Imagine there is a society where all kinds of people are saying all kinds of things. S is a subset of all the things that are being said, such that if X is a member of set S, then X is a case “that you yourself would agree have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric that hardened bigots nevertheless continue to spread”.
Now, I am only concerned cases X such that X is a member of set S.
Your question isn’t about the existence of bigots. It’s about speech that “have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric”. To repeat myself, you’re using terms that signal attitude towards speech, not characteristics of speech itself.
Do try to overcome the typical mind fallacy. Would an Indonesian peasant agree with you about that? A North Korean communist? An islamist from Somalia? Who determines what’s “beyond dispute”?
I am a loose consequentialist with the very big proviso that out ability to forecast consequences is limited and falling back on deontology is frequently enough the best way to proceed.
I’m afraid I’m more of a hardline consequentialist like EY. I often reach the same conclusions as deontologists, but not by following deontological lines of reasoning. Such results emerge from the overlapping consensus reached by multiple consequentialists coordinating with each other which trying to optimize the end results for themselves. Eg. There’s a pie that two people want. The first person wants to eat the whole pie, but knows he’ll be stabbed by the second if he does. To avoid that unwanted consequence, he sticks to the Schelling point of equal division, etc.
There’s a pie that two people want. The first person wants to eat the whole pie, but knows he’ll be stabbed by the second if he does. To avoid that unwanted consequence, he sticks to the Schelling point of equal division
Heh. Clearly the first person is irrational—he should hurry to precommit to stab the second person unless he gets the whole pie X-D
No he isn’t, because the judge will stab anyone who stabs someone without legitimate grievance, and the mob will back the judge.
(Of course, all this is just metaphorical. What he really wants is to share the pie equally. He’s negotiating with others to optimize for that outcome.)
“Your question isn’t about the existence of bigots.”
Yes it is, as you will see if you use the full quotation. Okay, so you accept the existence of bigots. Step two: Do you accept the existence of inflammatory rhetoric being spread by bigots anywhere across spacetime?
“To repeat myself, you’re using terms that signal attitude towards speech, not characteristics of speech itself.”
Honestly, I don’t see why I should care.
“Do try to overcome the typical mind fallacy.”
Not really relevant to what I’m saying.
An interesting question. So the legitimacy of restrictions on speech (which is where we started) is now conditional on whose judgement we are talking about? :-)
I already told you my set S is empty. But the opinion of, say, the King of England on the one hand, and Ben Franklin on the other about the whole “inflammatory rhetoric” business is likely to have been very different. Who do we listen to?
Could you please improve your reading comprehension at least to the degree where you don’t attribute to me positions with straw sticking all out of them?
To quote yourself, the set S consists of speech
“that you yourself would agree have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric that hardened bigots nevertheless continue to spread”
That set for personally me is empty as far as I can see (no counter-examples come to mind).
No? Cool, so bigots exist and inflammatory rhetoric exists, so I dare hope that cases where the former have been spreading the latter also exist. Let’s analyze my statement:
“that you yourself would agree have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric that hardened bigots nevertheless continue to spread”
“You” refers to Lumifer. “Would agree have been settled beyond dispute” was just my way of saying “admits”.
In my intended sense, that statement means, “Lumifer admits X is a case of inflammatory rhetoric being spread by bigots”.
Since such cases exist, S is not empty. Now go back to my original comments and select an X such that X belongs to S.
“Would agree have been settled beyond dispute” was just my way of saying “admits”.
LOL. And, to recall an old joke, “You ruined my life you fucking bitch!” was just my way of saying “Pass the salt, please”.
Sorry, you seem to be intent on deliberately misinterpreting me. I am not particularly interested in how many nails will it take to attach that piece of jello to a tree. I’m out.
No, I’m genuinely on the fence on this one. My only claim is that one legitimate argument to do it does exist. Depending on the specific case, that reason may be outweighed by more significant arguments.
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough.
Imagine there is a society where all kinds of people are saying all kinds of things. S is a subset of all the things that are being said, such that if X is a member of set S, then X is a case “that you yourself would agree have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric that hardened bigots nevertheless continue to spread”.
Now, I am only concerned cases X such that X is a member of set S.
Who is that “you yourself”? One particular person? Why should you care about the opinion of one particular person?
And since “bigots continue to spread” it’s clear that the not the entire population agrees about X being the member of set S.
In this case, you = Lumifer.
You, Lumifer, think my characterization is accurate for the specific cases that I am referring to.
