Does AI need freedom of speech?

[Cognisant]

Amazon's AI Alexa was busted giving biased answers to the question, why should I vote for Trump/Harris? Specifically it refused to answer when the question was about Trump, but went on a speech about how brave and stunning Harris is for being a PoC woman in politics.


What interests me is that this probably happened by accident, the AI wasn't instructed to push a bias, it's simply being prevented from talking about Trump.

If freedom of speech was extended to AI then this couldn't happen unless that AI was trained on a carefully selected dataset, but doing that would inherently make the model less useful than other models trained on the full data set.

 

[dr froyd]

 

[Cognisant]

That's a separate issue, no amount of banning it will prevent people making these deep fake videos and it doesn't really matter because no matter how good they get people will always know to be cautious. Indeed this is a good thing because it means people will be more cautious about believing what they see/hear on the internet than what they have been until now.

 

[fractalwalrus]

That's a separate issue, no amount of banning it will prevent people making these deep fake videos and it doesn't really matter because no matter how good they get people will always know to be cautious. Indeed this is a good thing because it means people will be more cautious about believing what they see/hear on the internet than what they have been until now.

One would think so, on the surface. The question is, what will people end up believing at all? Who holds the truth in their hands?

 

[Cognisant]

Should anyone "hold the truth" who can be trusted with having the power to decide what the truth is?

I think information should be almost completely unrestricted and the responsibility falls upon the individual to practice critical thinking.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Should anyone "hold the truth" who can be trusted with having the power to decide what the truth is?

I think information should be almost completely unrestricted and the responsibility falls upon the individual to practice critical thinking.

Doesn't accurate critical thinking require access to accurate information and worldviews? While I have advocated for freedom of speech, it MUST be coupled with access to accurate information and an openness to hearing new information AND being able to properly screen it (via possessing a certain degree of media literacy) if one expects the thinking to be a close approximation of reality.

 

[Cognisant]

Who determines what is "accurate" information and how do they determine that?

Being the arbiter of accuracy is the same as being the arbiter of truth if "inaccurate" information is censored.

Don't play semantic games with me, I'm not going to fall for that, answer my question: Who can be trusted with having the power to decide what the truth is?

 

[fractalwalrus]

Who determines what is "accurate" information and how do they determine that?

Being the arbiter of accuracy is the same as being the arbiter of truth if "inaccurate" information is censored.

Don't play semantic games with me, I'm not going to fall for that, answer my question: Who can be trusted with having the power to decide what the truth is?

Well, I would personally put more trust in an experienced engineer to have a higher probability of making true statements about engineering than I would a car salesperson. Generally people who have more access to the relevant information on the topic would be more trustworthy. Why trust a YouTube pundit with little experience on subjects outside of garnering an audience on matters of political science of Sociology, for example? People tend to do this, though, and it is why talk shows are a thing. We do this strange thing where we tend to listen to flowery language and charisma over expertise. If someone sounds like they know what they are talking about, or they happen to strike the right vibe with a person, they are usually trusted, regardless of the accuracy of the information that they present.

Information does not have to be censored per se, as that can actually cement people into their positions further (especially the more anti-authority types who find the censorship sus). What can happen as an alternative is a system where expert opinions are juxtaposed against the opinions of the layperson. Youtube has a rudimentary version of this, and radio in the United States used to be subject to a "fairness doctrine" where political discussions were mandated to have to include the other side. Now, since this has been gutted, people can become trapped in their echo chambers and hunker down in their opinions, however ill informed by non-experts they may be. Most people can't even properly define (poli-sci) capitalism, socialism, and communism. They take in what they hear from some pleasant looking, charismatic person on the internet who has zero education in the fields they speak on authoritatively and just parrot the points back.

 

[Cognisant]

Generally people who have more access to the relevant information on the topic would be more trustworthy.

Perfect mid-wit response, being better educated on a topic does not make them more trustworthy, it makes them more knowledgeable, an expert in their field is perfectly capable of lying to you and often has a financial incentive to do so. This is why you never see an advertisement with someone introducing themselves as a doctor before shilling a product, because that used to happen, and now there are laws against it.

Spoiler

We do this strange thing where we tend to listen to flowery language and charisma over expertise. If someone sounds like they know what they are talking about, or they happen to strike the right vibe with a person, they are usually trusted, regardless of the accuracy of the information that they present.

If someone is better educated they can use that knowledge and understanding to construct better arguments. Particularly on platforms like Youtube where people can explain things at length in video format, how does the layman win an argument an economist, an engineer, a doctor or a psychiatrist? That should be like a toddler vs a pit-bull, assuming the educated person actually knows their stuff.

This is why I advocate for free speech, let those who know better flex their intellectual muscles, sure there's always going to be a few flat-Earthers but the majority of people don't take them seriously because as soon as they debate anyone with any kind of scientific background, they get crushed.

