= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
halcyon comments on Open Thread, May 25 - May 31, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (301)
This is the place to post random thoughts, right? I have been thinking about what kind of community I would least regret living in until the singularity comes along. (Without deadening my faculties with drugs, etc. Optimal means "least bad" as well as "most good", right?)
I recently read this article about the origins of analytic philosophy: http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/Polish_Philosophy.pdf It says that analytic philosophy was born in states where there was no "official culture", but there were multiple ideological factions whose clash created a space for the existence of individuals whose only motivation was to speak the truth as they saw it.
So perhaps my ideal polity should have multiple potentially conflicting factions, but it would be managed in such a way that instead of giving rise to armed violence, their ideological clash would create a space for the individual's creative freedom. The presence of ideological conflict is a feature, not a bug. It becomes a bug when people end up feeling like they have to express these differences through violent or extremist means.
The question is, is it a case of hopeless idealism to ask people to set up nonviolent culture wars and have every side lose them forever while at the same time ensuring that no victims come to any real harm? If that is too extreme a formulation, then a toned-down version of the idea just coincides with bog-standard "diversity politics" liberalism, doesn't it?
There days people who speak for "diversity" quite often advocate policies like hate speech laws that reduce diversity of voiced opinions.
Pluralism seems to me the better label.
Possibly, but how do you prevent extremist violence from breaking out if you do not promote some degree of toleration? Of course, that can be taken to extremes as well.
It used to be that it was okay for students in universities to hear ideas that challenge their beliefs and that make them uncomfortable. Today the idea of safe spaces, prevents discussion that makes people uncomfortable from happening.
The range of ideas that can be expressed doesn't increase but decrease.
Tolerating someone doesn't mean to avoid voicing opinions that make that person uncomfortable. But that's usually called for by "diversity advocates".
Oh okay, but is the term "pluralism" compatible with curbing extremist rhetoric when it really is likely to lead to violence? I mean, what if they say they are not trying to completely eradicate the other side, (just, I don't know, teach them a lesson or something) so their speech does not technically violate pluralist principles?
(Or what if the objectionable consequence is not violence, but unfairly, and greatly, reduced opportunities?)
You have violence on all sides of the political spectrum. I don't think you can effectively prevent political violence by forbidding certain opinions from being voiced.
I think open discussion is better than driving views underground.
Worse, you're likely to wind up driving the truth underground.
What do you mean by "extreme"? Extreme relative to what? After all, even belief the singularity is an "extreme", relative to the current mainstream, position.