I am not the arbiter of appropriateness of speech and do not hold myself as such.
Specifically, in the case of personally me, the subset S looks to be empty.
1) S is empty for every society in the world, i.e. bigots are figments of our imagination?
2) Are you a deontologist or a consequentialist?
Your question isn’t about the existence of bigots. It’s about speech that “have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric”. To repeat myself, you’re using terms that signal attitude towards speech, not characteristics of speech itself.
Do try to overcome the typical mind fallacy. Would an Indonesian peasant agree with you about that? A North Korean communist? An islamist from Somalia? Who determines what’s “beyond dispute”?
I am a loose consequentialist with the very big proviso that out ability to forecast consequences is limited and falling back on deontology is frequently enough the best way to proceed.
I’m afraid I’m more of a hardline consequentialist like EY. I often reach the same conclusions as deontologists, but not by following deontological lines of reasoning. Such results emerge from the overlapping consensus reached by multiple consequentialists coordinating with each other which trying to optimize the end results for themselves. Eg. There’s a pie that two people want. The first person wants to eat the whole pie, but knows he’ll be stabbed by the second if he does. To avoid that unwanted consequence, he sticks to the Schelling point of equal division, etc.
Heh. Clearly the first person is irrational—he should hurry to precommit to stab the second person unless he gets the whole pie X-D
No he isn’t, because the judge will stab anyone who stabs someone without legitimate grievance, and the mob will back the judge.
(Of course, all this is just metaphorical. What he really wants is to share the pie equally. He’s negotiating with others to optimize for that outcome.)
That bit seems to be missing from the original formulation of the problem :-)
But the rational response still seems to be to promise bread and circuses to the mob in exchange for the exclusive access to the pie.
Why is that?
The mob remains stubbornly uninterested. Its bloodymindedness to punish offenders is stronger than its love for pie.
He wants to share the pie equally because he is a good person.
“Your question isn’t about the existence of bigots.” Yes it is, as you will see if you use the full quotation. Okay, so you accept the existence of bigots. Step two: Do you accept the existence of inflammatory rhetoric being spread by bigots anywhere across spacetime?
“To repeat myself, you’re using terms that signal attitude towards speech, not characteristics of speech itself.” Honestly, I don’t see why I should care.
“Do try to overcome the typical mind fallacy.” Not really relevant to what I’m saying.
Care to define what you mean by “bigot” and “inflammatory rhetoric”?
Of course. Just look at what kind of inflammatory rhetoric those anti-British bigots known as the Founding Fathers of the US were spreading!
Is that the judgement of the British, or the judgement of Lumifer?
An interesting question. So the legitimacy of restrictions on speech (which is where we started) is now conditional on whose judgement we are talking about? :-)
I already told you my set S is empty. But the opinion of, say, the King of England on the one hand, and Ben Franklin on the other about the whole “inflammatory rhetoric” business is likely to have been very different. Who do we listen to?
Okay, so confirm that the following proposition is true: For Lumifer, “inflammatory rhetoric” is nonexistent across spacetime.
Could you please improve your reading comprehension at least to the degree where you don’t attribute to me positions with straw sticking all out of them?
To quote yourself, the set S consists of speech
That set for personally me is empty as far as I can see (no counter-examples come to mind).
No? Cool, so bigots exist and inflammatory rhetoric exists, so I dare hope that cases where the former have been spreading the latter also exist. Let’s analyze my statement:
“that you yourself would agree have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric that hardened bigots nevertheless continue to spread”
“You” refers to Lumifer. “Would agree have been settled beyond dispute” was just my way of saying “admits”.
In my intended sense, that statement means, “Lumifer admits X is a case of inflammatory rhetoric being spread by bigots”.
Since such cases exist, S is not empty. Now go back to my original comments and select an X such that X belongs to S.
I’m glad we could clear that up.
LOL. And, to recall an old joke, “You ruined my life you fucking bitch!” was just my way of saying “Pass the salt, please”.
Sorry, you seem to be intent on deliberately misinterpreting me. I am not particularly interested in how many nails will it take to attach that piece of jello to a tree. I’m out.
A little charity, please. I’m not a native English speaker.
And I think it is entirely legitimate for me to disambiguate the sense in which I intended a particular sentence.
So you want to censor every case of inflammatory rhetoric spread by a “bigot”?
No, I’m genuinely on the fence on this one. My only claim is that one legitimate argument to do it does exist. Depending on the specific case, that reason may be outweighed by more significant arguments.