oldspeak
June 18, 2024 9:52 PM Subscribe
“freedom, as Rosa Luxemburg said, is 'freedom for the other fellow.' The same principle is contained in the famous words of Voltaire: 'I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it.' If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of Western civilization means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakeable way.” [George Orwell, via NYT; previously]
newspeak, translated
[openculture; content note, previously]
newspeak, translated
[openculture; content note, previously]
NoxAeternum, Karl Popper as a counterpoint to freedom? sure. the best work i've read on Mr. Popper's paradoxes is Karl Popper, the Formative Years 1902-1945: Politics and Philosophy in Interwar Vienna [gbooks]
i agree with you: honor the treaties [amplifier]
posted by HearHere at 10:47 PM on June 18 [2 favorites]
i agree with you: honor the treaties [amplifier]
posted by HearHere at 10:47 PM on June 18 [2 favorites]
related to tolerance is the precept of symmetric good-faith honesty, something that Elog's "I consider myself a free speech absolutist" violated since it was in reference to allowing Russian deza accounts on Twitter/Xitter.
posted by torokunai at 11:53 PM on June 18 [2 favorites]
posted by torokunai at 11:53 PM on June 18 [2 favorites]
Thank you for this. I’m reading Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Ministry for the Future, and Orwell’s talk about what is “not done” resonates in thinking about how to discuss that book and the strategies Robinson presents for surviving climate change.
posted by cupcakeninja at 3:58 AM on June 19 [2 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 3:58 AM on June 19 [2 favorites]
How can you have "symmetric good-faith honesty" in an environment of bad-faith propaganda? Too many people can argue that they really believe the election was stolen or that vaccines are deadly because that's what their experts tell them. Without widespread critical thinking skills (delivered by honest good-faith public education), too many people are easily led down a path of alternate facts. How much do we blame them for being taken in vs how much do we blame the ones profiting from the lies?
posted by rikschell at 4:12 AM on June 19 [4 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 4:12 AM on June 19 [4 favorites]
How much do we blame them for being taken in
0
vs how much do we blame the ones profiting from the lies?
100%
posted by HearHere at 4:20 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
0
vs how much do we blame the ones profiting from the lies?
100%
posted by HearHere at 4:20 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
How much do we blame them for being taken in vs how much do we blame the ones profiting from the lies?
Since I blame each of them 100%, I think the answer is “we blame them 200%.” I’m half-joking, because we do have a distinction in law between murder and manslaughter. That acknowledges differences in intent, while also recognizing that someone died. Much as we may have some sympathy for the too little, too late “but I misunderstood that I was arguing in favor of [viruses/genocide/eliminating civil rights/whatever]” sentiment, though it can’t bring an extinct species back to life or rewild a concrete desert.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:47 AM on June 19 [4 favorites]
Since I blame each of them 100%, I think the answer is “we blame them 200%.” I’m half-joking, because we do have a distinction in law between murder and manslaughter. That acknowledges differences in intent, while also recognizing that someone died. Much as we may have some sympathy for the too little, too late “but I misunderstood that I was arguing in favor of [viruses/genocide/eliminating civil rights/whatever]” sentiment, though it can’t bring an extinct species back to life or rewild a concrete desert.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:47 AM on June 19 [4 favorites]
I'm not so sure it's as low as zero. I think every adult in society has a responsibility to be curious and caring enough to escape from the poorly built web of lies. But I acknowledge it's getting more difficult by design.
I grew up Catholic, and had few friends or contacts outside that community. Everyone was encouraged to use the schools and businesses within that sect, and that made it hard to escape. Many people would agree that it sucked that women were treated unequally, but if leaving meant abandoning all your friends and family, it was just the price you paid.
The Right has further weaponized this cult-like organizing. They are setting up a whole ecosystem where patriarchy and white supremacy are protected ideas and whatever facts need to be warped to make it so are just accepted. But the actual facts still exist in the world. Rationality is discoverable by anyone with a working brain.
I have sympathy for people living inside an abusive system, but I don't think it's impossible to escape. And for the people who are being out-and-out exploited, getting out is going to be the only way to improve their lives.
posted by rikschell at 4:56 AM on June 19 [4 favorites]
I grew up Catholic, and had few friends or contacts outside that community. Everyone was encouraged to use the schools and businesses within that sect, and that made it hard to escape. Many people would agree that it sucked that women were treated unequally, but if leaving meant abandoning all your friends and family, it was just the price you paid.
The Right has further weaponized this cult-like organizing. They are setting up a whole ecosystem where patriarchy and white supremacy are protected ideas and whatever facts need to be warped to make it so are just accepted. But the actual facts still exist in the world. Rationality is discoverable by anyone with a working brain.
I have sympathy for people living inside an abusive system, but I don't think it's impossible to escape. And for the people who are being out-and-out exploited, getting out is going to be the only way to improve their lives.
posted by rikschell at 4:56 AM on June 19 [4 favorites]
The consequences are clear. The first step of tyrants is always to control the 'truth'.
