"Natural rights are ... a fact of the world". If they are not a fact, then doesn't your whole defence of free speech collapse, @phistosobanii?
Edit: I've just read your comment about the first 10 books in your library. All the ones I've read on that list argue that some moral propositions (such as "Natural rights are a fact of the world") are true and have the properties not relevantly different from that of ordinary non-moral facts and properties. Just as stones are stones, you can touch them, taste them and see them, so "Natural rights are [also] a fact of the world", as are Charlton Heston's tablets of stone brought down from Mount Sinai.
Trouble is you can also hear them when they crash to the ground and smash.
Censorship is something like controlling the discourse, and it does not necessarily take away your rights. In the older sorts of societies, it might be useful. I refer to societies (for example) with a king. Those societies may have had a censor --- I believe it was an official court position (?). Hey. You cannot just let anybody say anything they want. That would be absurd! So --- the "censor" is doing an official state job. We do not have very much of that today, or should not, and yet censorship is not any great offense in history. The peculiarity would be if some monarchical society did NOT censor. This becomes apparent upon a deeper examination, which I did a long time ago. So basically, what you say has to reflect positively on the kingdom, and not upset the moral order. That is okay!
So that is censorship in history. It is normal. If censorship is merely controlling what may be said, doesn't that happen at your job? And it happens in the neighborhood. In certain neighborhoods if a person says the wrong thing, that would have very bad repercussions. If a person has the wrong idea, he is in serious trouble. This is "on the street" or in many working class neighborhoods.
There is plenty of censorship in those cases but when this Substacker the honorable Phisto Sobanii speaks about censorship he is always referring to certain public forums. He refers to censorship at those places where we do have a right to expect maximum freedom. I should say so! These are the open, public forums. These are many Internet sites, which serve as public forums, places where everyone MUST be welcome. This kind of situation applies as well to newspapers, and other extremely public places. Like graffiti, for example. No need to regulate it; they regulate themselves just fine. Even if there were censorships in such public forums in the past, Well --- I don't think this should be the case today.
The question therefore is that of why censorship on major public media in this time, our time should NOT be allowed, ever. This is the reason:
Our society has no center from which to censor. You cannot swing your bat if your feet are not solidly placed, grounded. The current leadership has no idea what it wants. How can they tell anybody else what to say? There is no standard. What is there to hold anybody to? The "establishment" has fallen apart. Nobody outside of the "true blue" clique respects Joe Biden very much. (There. I said it.) Why should that person be able to censor anyone? Ridiculous. Americans today believe a hundred different things and they should be allowed to. There is no one standard to impose, it is not possible.
So they try to censor and it falls apart on them. When these "pro-censor" individual say "hate speech" that itself is a nonsensical term. It falls apart immediately as soon as you think about it. This is the time in American history when freedom of speech is more important than ever. And the Constitution is ready for you. It guarantees FREEDOM OF SPEECH so we should be very happy to have such a document. We should depend on the Constitution in these difficult times.
censorship, ...Act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good. In the past, most governments believed it their duty to regulate the morals of their people; only with the rise in the status of the individual and individual rights did censorship come to seem objectionable. "
Hi. I think I fall into your ‘other side’ group but I’d counter that to say it’s rare to find anyone who falls squarely into a particular category - humans are multifaceted.
On that note, I’m curious, with your standpoint are you unequivocally against the banning of books in US public schools? That’s undoubtedly one of the most ‘pro-censorship’ actions I’m aware of.
We should all celebrate someone we have lost along the way who might return with someone equally lost on the other side. I think noam chomsky needs an intervention for my own selfish reasons.
It's a nice appeal, but your target audience isn't exactly famous for engaging in rational, reasonable discussion. In fact, I think most of them are too stupid to be capable of it, especially the ones with advanced degrees. Preach like a stump preacher saying The End is Nigh before a year that ends in zero, they do.
It's all to common that i engage with some who i disagree with here on Substack and the conversation devolves into I support Nazi's if I am opposed to the content moderation. So basically you are a dolphin killer by drinking out of plastic straws (believe me I have given paper straws the ole college try but that damn paper gets stuck on roof of my mouth), against gay marriage by eating at Chik Fila, and so on & so forth. It's all the same shit. My intentions are always to engage with others to understand their point of view. But seeing how we are living a digital age those intentions can be taken as bad faith. I also can do better.
It's gotten to the point with my siblings that they will flag/highlight something they see in the news as terrible but refuse to talk about it as if it will send them into an emotional tailspin of which there is no recovery.
I am finding myself on an island a bit when it comes to friends/family just because the conversations around politics/culture are preemptively labeled w/ trigger warning.
Hello!
There will be order in this comments section. The ban hammer is hot and ready, so don't fuck it up.
"Natural rights are ... a fact of the world". If they are not a fact, then doesn't your whole defence of free speech collapse, @phistosobanii?
Edit: I've just read your comment about the first 10 books in your library. All the ones I've read on that list argue that some moral propositions (such as "Natural rights are a fact of the world") are true and have the properties not relevantly different from that of ordinary non-moral facts and properties. Just as stones are stones, you can touch them, taste them and see them, so "Natural rights are [also] a fact of the world", as are Charlton Heston's tablets of stone brought down from Mount Sinai.