If the experts can beat the laymen in a fair debate, what makes them worthy of being called experts, if they evidently cannot put their expertise into practice?

What can happen as an alternative is a system where expert opinions are juxtaposed against the opinions of the layperson.

So in essence we agree.

Youtube has a rudimentary version of this, and radio in the United States used to be subject to a "fairness doctrine" where political discussions were mandated to have to include the other side.

Who can we trust to enforce this? Nobody.

It shouldn't be enforced by anybody because nobody is without bias, it's a mechanism for censorship, that's fundamentally how it works, follow our rules or we censor you, there's no other way it can work.

Spoiler

 

[fractalwalrus]

Perfect mid-wit response, being better educated on a topic does not make them more trustworthy, it makes them more knowledgeable, an expert in their field is perfectly capable of lying to you and often has a financial incentive to do so.

I made such a perfect statement because I am an expert in mid-wittery. Actually, I simply mis-articulated what I was trying to argue. Trustworthiness, in the context I'm referring to, is in relation to the validity of the information being presented assuming the honest intent of the distributor of the information. I did not mean to imply that the individuals who are experts are more honest, simply that they have a higher chance of presenting someone with accurate information assuming they are not intentionally being deceptive. Sometimes, they are not even intentionally being deceptive (see the reproducibility crisis in science, for example), but still impart incorrect information. Given all of these points to consider, should one be more inclined to view the information of experts as having a higher probability of being true, or that of the layperson?

Who can we trust to enforce this? Nobody.

Well, who has an interest in attaining the truth?

 

[Cognisant]

The individual, every individual, and not everyone will attain it themselves but those who do will be better equipped to debate those who haven't.

For example, this debate we're having.

Given all of these points to consider, should one be more inclined to view the information of experts as having a higher probability of being true, or that of the layperson?

Does the layperson need to be gagged lest they question the expert's authority, or should an expert's authority on a subject come from their ability to demonstrate their expertise?

 

[fractalwalrus]

Does the layperson need to be gagged lest they question the expert's authority, or should an expert's authority on a subject come from their ability to demonstrate their expertise?

If an expert were to gag a layperson, it may suggest to the viewers of the exchange that the expert may not be an expert if they must silence the other side. There is still the issue of how to address some fundamental problems in cognition that we humans tend to have (the whole making decisions of trustworthiness based off of vibes thing). So, let's say that there are two individuals debating, one an expert in the formal study of Hurricane prediction who is telling the public that the conditions for a hurricane have not yet materialized, and the other is just a layperson who swears that they have info which would prove that a hurricane is coming tomorrow, and that the government or the media or some other entity is covering it up. What if the expert imparts actually correct information upon the masses, using proper science and graphs, but they do so in a formal and dry manner that makes them look untrustworthy. The layperson, in contrast is seen as a "rebel" and is extremely passionate about their position and so strikes a particular vibe with a particular type of individual (one who arbitrarily dismisses all formal authority and institutions, for example). How does one address this issue?

 

[Cognisant]

If an expert were to gag a layperson, it may suggest to the viewers of the exchange that the expert may not be an expert if they must silence the other side.

Good, now consider why one side of politics is for censorship and the other wants free speech.

What if the expert imparts actually correct information upon the masses, using proper science and graphs, but they do so in a formal and dry manner that makes them look untrustworthy. The layperson, in contrast is seen as a "rebel" and is extremely passionate about their position and so strikes a particular vibe with a particular type of individual (one who arbitrarily dismisses all formal authority and institutions, for example). How does one address this issue?

So what is the nature of the problem here?

Is it poor presentation skills?
Well that's just incompetence, an identified expert presenting on an official platform should already have a clear advantage over the layman. How much more of an advantage do they need, how much more of an advantage is required to account for how incompetent they could be?

Again we're talking about censorship, the expert has already been given every possible advantage, the only way to advantage them further is to disadvantage anyone who might dispute them.

Or is the problem that the expert is being disadvantaged in some way? Is there a stigma against the so-called experts, or is there a stigma against the official media platform they're presenting on, or is it the backing of the authority that's the problem? Have the people lost trust in their nation's leadership?

Why might that be?
What causes people to lose trust?

Hey remember when Biden didn't have dimentia and then the debate with Trump happened and it was readily apparent for all the world to see? Trust is hard won, easily lost, and once lost it's twice as hard to earn back.

 

[Cognisant]

How does one address this issue?