We as a society need to work backwards from there.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:08 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
We as a society need to work backwards from there.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:08 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
This is why in the end that I believe in tolerance as peace treaty - that if one wishes to have the protection of tolerance, one must abide by its precepts. People should not be obliged to tolerate attacks on their humanity out of a mistaken concept of "intellectual liberty".
The problem is that this devolves into a kind of honor code, in which any position other than compliance and deference can be construed as an "attack on my [humanity | dignity | honor | inalienable right]". It addresses the problem of tolerance by limiting its scope from the outset to that on which we already agree. But in this way it risks evacuating the idea of all meaning. Since we don't need the idea of tolerance for that which is agreeable. Tolerance means nothing if not toleration of that which is disagreeable — to me, or to you, or to a large swathe of society. Tolerance requires that we want [for others] a freedom that we [ourselves] do not want. That's the paradox.
Personally, I like the idea of tolerance in principle. But in practice, to prevent it from eating its young, I think you also need taboos.
posted by dmh at 5:25 AM on June 19 [4 favorites]
The problem is that this devolves into a kind of honor code, in which any position other than compliance and deference can be construed as an "attack on my [humanity | dignity | honor | inalienable right]". It addresses the problem of tolerance by limiting its scope from the outset to that on which we already agree. But in this way it risks evacuating the idea of all meaning. Since we don't need the idea of tolerance for that which is agreeable. Tolerance means nothing if not toleration of that which is disagreeable — to me, or to you, or to a large swathe of society. Tolerance requires that we want [for others] a freedom that we [ourselves] do not want. That's the paradox.
Personally, I like the idea of tolerance in principle. But in practice, to prevent it from eating its young, I think you also need taboos.
posted by dmh at 5:25 AM on June 19 [4 favorites]
> The counterpoint to this is Karl Popper and his paradox of tolerance
There is no Paradox of Tolerance. It is a mirage. Tolerance is not a universal moral imperative, it is a social contract. Those who breach the contract are not covered by it. End of paradox.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:14 AM on June 19 [9 favorites]
There is no Paradox of Tolerance. It is a mirage. Tolerance is not a universal moral imperative, it is a social contract. Those who breach the contract are not covered by it. End of paradox.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:14 AM on June 19 [9 favorites]
The idea we should tolerate anything, regardless if we disagree has always rankled. There's a logical angle - if there are any absolute values, then things that contravene them are, by definition, intolerable; and if there aren't, then there's no reason we should then suggest tolerance somehow is one - but it's not even that.
It's also not the fact that free speech without consequence is neither desirable nor plausible. It's this construction of ideas and speech as things somehow distinct from intent and action, from meaning beyond simply as speech.
If ideas exist in a vacuum from which no application follows, then perhaps it makes sense to allow people the liberty to say anything - because these ideas are nothing, really, and actually who cares and why even speak. But the idea that anything can be tolerated in speech ignores exactly that an idea is connected to our reality, intentionality, linked to how we act, what we do or encourage in others. Saying you should murder people if you want obviously isn't the same as committing murder, but advocating it skilfully as a movement until it becomes a norm would not be removed from the reality of its application. Bad example, but it's only if you genuinely don't care about how ideas can and do change the world - whether only in one person's head or by adoption being it - that it's so easy to tolerate tolerance as a virtue.
Maybe I'm a thought criminal - or about to try to charge others with that crime. But tolerance is not an automatic good or even necessarily desirable. Equally, where intolerable values rules, sometimes intolerable things need to be said and done, because conflict isn't nice and liberal and abstract. The point is not whether others tolerate them. It's what they mean beyond the act of speech alone, and in conflict with norms that you cannot assess the value of by their capacity to tolerate difference
What's mportant is what something that someone has chosen to say means in the outer world, and we should absolutely interrogate that. A better world won't hang them from a tree because of what they say, but the reason for that is because of what it believes to be right about tree-hanging. Tolerance is just dressing.
Or not. I dunno. Ramble ends
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 7:00 AM on June 19 [5 favorites]
It's also not the fact that free speech without consequence is neither desirable nor plausible. It's this construction of ideas and speech as things somehow distinct from intent and action, from meaning beyond simply as speech.
If ideas exist in a vacuum from which no application follows, then perhaps it makes sense to allow people the liberty to say anything - because these ideas are nothing, really, and actually who cares and why even speak. But the idea that anything can be tolerated in speech ignores exactly that an idea is connected to our reality, intentionality, linked to how we act, what we do or encourage in others. Saying you should murder people if you want obviously isn't the same as committing murder, but advocating it skilfully as a movement until it becomes a norm would not be removed from the reality of its application. Bad example, but it's only if you genuinely don't care about how ideas can and do change the world - whether only in one person's head or by adoption being it - that it's so easy to tolerate tolerance as a virtue.
Maybe I'm a thought criminal - or about to try to charge others with that crime. But tolerance is not an automatic good or even necessarily desirable. Equally, where intolerable values rules, sometimes intolerable things need to be said and done, because conflict isn't nice and liberal and abstract. The point is not whether others tolerate them. It's what they mean beyond the act of speech alone, and in conflict with norms that you cannot assess the value of by their capacity to tolerate difference
What's mportant is what something that someone has chosen to say means in the outer world, and we should absolutely interrogate that. A better world won't hang them from a tree because of what they say, but the reason for that is because of what it believes to be right about tree-hanging. Tolerance is just dressing.