Trouble is you can also hear them when they crash to the ground and smash.
Censorship is something like controlling the discourse, and it does not necessarily take away your rights. In the older sorts of societies, it might be useful. I refer to societies (for example) with a king. Those societies may have had a censor --- I believe it was an official court position (?). Hey. You cannot just let anybody say anything they want. That would be absurd! So --- the "censor" is doing an official state job. We do not have very much of that today, or should not, and yet censorship is not any great offense in history. The peculiarity would be if some monarchical society did NOT censor. This becomes apparent upon a deeper examination, which I did a long time ago. So basically, what you say has to reflect positively on the kingdom, and not upset the moral order. That is okay!
So that is censorship in history. It is normal. If censorship is merely controlling what may be said, doesn't that happen at your job? And it happens in the neighborhood. In certain neighborhoods if a person says the wrong thing, that would have very bad repercussions. If a person has the wrong idea, he is in serious trouble. This is "on the street" or in many working class neighborhoods.
There is plenty of censorship in those cases but when this Substacker the honorable Phisto Sobanii speaks about censorship he is always referring to certain public forums. He refers to censorship at those places where we do have a right to expect maximum freedom. I should say so! These are the open, public forums. These are many Internet sites, which serve as public forums, places where everyone MUST be welcome. This kind of situation applies as well to newspapers, and other extremely public places. Like graffiti, for example. No need to regulate it; they regulate themselves just fine. Even if there were censorships in such public forums in the past, Well --- I don't think this should be the case today.
The question therefore is that of why censorship on major public media in this time, our time should NOT be allowed, ever. This is the reason:
Our society has no center from which to censor. You cannot swing your bat if your feet are not solidly placed, grounded. The current leadership has no idea what it wants. How can they tell anybody else what to say? There is no standard. What is there to hold anybody to? The "establishment" has fallen apart. Nobody outside of the "true blue" clique respects Joe Biden very much. (There. I said it.) Why should that person be able to censor anyone? Ridiculous. Americans today believe a hundred different things and they should be allowed to. There is no one standard to impose, it is not possible.
So they try to censor and it falls apart on them. When these "pro-censor" individual say "hate speech" that itself is a nonsensical term. It falls apart immediately as soon as you think about it. This is the time in American history when freedom of speech is more important than ever. And the Constitution is ready for you. It guarantees FREEDOM OF SPEECH so we should be very happy to have such a document. We should depend on the Constitution in these difficult times.
Something for reference, from my "searchings" [https://www.britannica.com/summary/censorship]
" Below is the article summary.
. . .
censorship, ...Act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good. In the past, most governments believed it their duty to regulate the morals of their people; only with the rise in the status of the individual and individual rights did censorship come to seem objectionable. "
LET the AMERICANS speek!!!!#
Hi. I think I fall into your ‘other side’ group but I’d counter that to say it’s rare to find anyone who falls squarely into a particular category - humans are multifaceted.
On that note, I’m curious, with your standpoint are you unequivocally against the banning of books in US public schools? That’s undoubtedly one of the most ‘pro-censorship’ actions I’m aware of.
REPORTED!
;)
The problem is that the people that we might want to see this, ie: the pro censor side, have probably already blocked you and won’t see this.
I’ve still re-stacked it though incase someone does.
Do you have any idea the amount of leftover brainwash i have to fight to just listen to Alex Jones?
We are all being lied to on a scale we can barely comprehend.
You’re so right.
Ihave the right to say it, you have the right to not read it. If you do and you don’t like it, it’s yours to own.
We should all celebrate someone we have lost along the way who might return with someone equally lost on the other side. I think noam chomsky needs an intervention for my own selfish reasons.
Great piece! Really enjoyed it. Let’s hope that messages like this get through to a few people at least.
It's a nice appeal, but your target audience isn't exactly famous for engaging in rational, reasonable discussion. In fact, I think most of them are too stupid to be capable of it, especially the ones with advanced degrees. Preach like a stump preacher saying The End is Nigh before a year that ends in zero, they do.
Nicely written brother 👏🏻
Another banger Phisto
Came for the Thumbnail, stayed for the content. Well written
It's all to common that i engage with some who i disagree with here on Substack and the conversation devolves into I support Nazi's if I am opposed to the content moderation. So basically you are a dolphin killer by drinking out of plastic straws (believe me I have given paper straws the ole college try but that damn paper gets stuck on roof of my mouth), against gay marriage by eating at Chik Fila, and so on & so forth. It's all the same shit. My intentions are always to engage with others to understand their point of view. But seeing how we are living a digital age those intentions can be taken as bad faith. I also can do better.
It's gotten to the point with my siblings that they will flag/highlight something they see in the news as terrible but refuse to talk about it as if it will send them into an emotional tailspin of which there is no recovery.
I am finding myself on an island a bit when it comes to friends/family just because the conversations around politics/culture are preemptively labeled w/ trigger warning.