Peace, love, and truth ultimately thrive under the light of open-mindedness, peaceful discussion

[Pattern-chaser]

your OP does seem to imply that censorship is wrong in pretty much all circumstances, doesn't it?

Presumably, 'seem to imply' is subjective, but to me, no, it certainly doesn't seem to me to imply such a thing, especially since I am a known moral nihilist (a.k.a. spiritual anarchist, a.k.a. an amoralist, a.k.a. free-spirited/self-disciplined person), meaning I don't believe in the existence of morality.

You think that censorship is a moral issue, then?

I would strongly encourage one to avoid reading between the lines of posts on the philosophy forums, and instead going by what I (and others) actually explicitly state.

As an autist, I can only agree with this. My question was posed only because I wasn't clear on your intended meaning. Perhaps I should've been clearer, and said that I was asking for clarification. I'll try to do better.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

your OP does seem to imply that censorship is wrong in pretty much all circumstances, doesn't it?

Presumably, 'seem to imply' is subjective, but to me, no, it certainly doesn't seem to me to imply such a thing, especially since I am a known moral nihilist (a.k.a. spiritual anarchist, a.k.a. an amoralist, a.k.a. free-spirited/self-disciplined person), meaning I don't believe in the existence of morality.

You think that censorship is a moral issue, then?

No. Essentially, I don't and can't think anything is a moral issue because I don't believe in morality.

Moral values and such are just superstition as best I can tell. That is, insofar as they are anything at all, which is far from a given.

I would strongly encourage one to avoid reading between the lines of posts on the philosophy forums, and instead going by what I (and others) actually explicitly state.

As an autist, I can only agree with this. My question was posed only because I wasn't clear on your intended meaning. Perhaps I should've been clearer, and said that I was asking for clarification.

No worries, and thank you for asking for clarification.

[Pattern-chaser]

• 1. When we censor those who distastefully present a distasteful or false idea, we strengthen the distasteful or false idea and help it propagate.
• 2. Falsehood is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.
• 3. Hate is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.

[Edited into a list by me.]

This seems to be a list of unjustified assertions; opinions only. Also, I think there may be more to say about censorship than the above.

To complement point #1, I might observe that mentioning or quoting any idea helps it spread. Even if that mention is critical. But this is only stating the obvious. In effect, I just said that 'spreading an idea helps it spread'.

In contrast, and by definition, censorship prevents or minimises the spread of the idea in question, hindering its propagation. That may be a good thing or not.

Point #2. Assumption: Falsehood should be "overcome". Logically, it seems reasonable to combat the spread of misinformation. This seems to be an argument in favour of censorship. Assumption: that censorship applies (only?) to false information...

Point #3. Assumption: that censorship and hatred are somehow linked. This assumption is not an obvious one to me.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

• 1. When we censor those who distastefully present a distasteful or false idea, we strengthen the distasteful or false idea and help it propagate.
• 2. Falsehood is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.
• 3. Hate is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.

[Edited into a list by me.]

This seems to be a list of unjustified assertions; opinions only.

I think the three numbered sentences quoted above are supported in part by the sentences left out of the quote above that were also included in the OP:

We become like a lion who not only strengthens the herd by eating the weakest slowest antelope, but also who strengthens the herd by unifying the herd against the lion (the common enemy).

Censorship is like the clouds that cover the sun.

Hate and falsehood thrive in and thanks to the darkness.

Peace, love, and truth ultimately will and do thrive under the illuminating light of open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech.

***

In contrast, and by definition, censorship prevents or minimises the spread of the idea in question, hindering its propagation.

Depending on what you mean by spread, I am likely to agree.

For instance, if an invalid/untrue hypothesis gets repeated to (i.e. spread to) a scientist who then publicly tests it and debunks it, it would be true that prohibiting the scientist have from having heard it in the first place and/or tested it would in a sense reduce the spread of the idea in terms of exposure and thereby increase the belief in the idea by not exposing the easily debunked idea to the light of day, so to speak.

We must then differentiate between spreading awareness of the idea (propagation of awareness of the idea) versus actual belief in its truth.

Point #2. Assumption: Falsehood should be "overcome".

I am not sure if you are saying that is an assumption you are making, or claiming it is an assumption I am making. In any case, it's neither an assumption I am making nor that I believe.

Logically, it seems reasonable to combat the spread of misinformation.

How does that logically follow from anything you or I have stated in this thread? What rule of logic was used to conclude that? Which previous statements (i.e. premises) does it logically follow from?

In any case, I do not agree with that conclusion.

Depending on what's meant by the word "spread", I might generally prefer the opposite.

For example, I would much prefer to put my kids in a school that teaches them about the Salem Witch Trials, the KKK, and Nazis, rather than one that never mentions such things and whitewashes them from the history books.

Similarly, I would like invalid/false hypotheses spread to scientists to openly test, typically repeatedly by multiple different scientists in peer reviewed ways, and the results of the test spread to me and others.

That is, especially, if the alternative was to desperately cover the invalid/false ideas up and treat them as if they deserved the respect people give Voldemort ("he who must not be named"). Typically, desperate cover-ups are--rightfully--seen as evidence (not proof, but evidence) of the important truth of that which is being desperately covered up. Like me, one is not afraid to say Voldemort's name when they know he is not real and true. Those who do fear to say his name thereby betray their belief in him.