Or not. I dunno. Ramble ends
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 7:00 AM on June 19 [5 favorites]
Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech
posted by chavenet at 7:31 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
posted by chavenet at 7:31 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
I got into a discussion about this with a Unitarian minister after their sermon about - tolerance. I told them, to my mind, if I tolerate you, then that means that I fundamentally don’t like you, but I won’t say anything about my dislike for you to you. But I can and probably will express my dislike of you to others, who would likely agree with me. Tolerance is unspoken intolerance. I offered to the minister the thought that instead of tolerating difference we need to instead accept difference. They seemed to agree.
posted by njohnson23 at 7:36 AM on June 19 [6 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 7:36 AM on June 19 [6 favorites]
rickschell, thank you for your questions' nuances.
the blame game disinterests me. complexities of apportioning blame often fall into traps of essentialism (as Popper and others caution [wiki]). a way to avoid cupcakeninja’s humorous 200% is recognizing: they who are ‘taken in’ sometimes go willingly for ‘profit.’
people resist essentialism.
systems sometimes essentialize.
people, resist essentialism.
Mr. Popper’s plagiarism results in/as ‘Great Man’ essentializing [wiki]. Orwell might quip, that’s “Big Bro Popper” Newspeak: eliding sources.
How can you have "symmetric good-faith honesty" in an environment of bad-faith propaganda?
torokunai’s "good faith" is worth considering as a ‘term of art’ [monash.edu pdf: Newspeak, analyzed in Butt v M’Donald/a departed US Supreme Court justice]
justice: honor the treaties [NMAI]
happy Juneteenth
posted by HearHere at 7:36 AM on June 19
the blame game disinterests me. complexities of apportioning blame often fall into traps of essentialism (as Popper and others caution [wiki]). a way to avoid cupcakeninja’s humorous 200% is recognizing: they who are ‘taken in’ sometimes go willingly for ‘profit.’
people resist essentialism.
systems sometimes essentialize.
people, resist essentialism.
Mr. Popper’s plagiarism results in/as ‘Great Man’ essentializing [wiki]. Orwell might quip, that’s “Big Bro Popper” Newspeak: eliding sources.
How can you have "symmetric good-faith honesty" in an environment of bad-faith propaganda?
torokunai’s "good faith" is worth considering as a ‘term of art’ [monash.edu pdf: Newspeak, analyzed in Butt v M’Donald/a departed US Supreme Court justice]
justice: honor the treaties [NMAI]
happy Juneteenth
posted by HearHere at 7:36 AM on June 19
Thanks for posting this hearhere.
It is interesting from a historical point of view how tolerance changed after he wrote this piece. The absence of Soviet criticism in the West, quickly went the other way with McCarthyism in the 1950s. From blind eye to paranoia.
And then we have the Catholic church....
posted by storybored at 7:39 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
It is interesting from a historical point of view how tolerance changed after he wrote this piece. The absence of Soviet criticism in the West, quickly went the other way with McCarthyism in the 1950s. From blind eye to paranoia.
And then we have the Catholic church....
posted by storybored at 7:39 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
I think the tendency Orwell deplores is still very much with us - the establishment would still often prefer us not to be rude about say, China, or the Saudis, or (mefites will readily think of others), and quietly but fairly firmly does what it can to discourage criticism. In fact even now there are those who think it unwise to provoke Putin (what, in case he starts behaving badly?)
posted by Phanx at 7:40 AM on June 19 [3 favorites]
posted by Phanx at 7:40 AM on June 19 [3 favorites]
Thank you for sharing this introduction.
Man, my grandfather had a big set of the Little Lenin Library.
posted by doctornemo at 8:52 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
Man, my grandfather had a big set of the Little Lenin Library.
posted by doctornemo at 8:52 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
And then we have the Catholic church....
That caught my eye as well, storybored. Thinking about the movie Spotlight which offers a powerful example of the transition away from "say nothing bad."
posted by doctornemo at 8:53 AM on June 19 [2 favorites]
That caught my eye as well, storybored. Thinking about the movie Spotlight which offers a powerful example of the transition away from "say nothing bad."
posted by doctornemo at 8:53 AM on June 19 [2 favorites]
he starts behaving badly?
War Games (spoiler alert: tic-tac-toe [Medium])
posted by HearHere at 9:11 AM on June 19
War Games (spoiler alert: tic-tac-toe [Medium])
posted by HearHere at 9:11 AM on June 19
« Older RIP Willie Mays | It's been 10 years since Macquarie Island was... Newer »
This is why in the end that I believe in tolerance as peace treaty - that if one wishes to have the protection of tolerance, one must abide by its precepts. People should not be obliged to tolerate attacks on their humanity out of a mistaken concept of "intellectual liberty".
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:25 PM on June 18 [51 favorites]