Good call OP!

We're all guilty of thought crime, the vast majority of hate speech, and only a minority of crime crime.

I agree.

I said in a different thread, philosophy is full of ledgers who's writing we do not instantly understand- charity is therefore a good moral standard.

Rather than claiming 'nonsense' or admitting you do not understand, it's perhaps wiser to be lenient and allow what is going to emerge naturally to emerge.

It does not mean be independant of critique, just have a good amount of charity- do not jump to critique.

Instilling petty fear ought be relinquished, to a side, rather than to the front, where it, as you say, blocks.

Isn't a healthy state of affairs if people are afraid to be racist, for example, or do you envision the ideal state where you can go up to someone, spout your racism, and expect appreciation for your openness? — Hanover

That's not a healthy state of affairs.

The way to get rid of problematic ideas is to discuss them openly. Thereby its flaws will become apparent. That's the whole point of freedom of speech.

I have no fear that racist ideas will find any traction in open debate. It's in a climate of censorship and polarization where problematic ideas find traction, precisely because the balancing act of open debate is cut off.

Open debate fosters reason and truth, whereas (self-)censorship fosters resentment, further division and hides the problematic ideas manifesting in society.

Nah racists and transphobes should be afraid of appearing in public for fear of perfectly justified grevious bodily harm. This would be a public good.

I couldn't agree more with that, many would be surprised at how many people are racists simply because it's censored and therefore thought to be effective.

I couldn't agree more with that, many would be surprised at how many people are racists simply because it's censored and therefore thought to be effective. — Varde

Seems that the concept of 'racist' is something the left appropriated and slaps onto anybody they don't like, same as transphobe, bigot, nazi, etc.

The way to get rid of problematic ideas is to discuss them openly. Thereby its flaws will become apparent. That's the whole point of freedom of speech. — Tzeentch

After thinking about it, I couldn't come to a conclusion - should bad ideas ( like socialism, etc. ) also have free speech? Libertarians would say sure, people would filter out bad ideas. I would say - why do we assume people would be able to do so, instead of being taken over by the emotional appeal of such ideas and ignoring that they don't work in reality.

I like it when you make the dividing lines so clear.
To me, your words ‘bad ideas (like socialism),’ makes you easy to deal with.
Us lefties can see you clearly as a nefarious righty!

After watching how people in the street would immediately tense up, after being asked a simple question of 'what is a woman?' and tried to give a 'politically correct' answer, you are getting a feeling that they very well know the answer, yet are scared sh*tless of saying it or, probably, even thinking it.

In my opinion such internal blocking of engaging with certain thoughts is a very bad idea, as it noticeably hinders one's ability to think clearly.

What do you think? — M777

I think that the meaning of a word is often more complicated than the simplistic account many try to give it. What is a game? Read some Wittgenstein.

In my opinion, all ideas should be able to be expressed. No matter how bad or repulsive. Of course such ideas will be annihilated, but in open, civilized debate, with reasoned arguments.

Bad ideas that have emotional appeal may hold some sway, but they won't hold up to scrutiny and open discourse will prevent these ideas from ever becoming too extreme.

The idea that people are too stupid to handle free discourse is a dark world view that is pretty much incompatible with free, open society. I would avoid such ideas.

To me, your words ‘bad ideas (like socialism),’ makes you easy to deal with.
Us lefties can see you clearly as a nefarious righty! — universeness

ok... well yes, in my opinion socialism is a very bad idea. it has been tried multiple times, failed miserably, often forcing the government to use force to sustain it. what's wrong in such understanding?

Moved to the Lounge, eh?

What a surprise.

I guess this discussion about totalitarianism cut a little too close to home for the folks that run the show on this forum.

What is a game? Read some Wittgenstein. — Michael

No, I haven't got that deep into philosophy as to read Wittgenstein. :) so far reading more public philosopher.

I guess this discussion about totalitarianism cut a little too close to home for the folks that run the show on this forum. — Tzeentch

I'm surprised it isn't banned yet. :)

Well when you get a change it's his Philosophical Investigations that is relevant to this topic.

↪M777
In my opinion, all ideas should be able to be expressed. No matter how bad or repulsive. Of course such ideas will be annihilated, but in open, civilized debate, with reasoned arguments.

Bad ideas that have emotional appeal may hold some sway, but they won't hold up to scrutiny and open discourse will prevent these ideas from ever becoming too extreme.

The idea that people are too stupid to handle free discourse is a dark world view that is pretty much incompatible with free, open society. I would avoid such ideas. — Tzeentch

Well, but current leftist ideas somehow got hold by exploiting the 'marketplace of ideas'. Same way Nazis came to power, etc.