For instance, the moment it becomes illegal by threat of prison to talk about Flat Earth Theory is the moment I'll start taking it much more seriously. For now, I don't believe in it or take it seriously, and very glad that people like Neil deGrasse Tyson talk about it a lot, in a sense reducing belief in the idea by spreading and propagating the awareness of it.

Assumption: that censorship applies (only?) to false information...

Assumption: that censorship and hatred are somehow linked.

I am confused about who is making or allegedly making these assumptions, and what they would even mean.

[Pattern-chaser]

• 1. When we censor those who distastefully present a distasteful or false idea, we strengthen the distasteful or false idea and help it propagate.
• 2. Falsehood is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.
• 3. Hate is overcome by being exposed, not hidden.

[Edited into a list by me.]

This seems to be a list of unjustified assertions; opinions only.

I think the three numbered sentences quoted above are supported in part by the sentences left out of the quote above that were also included in the OP:

We become like a lion who not only strengthens the herd by eating the weakest slowest antelope, but also who strengthens the herd by unifying the herd against the lion (the common enemy).

Censorship is like the clouds that cover the sun.

Hate and falsehood thrive in and thanks to the darkness.

Peace, love, and truth ultimately will and do thrive under the illuminating light of open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech.

It is difficult to see how poetry supports your theme, whatever that theme might be. For example, I find it difficult to see how I could usefully respond to "Censorship is like the clouds that cover the sun" in the context of a philosophical discussion.

I would like to engage with you on this, but I am having difficulty even understanding what your opinion is, so that I might add a useful response of my own. Every time I think I've got it, you post to tell me that I've misunderstood. Fair enough, it's easily done, and I do it all the time; we all do. But if I can't fathom your intended meaning, I can't engage. My apologies.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

When we censor those who most distastefully present a distasteful or false idea[...] We become like a lion who not only strengthens the herd by eating the weakest slowest antelope, but also who strengthens the herd by unifying the herd against the lion (the common enemy).

Censorship is like the clouds that cover the sun.

Hate and falsehood thrive in and thanks to the darkness.

Peace, love, and truth ultimately will and do thrive under the illuminating light of open-mindedness, peaceful discussion, and free speech.

I find it difficult to see how I could usefully respond to "Censorship is like the clouds that cover the sun" in the context of a philosophical discussion.

The idiom and proverbial/metaphorical use of the concept of the 'bringing something to light' or metaphorically (not literally) bringing it 'under the microscope' are common where I am from and carry a lot of meaning, but I understand such idioms can be regional and less common elsewhere, so I'll avoid those metaphors when discussing this matter with you in this topic moving forward. Sorry for the confusion. Nonetheless, just in case it is helpful, here is some info about them:

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/bring+to+light

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... g-to-light

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bring--to--light

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... g-to-light



Overall, it seems that you use the analogy/metaphor of spreading (e.g. like a virus or contagion or even the immunity thereof), where I use the metaphor of illumination (i.e. "bringing to light") or the lack thereof.

So I will do my best moving forward in this topic when replying to you to use the 'spreading' idiom versus the 'bringing to light' idiom, to refer to the process which is presumably one in the same.

I would like to engage with you on this, but I am having difficulty even understanding what your opinion is, so that I might add a useful response of my own. Every time I think I've got it, you post to tell me that I've misunderstood. Fair enough, it's easily done, and I do it all the time; we all do. But if I can't fathom your intended meaning, I can't engage. My apologies.

If you tell me which of the following sentences of mine from my last post were most unclear, I will do my best to clarify them:

In contrast, and by definition, censorship prevents or minimises the spread of the idea in question, hindering its propagation.

Depending on what you mean by spread, I am likely to agree.

For instance, if an invalid/untrue hypothesis gets repeated to (i.e. spread to) a scientist who then publicly tests it and debunks it, it would be true that prohibiting the scientist from having heard it in the first place and/or tested it would in a sense reduce the spread of the idea in terms of exposure and thereby increase the belief in the idea by not exposing the easily debunked idea to the light of day, so to speak.

We must then differentiate between spreading awareness of the idea (propagation of awareness of the idea) versus actual belief in its truth.

***

it seems reasonable to combat the spread of misinformation.

Depending on what's meant by the word "spread", I might generally prefer the opposite.

For example, I would much prefer to put my kids in a school that teaches them about the Salem Witch Trials, the KKK, and Nazis, rather than one that never mentions such things and whitewashes them from the history books.

Similarly, I would like invalid/false hypotheses spread to scientists to openly test, typically repeatedly by multiple different scientists in peer reviewed ways, and the results of the test spread to me and others.

That is, especially, if the alternative was to desperately cover the invalid/false ideas up [...] Typically, desperate cover-ups are--rightfully--seen as evidence (not proof, but evidence) of the important truth of that which is being desperately covered up.

For instance, the moment it becomes illegal by threat of prison to talk about Flat Earth Theory is the moment I'll start taking it much more seriously. For now, I don't believe in it or take it seriously, and very glad that people like Neil deGrasse Tyson talk about it a lot, in a sense reducing belief in the idea by spreading and propagating the awareness of it.