The post makes a separate claim with each sentence and, instead of going on to reasons, continues with yet another claim. I think this negatively affects its quality: for instance
It [freedom of speech] protects people with minority views from persecution by the state or the mob. <...> Freedom of speech can be limited by the state, corporations, the mob or individuals acting alone. Any use of coercion to suppress ideas is an attack on freedom of speech.
This seems significantly misleading. Ideas should be selected based on their merits, and that requires that some ideas do not survive. Thus, suppression of ideas could be a thing positive to social rationality.
Actually, this was supposed to be a linkpost. I thought had I had submitted the post this way, but I guess not. In any case, the PDF version and the video version were already included I first submitted this post, and I edited this to be a linkpost to link to the original essay.
The post makes a separate claim with each sentence and, instead of going on to reasons, continues with yet another claim.
I don’t think you read the entire essay then. Only the essay’s introduction can be seen directly on this post. You’d have to view the PDF, the video, or the blog post to see the rest of the post and the justifications for the claims made in the introduction. That’s pretty normal in most writing.
Freedom of speech can be limited by the state, corporations, the mob or individuals acting alone. Any use of coercion to suppress ideas is an attack on freedom of speech.
In the PDF version, you can most clearly see that there is a section of the essay dedicated to explaining how each of these can happen.
It [freedom of speech] protects people with minority views from persecution by the state or the mob.
As the author defined “freedom of speech” in the first paragraph of the essay, “Freedom of speech is the principle that coercion should not be used to suppress ideas.” So of course having freedom of speech would protect people with minority views from persecution due to their ideas.
This seems significantly misleading.
How is it misleading? There are plenty of examples throughout history where not having freedom of speech lead to persecution.
Ideas should be selected based on their merits
You’re missing the point of the essay. The author agrees that ideas should be selected based on their merits. If a society truly has social rationality, then it’s already implied that the ideas that get selected and promoted by the society will be rational ideas. The point of free speech is to ensure that society never misses out on hearing a good idea.
And how are you defining “merit”? And from what perspective? When the Catholic Church put Galileo Galilei under house arrest, they censored him on the basis that his ideas contradicted their sacred texts. From the Church’s perspective, his ideas did not have any merits.
Thus, suppression of ideas could be a positive thing to social rationality.
I don’t think so. Can you give some examples of what you’re talking about?
Ideas should be selected based on their merits, and that requires that some ideas do not survive.
If a society has social rationality, then it’s going to reject irrational ideas by itself. The irrational ideas won’t survive. That means that it isn’t necessary to suppress “bad” ideas. If any ideas were being suppressed at all in a rational society, then there’s a risk that the society will limit its exposure to good ideas.
Why do you think that it’s better to forcefully suppress ideas that a fully rational society would reject anyway? How would you suppress the ideas that you think should be suppressed? How can you be sure that you would be suppressing the right ideas? You’re doing exactly what you’re accusing the author of doing in the essay.
The post makes a separate claim with each sentence and, instead of going on to reasons, continues with yet another claim. I think this negatively affects its quality: for instance
This seems significantly misleading. Ideas should be selected based on their merits, and that requires that some ideas do not survive. Thus, suppression of ideas could be a thing positive to social rationality.
Actually, this was supposed to be a linkpost. I thought had I had submitted the post this way, but I guess not. In any case, the PDF version and the video version were already included I first submitted this post, and I edited this to be a linkpost to link to the original essay.
I don’t think you read the entire essay then. Only the essay’s introduction can be seen directly on this post. You’d have to view the PDF, the video, or the blog post to see the rest of the post and the justifications for the claims made in the introduction. That’s pretty normal in most writing.
In the PDF version, you can most clearly see that there is a section of the essay dedicated to explaining how each of these can happen.
As the author defined “freedom of speech” in the first paragraph of the essay, “Freedom of speech is the principle that coercion should not be used to suppress ideas.” So of course having freedom of speech would protect people with minority views from persecution due to their ideas.
How is it misleading? There are plenty of examples throughout history where not having freedom of speech lead to persecution.
You’re missing the point of the essay. The author agrees that ideas should be selected based on their merits. If a society truly has social rationality, then it’s already implied that the ideas that get selected and promoted by the society will be rational ideas. The point of free speech is to ensure that society never misses out on hearing a good idea.
And how are you defining “merit”? And from what perspective? When the Catholic Church put Galileo Galilei under house arrest, they censored him on the basis that his ideas contradicted their sacred texts. From the Church’s perspective, his ideas did not have any merits.
I don’t think so. Can you give some examples of what you’re talking about?
If a society has social rationality, then it’s going to reject irrational ideas by itself. The irrational ideas won’t survive. That means that it isn’t necessary to suppress “bad” ideas. If any ideas were being suppressed at all in a rational society, then there’s a risk that the society will limit its exposure to good ideas.
Why do you think that it’s better to forcefully suppress ideas that a fully rational society would reject anyway? How would you suppress the ideas that you think should be suppressed? How can you be sure that you would be suppressing the right ideas? You’re doing exactly what you’re accusing the author of doing in the essay.