Open discourse has been under pressure for decades, and 'political correctness' (in more honest terms: censorship) is a symptom of that. As such, I would point towards this disturbance of open discourse as being the cause for these problematic ideas going unscrutinized.

It's in such a climate that liberal ideas could be hijacked and perverted into something that's essentially the opposite of liberalism. Things went off the deep end, because no pushback was allowed vis á vis 'political correctness.'

It's in such a climate that liberal ideas could be hijacked and perverted into something that's essentially the opposite of liberalism. — Tzeentch

How so?

Many use the word ‘socialist,’ in their political doctrine even though, that doctrine fails the basic tenets involved.
Even the fascist nazis used it.
Autocratic totalitarian/fascist/cults of narcissistic personality systems are not socialism.
True socialists are normally the first to die when popular revolutions are usurped by nefarious individuals and groups. Many who start out as socialist/humanist/democrats get corrupted by money and power along the way. That does not negate principles such as:
From each according to their ability to each according to their needs.
And
To secure for the workers, the full fruits of their industry and control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.
Socialists are not against small business or personal freedom or entrepreneurs.
We are against multimillionaires and billionaires and systems which create and maintain nefarious b*******, who want a ‘poor,’ majority to use as they please.

Open discourse has been under pressure for decades — Tzeentch

And it caved in. So at least it needs some way of strengthening to come back to the mainstream and stay there.

True socialists are normally the first to die when popular revolutions are usurped by nefarious individuals and groups. — universeness

Then maybe there is something wrong, if in real world "good" socialist start a revolution, but immediately are overthrown and killed by nefarious individuals. Such as all Lenin's 'old guard' was pretty much wiped out by Stalin.

From each according to their ability to each according to their needs. — universeness

The only question is who determines what are your abilities and your needs. Pretty soon you might find out that you are able to survive on a few rotten potatoes and can dig the Belamor channel for 16 hours a day.

Such as all Lenin's 'old guard' was pretty much wiped out by Stalin. — M777

Lenin was as much of a nefarious narcissist as Stalin.
Lenin had hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed as well. He was no socialist!

Lenin was as much of a nefarious narcissist as Stalin.
Lenin had hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed as well. He was no socialist! — universeness

Well socialism don't seem to work without killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
All kinds of communes were tried in late 1800s, all failed and got dissolved within a few month. So when done on the country-wide scale the government would have to either admit its failures and return to capitalism or use force against the unhappy people.

How so? — Michael

I'm generalizing here, but liberal today is starting to become synonymous with authoritarian collectivism, characterized by a disregard for individual rights and fundamentals such as freedom of speech. For strong governments that are given mandates to decide what is truth and what is "disinformation", etc.

A complete perversion of what liberalism is and the principles it is built upon.

The only question is who determines what are your abilities and your needs. Pretty soon you might find out that you are able to survive on a few rotten potatoes and can dig the Belamor channel for 16 hours a day. — M777

True democratic socialism is of, for and by the people.
Very strong checks and balances must be in place. All authority must be removable by a majority of those it represents at any time the majority so chooses to remove them. Your ‘pretty soon’ scenario cannot be possible under socialism. The possibility of such circumstances are reduced in the UK in comparison with Russia today but neither of those two systems are socialist or humanist, if you prefer as the term ‘socialist,’ has been so misrepresented to you and is so misunderstood by you.

And it caved in. So at least it needs some way of strengthening to come back to the mainstream and stay there. — M777

Perhaps. But censorship would only facilitate a movement to the opposite extreme.

I'm generalizing here, but liberal today is starting to become synonymous with authoritarian collectivism, characterized by a disregard for individual rights and fundamentals such as freedom of speech. For strong governments that are given mandates to decide what is truth and what is "disinformation", etc.

A complete perversion of what liberalism is and the principles it is built upon. — Tzeentch

If you believe that a black and white person ought be allowed to marry then you're obviously going to be intolerant of views that oppose interracial marriage and condemn those who voice such a racist ideology.

Oh certainly, but a liberal would do so in open debate.

Well socialism don't seem to work without killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. — M777

If such happens and the system involved used the word socialism as it’s intent, then it did fail miserably but that was not down to socialism. The failures happened in the humans involved who tried to set up a successful socialist/humanist system which is fair to as big a majority of those it represents, as it possibly can be.
I agree that all attempts at a global socialist/humanist system have failed but If at first you don’t succeed you try try again. You don’t surrender to vile systems that maintain inequality and leave main power in the hands of the very few.

Oh certainly, but a liberal would do so in open debate. — Tzeentch

I don't think that's necessary to be a liberal just as I don't think it's necessary that a conservative be opposed to an open debate.