who should and shouldn't be heard?
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
This matter goes to what is pretty much already out there. I don't think we need any more tutorials on nazism, for example, or the Ku Klu Klan. And free speech is certainly at issue, isn't it? That is pretty much what this is about.Alias
Brought to light, yes. Provided with a public platform, not necessarily.
How can you show the wrongness, or the stupidity of an idea, without examining it? All ideas must be heard and should be discussed, if only to disprove them.
BUT
There is no such thing as a free country, or free speech. Everything has limits and a cost.
When a society sets its limits on individual freedom (makes laws) its governing body has to estimate and balance the cost of all the liberties it allows and disallows. No legislature ever gets that balance just right; they're all jugglers and they all drop a few balls.
There is also a when, where and how to be considered in each case. Nobody gets them all right all the time.
As you say, no such thing as free speech, but it being a good idea or not in South Korea at this time is not really up for debate.hey have their reasons. Whether those reasons are good is a matter of opinion.
The loud ones are those with big mouths, have an education, and are good at public speech: these guys are terrifying. They put barroom blather into print and commit the most egregious sophistry, making the weak argument seem the stronger. People are pawns in their games; but you're right, once a preestablished mentality finds words and justification it congregates with its own kind and they huddle into masses and vote. I am all for informed decisions, but these people are not being informed, they are being propagandized. The difference? Sophistry.Be more afraid of silent fascist lunatics. If they yell, at least you hear them coming.
If you don't listen to what people think, everything they do will take you by surprise.
The biggest danger of legal hindrance to expression is that outlaws go underground, where they're a lot harder to fight. Suppressed ideas and feelings tend to fester; problems, unsolved and buried, always erupt in crises. The arguments and confrontations over any public issue need to take place out in the open; need to be analyzed fairly, need to be made available for every citizen to evaluate and make an informed decision.
Right, and it is not just about handling affairs. It's about the free play of ideas that give us our culture, our comedians and professional writers and the way we can think and grow as creative thinking people: these are along a more nuanced line that defines the tipping point. But there is behind this a stain of Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Diginity: we live in an environment that is conditioned, always, already. We have to be careful because it is not just ideas, it is attitude, the moral geist of our time; it is not that there some magic in free speech as such. Watch out for those loonies! They grow in number and rhetoric and what was once insane becomes the new norm.That doesn't mean anyone is at liberty to say anything, anywhere.
We all have the right to decide the rules of our own domain. If something offends you, ban it from your house. You have the right to ask people to take off their shoes when they come in - equally, you can ask visitors to leave their racism, dirty jokes, religious cant, sales pitch or political rhetoric outside your door.
If you have a business, you have a right to devise a code of conduct, just as you can institute a safety code. You can ban hate speech on your premises, just as you can ban smoking, for the the well-being of your employees and clients.
If you're responsible for children in any capacity, you are charged with their protection from harm, both physical and psychological. That makes it not only your right, but your duty, to make decisions regarding what kind of ideas, what kind of opinions and influences they'll be exposed to, at what age.
That's not an easy assignment, and is usually not done without consultation and debate.
If you're taking care of any disenfranchised or incapacitated population, such as a hospital, prison or other institution, you are just as responsible for the emotional environment of those residents as for the physical one. You have to use judgment in deciding what outside influences are beneficial and what might be harmful.
If you're officiating in an organization, you have to abide by the principles mandate of its constitution. You have uphold its mandate, and sometimes that includes judgment of member's demeanour, or the language of an in-house organ or the content of advertising material.
If you are in charge of a communications medium, you have to balance the requirements of audience, sponsors, correspondents and staff against the law of the land, the terms of your license, regulatory agencies and your own civic duty. The language and tone of a news outlet will reflect that juggling act, whether it's successful or not.
There are always limits to freedom. By what guiding principle they're set, and by whom enforced, is a subject of unending contention.
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Steve Pinker Lambasts American Left for Political Correctness
But I do. Because so much of what's "out there" is inaccurate, misconceived, twisted and garbled. It will be even more garbled by the time it reaches the next generation and the one after. If it can't be discussed, it will never be clarified or put into perspective - or disarmed. And since both are still active, they certainly deserve the chance to be discredited.Hereandnow wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 2:11 pm This matter goes to what is pretty much already out there. I don't think we need any more tutorials on nazism, for example, or the Ku Klu Klan.
Yes, that's always an issue. There will never be complete agreement on it, but there may be reasonable compromises for short periods.And free speech is certainly at issue, isn't it? That is pretty much what this is about.
Debate in Korea, I hope you mean. Because I don't consider their speech my business.As you say, no such thing as free speech, but it being a good idea or not in South Korea at this time is not really up for debate.
Actually, I've heard some incredibly ignorant and terrible public speakers. (A POTUS comes all unbidden to mind)The loud ones are those with big mouths, have an education, and are good at public speech:
Where did I say all free speech is supposed to come from one side? If we silence them and they come to power, they will have the ready-made legal apparatus to silence us. It's tantamount to Mexico building The Wall.They put barroom blather into print and commit the most egregious sophistry, making the weak argument seem the stronger. People are pawns in their games; but you're right, once a preestablished mentality finds words and justification it congregates with its own kind and they huddle into masses and vote. I am all for informed decisions, but these people are not being informed, they are being propagandized. The difference? Sophistry.
The propaganda of any faction can only be neutralized by critical examination of its claims. That's never going to happen in secret.
That's all governing is. That's all the power governing bodies have - each over its own jurisdiction.Right, and it is not just about handling affairs.
You can't say "free play of ideas" in the same breath with "Shut them up".It's about the free play of ideas that give us our culture,
Fix inequality and public communication media, and the bad ideas will die of ridicule.
.....stain....? I'm no Skinner fan, but: How so?.... But there is behind this a stain of Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Diginity:
Fix health care and education: stop producing so many loonies.we live in an environment that is conditioned, always, already. We have to be careful because it is not just ideas, it is attitude, the moral geist of our time; it is not that there some magic in free speech as such. Watch out for those loonies! They grow in number and rhetoric and what was once insane becomes the new norm.
All humans are insane to some degree. The degree is determined by the the health of one's social infrastructure.
Instead of suppressing the symptoms, try treating the illness.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023