Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 7:58 pm
Nietzsche wrote that God is dead and we have killed him.
Stephen Hawking said that Philosophy is dead. Science has killed it.
Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of ‘A Brief History of Time’ said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don’t worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”
Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” He said new theories “lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”.
Finally people have evolved and proclaimed that your opinions are dead. They have given you the right to remain silent until you are reeducated. Don't try and hide; just shut up. There are no safe spaces for you if you insist on arguing. God is dead, philosophy is dead, and now your opinions are as good as dead. It is just a matter of time and education. You have the right to remain silent. Be happy for that. With your attitude you could be eliminated or canceled out.
It appears that there is an interpretation of "right to remain silent" as though it was "You have to
remain silent." At least I understood the meaning in context of arrest to be a good thing. So I'm guessing the context is more about presuming that everyone is LIABLE to their words with the further assumption that some unaccountable party gets to lay charges, such as the least offended person.
I see that the link is only a teaser for the documentary, "No Safe Spaces". Did you actually see the documentary? If so, what is the specific stance of the author's intent? I mean, I wouldn't think that 'safe spaces' are now being argued for to regain the privilege to speak free.
I don't get your comparison to Nietzche's "God is dead" along with Hawkings' claims on philosophy. Is this an expression of nihilistic depression? I get the concern of limits to free speech. I'm just not sure what is being proposed to counter those attempting to undermine truth. That is, does the author suggest an alternative means of those who promote fraudulent claims to be held accountable while still maintaining free speech. I am disgusted that the vast majority of people are so intellectually lazy and with such tendency to lean in to emotional appeals OVER the logical ones that I don't know what we can do anymore.
The powerful believe intrinsically in lying as though life is a game using OTHER people as pawns. And even IF they might be of the minority, they tend to have more power to intentionally cause havoc by their belief in utilizing differences in truth to manipulate the masses to RELY on whichever government ideal they are pushing. And IF we are to accept NO accountability of people's words WHEN they speak freely, the only choice we have is to accept the kind of abusers in power who at least harm us least.
I don't know what we can do anymore. I'm tired of the lies. But those proposing NOT to censor the most tend to be the ones who are in need of censorship against their forms of censor they appeal to when or where they themselves have the power. When we get "Q-anon" kind of fucked up thinkers existing everywhere, they would argue for types of systems that are strictly made up of similarly fucked up leaders, all of whom believe in authoritative dictatorial style of governing that ENHANCES such stupidity. In contrast, those in authoritatively intellectual areas tend to favor 'truth' but demand the masses act as though they are children who could not possibly learn to BE more rational without THEM exclusively.
When Trump was speaking on the day of "insurrection" of the Capitol building, he reminded me of Jim Jones' rantings on as he was getting everybody to drink the Cool-aid laced with cyanide. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWqACvTknls
] To me, his behavior only justified the reason for the now predominating belief in censorship. I was disgusted even though I DO believe in free speech. He (Trump) was acting like a cult leader. And if HE had his way, he would have definitely censored others with MORE extreme, ...especially any media that did not present him in ONLY-GOOD light.
So for those of you here who supported him (or other similar 'religious' extremists), why should we accept the arguments in favor of 'free speech' when your form of power ENTAILS lying and deceipt with WORSE concerns to the masses than those demanding the censorship of those who may in the least offend someone? The forms of censorship abuses are coming from everywhere. But given we seem to have all of them in power who prefer some form of 'censorship' regardless, should those of us who are victims of the abuses regardless CHOSE the right-wing style of censorship over the left-wing forms?
The REASON why the left-wing forms of censorship is rising is due to the EXTREMES from the right and, to those on the Left who are just using the side of 'democratic pluralism' unless or until they TOO could be the next 'Right', we are doomed by all sides to HAVE censorship. They just differ in degrees. As such, the masses, especially those of us who are unaffiliated with your religious cults, are being forced to accept the forms that LEAST HARM US! And thus you extreme morons are the CAUSE of censorship, regardless of where you exist politically. And you ruin it for us all. We have no choice when disempowered to pick the democratic
forms of "least-harm" censorship if only due to the fact that the particular forms of censorship by the extremists are worse.
I'd like to hear proposals
of HOW we could possibly have a system that permits open expression with ways that still hold those who use communicating tactics of deception in information exchanges from predominating ruthlessly. Does anyone have such an idea here?