 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (3)dariusgriffin big recycle ...and 101 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613752 Today 1 Topics 127521 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I’m sure Tony will find some to say against this |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
imo the way this whole affair is being talked about is plenty revelatory as to the true intent behind the vapid letter |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i.e. some people love to talk about open debate and free speech but what they really want is to free themselves from actual contradiction and consequences |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think my issue with cancel culture is that invariably one day something totally stupid and damaging will become the prevailing wisdom and when someone speaks out about it they will be brigaded and not have an outlet of counter argument. Free speech definitely should have consequences, im not sure ruining peoples lives over social media is a good idea, its much better to try and make a persuasive argument to change a persons view I reckon, the people who never change I just ignore them. I get the impression Chomsky is right when he says this is a gift to the ultra right wingers, this will just embolden them and make them gather more dim witted supporters. I never really say anything over social media nowadays through fear of something ive said being perceived wrongly and ive always considered myself a reasonable person with no extreme views, no bigoted convictions |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
having said that, people like the CEO at the restaurant who was openly racist can go to hell |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What I can envisage happening is a continual fracturing effect when key people within this movement have more radical and hardened opinions, then you will have a multitude of disparate groups like you have with modern day feminist movement. You know that scene in Monty Python with the peoples front of Judea |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ive has the thought that im just too old to have an objective view of the whole thing, and my opinions are ossified as a consequence of the age in which i was brought up. Im just going to keep out of the way of the whole thing and watch as a causal observer |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
is a pretty good summary of one aspect of my response to The Letter. No, really, click through and read it. It's good stuff. I'll fortify it with a quote from Corey Robin's book The Reactionary Mind: Though it is often claimed that the left stands for equality while the right stands for freedom, this notion misstates the actual disagreement between right and left. Historically, the conservative has favored liberty for the higher orders and constraint for the lower orders. What the conservative sees and dislikes in equality, in other words, is not a threat to freedom but its extension. For in that extension, he sees a loss of his own freedom. “We are all agreed as to our own liberty,” declared Samuel Johnson. “But we are not agreed as to the liberty of others: for in proportion as we take, others must lose. I believe we hardly wish that the mob should have liberty to govern us.” Such was the threat Edmund Burke saw in the French Revolution: not merely an expropriation of property or explosion of violence but an inversion of the obligations of deference and command. “The levellers,” he claimed, “only change and pervert the natural order of things.” |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"The occupation of an hair-dresser, or of a working tallow-chandler, cannot be a matter of honour to any person—to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule." By virtue of membership in a polity, Burke allowed, men had a great many rights—to the fruits of their labor, their inheritance, education, and more. But the one right he refused to concede to all men was that “share of power, authority, and direction” they might think they ought to have “in the management of the state.” |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that was my takeaway as well, why should the livelihood of professional opinion-havers matter one iota to me or to anyone who isn't a paid sophist? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it is extremely dangerous that ANYONE ends up picking and choosing what goes into this gigantic giga-brain feedback loop! (You know you can make entire tracks with just feedback and a tiny initial excitation?) What the solution would be is if there is no twitter, no facebook, no centralised sites at all, but that as they say is a conversation THEY aren't ready for. It's already possible, all it would take is weight of uptake, maybe. I mean, wasn't that what the original idea of the internet was, before it got turned into a fucking ad serving mechanismm... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What y'all are talking about is not free speech, it's mob mentality, modern day lynchings. But that is stoked by how ppl receive information - eg 'trending', 'recommended' |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
run riddim |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Free speech is fine, but the right to be offended is clearly more important. To be progressive we really need to narrow down exactly what is free to say and do. To seperate it from hate speech, unwanted opinion and oppressive culture. That's why I'm all aboard the cancel train now. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the consequence to free speech should be nothing more than to be met with the free speech of another |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my postulate is: abolish all partial outlets of information ie. ALL traditional outlets of information except for the printing press everyone has in their pockets or on their laps. Whatever comes of that is whatever comes of that, but at least it isn't being pushed one way or another, or can be accused of being pushed one way or another. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in the future, everything should be self-published |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What y'all are talking about is not free speech, it's mob mentality, modern day lynchings. How about if social networks are configured so you can't reply to someone unless you have as many or more followers? That will stop important people from being harassed by peasants. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you reply to whoever who like and if people choose to see that then they do... fuck it's almost like those problems were already solved like 30 years ago. 'Popularity' is a lense biased to whoever is holding it, obviously... how absolutely fucking infantile is the idea of "upvotes" or "likes", like, with reddit likes how can ppl not see that it is not anything to do with 'quality' (HAH) of the post, ... that is up to the person who is reading it to decide. It drives me bonkers how ppl can't see this, that what ppl call 'good' is just the (now) the result of a weird feedback thing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
would be interesting to be able to make selections from your group of 'friends', and see the 'world' (all posts) through the eyes of that particular selection (things that they've upvoted/whatever), ... then switch to another selection and see that... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
though i guess that is probably quite close to eg. lists on |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right im off to the garage room.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what ppl call 'good' is just the (now) the result of a weird feedback thing. That's true whereas Scientists know that Science determines what is *really* good (Racism) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what you're proposing is actual mob mentality and the abolition of expertise? i don't understand how your mind works |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh cool the author behind that twitter account writes for far right rag Standpoint :) i love comedy too |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what if most things are already governed by mob mentality and it's just that most things don't need to be enforced so severely, so you don't even notice? is the idea of the social contract not almost the same as mob mentality? or that it states what one must do on their end so as to avoid the mob? that we're all controlled by mob mentality, but it's only the craziest mobs we take note of? isn't expertise moot if the mob agrees it is? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
When you think about it the real problem is language which enables cooperation, and cooperation is the beginning of the mob. It may look like "democracy" and "education" but really it's a way to create a super-organism made of humans-as-cells just like in John Carpenter's prophetic The Thing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Margaret Thatcher (pbuh) was wrong when she said that there's no such thing as society - society is very real and it's already assimilated you into a big tentacled blob of itself. Retreat from others, practice no-talking and no-reading, burrow a cell into the earth and be truly free. Actually you will only be truly free when you forget what freedom is. I have decided to become a mole. Goodbye. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Margert Thatcher didnt believe in altruism or doing something for nothing and I hate her for that, whats the point of living if we are out for ourselves 100% of the time, i dont believe that even in my most cynical of moments, it would deny the human spirit |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats why i hate the tories in general, they have this belief everyone is out for themselves at all times and they are backstabbing careerists who would sell out their own gran for 50p. Plenty of those type of people around but they just cant imagine someone who doesnt think like they do |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
