Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- thoughts:society:censorship [2021/06/07 14:47] – Owen Mellema
+++ thoughts:society:censorship [2021/09/07 15:34] (current) – [How much safety is enough?] Owen Mellema
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ==== A note on strawmen ====
-One of the nice things about writing to a small group of like minded friends is that I don’t have to defend my argument very much, only inasmuch as it communicates a point. If I were writing this for a larger audience, it would be a nightmare arguing against it. Not because it is a particularly good idea, but because there are so many different ways of interpreting any of the ideas expressed in it.
+One of the nice things about writing instead of debating is that I don’t have to defend my argument very much, only inasmuch as it communicates a point. If I were writing this for a larger audience, it would be a nightmare arguing against it. Not because it is a particularly good idea, but because there are so many different ways of interpreting any of the ideas expressed in it.
-What is tolerance? I interpret this as meaning “respecting one’s natural rights”. But you could also interpret tolerance as “not casting judgement on a person”. In that case, the assertion that tolerance cannot coexist with intolerance is incorrect. Furthermore, what is a tolerant society? Is our society an example of a tolerant society? Is there even such a thing as a tolerant society?
+What is tolerance? I interpret this as meaning “respecting one’s natural rights”. But you could also interpret tolerance as “not casting judgement on a person”. In that case, the assertion that tolerance cannot coexist with intolerance is incorrect. I can definitely cast judgement on a person and respect their rights. This is how things like the justice system continue working -- even though some of the worst people imaginable are put on trial, we still let them have rights.
+Furthermore, what is a tolerant society?
 So, in reality, arguing about this with the internet is all a game of weaseling semantics.
@@ Line 40: / Line 42: @@
 Sacrificing a principle in favor of increased safety is surely different than sacrificing things that are essential to our daily life, right? I disagree. There is really no end to the number of principles that can be sacrificed in favor of increased safety.
-For example, it is well known (at least in our circle of friends) that despite the fact that black people make up less than 13% of the population, they commit over 50% of the crime. You can fill out your own explanation for this in your head (lingering effects of racism, poverty, etc). Regardless, you can make society twice as safe for 87% of the population by disenfranchising the other 13%. So, about 9 out of 10 people would benefit, at the cost of one.
+In terms of censorship, consider the BLM protests. Many people died as a result of the BLM protests, and much property was destroyed.  If we censored BLM propaganda on the internet, we could make our cities safer. Those who died in the protests would not have died, those who lost their businesses would not have lost their businesses.
+==== The Crazy Person Problem ====
-This is, of course, an absolutely terrible idea. It's terrible because it violates the principals that underlie a civil society.
-In terms of censorship, consider the BLM protests. Many people died as a result of the BLM protests, and much property was destroyed.  If we censored BLM propaganda on the internet, we could make our cities safer. Those who died in the protests would not have died, those who lost their businesses would not have lost their businesses.
-===== The Crazy Person Problem =====
 There is a percentage of the population that is naturally predisposed to violence. These individuals are spread out across the population, which means in any online group there is almost certainly a small percentage of people that could become violently unhinged. When these people are exposed to impassioned rhetoric from either side, there is a chance that they will be convinced by the argument, and will do something crazy.