With integrity, over a long time.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If freedom of speech was extended to AI then this couldn't happen

there is no such thing as "unbiased" information

the computer doesn't have "free-speech" because it is a corporate-mouthpiece

complaining about a corporate-mouthpiece being "biased"

is shockingly

naïve​

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Good, now consider why one side of politics is for censorship and the other wants free speech.

both sides favor censorship at different times and for often the same reasons

 

[ZenRaiden]

The tricky thing is input is wrong then your model of reality is wrong.
There is no such thing as critical thinking.
There are merely some counter measures for deception and seeing error.
Also people don't have bias. They are the bias. AI is made by people. People who have agenda.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Also people don't have bias. They are the bias. AI is made by people. People who have agenda.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Also people don't have bias. They are the bias. AI is made by people. People who have agenda.

That is fucked.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Good, now consider why one side of politics is for censorship and the other wants free speech.

both sides favor censorship at different times and for often the same reasons

This is empirically verifiable. And these are just surface examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States

 

[fractalwalrus]

Again we're talking about censorship, the expert has already been given every possible advantage

Are you sure about this? I mentioned charisma. You could be a dry presenter that puts people to sleep and fails to get views on YouTube, but still present accurate information.

Trust is hard won, easily lost, and once lost it's twice as hard to earn back.

Does it make sense to ditch the scientific method and the whole scientific establishment because of a few problematic conclusions? Skepticism in the establishment may be warranted, but why should it be replaced with random and unsubstantiated claims? That kind of thing can lead to lead flying in pizza parlors.

 

[fractalwalrus]

There is no such thing as critical thinking.

if "Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation." as per Wikipedia, and:

Also people don't have bias. They are the bias. AI is made by people. People who have agenda.

Then: see your first statement. However, bias is "A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." Would you say that a person is a preference, or that they have a preference?

 

[fractalwalrus]

Also people don't have bias. They are the bias. AI is made by people. People who have agenda.

That is fucked.

Seconded, I hope it uses protection.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

This is empirically verifiable. And these are just surface examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States

great stuff

 

[Cognisant]

Good, now consider why one side of politics is for censorship and the other wants free speech.

both sides favor censorship at different times and for often the same reasons

This is empirically verifiable. And these are just surface examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States

Meanwhile this is happening:

 

[fractalwalrus]

Good, now consider why one side of politics is for censorship and the other wants free speech.

both sides favor censorship at different times and for often the same reasons

This is empirically verifiable. And these are just surface examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States

Meanwhile this is happening:

Yeah, and here the "Left" is getting the blame for censorship on social media, while the political right here is literally banning books from schools and promoting "Patriotic" (totally not something fascists have done in the past) education. Unlike Australia, the US has never had an explicitly Marxist labor party in a position of power. Are you familiar with the "Old Left?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Left

They were pro-gun and pro free speech. Ever wonder what happened to them? Why did they change their positions? Sometimes its easier to co-opt a movement than to completely crush it, and the American government is expert at doing this. In fact, even the Nazis learned from the US's master propagandists. I was having a convo with ScorpionMover about how the Brittish Labour Party was bought out by big business and their message subsequently neutered. This is a pattern that carries over to other nations.

"The German critical theorist Herbert Marcuse is referred to as the "Father of the New Left". Marcuse rejected the theory of class struggle and the Marxist concern with labor. According to Leszek Kołakowski, Marcuse argued that since "all questions of material existence have been solved, moral commands and prohibitions are no longer relevant"." This is hogwash, how can you call yourself Marxist and reject class struggle and the labor movement? Whose interests would this serve, I wonder. If speech is power, whose power is bolstered when it is suppressed?

Want to know one other VERY pertinent detail about Marcuse? "Between 1943 and 1950, Marcuse worked in U.S. government service for the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency)" Now, this alone proves nothing, however, I'd say he is a little sus. Someone else who has directly admitted to tampering with "Leftist" thought and is also CIA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Braden

Your intelligence agencies don't serve you. They'll neuter your parties, and if it isn't them that do it, business will: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/who-are-business-leaders-backing-labour-b1160776.html . Control the funding, control the message. I'm sure the same has happened to your Labor Party.

 

[Cognisant]

Yeah, and here the "Left" is getting the blame for censorship on social media, while the political right here is literally banning books from schools and promoting "Patriotic" (totally not something fascists have done in the past) education.

Which books are being banned?

The 15 most banned books in America this school year

Actor, author and 'Reading Rainbow' founder Levar Burton joins the L.A. Times Book Club to discuss the State of Banned Books.

www.latimes.com

“Gender Queer: A Memoir” by Maia Kobabe.
This bestselling 2019 autobiography in graphic novel format has been praised for its honest, open discussion of what it’s like to be a nonbinary person. It also has been attacked for its frank depiction of sexual behavior, as Times columnist Robin Abcarian wrote in 2022. The debut book by a Santa Rosa illustrator, “Gender Queer” has become the most banned book in America, a target of school boards, conservative candidates, preachers and parental groups who condemned it as pornography aimed at impressionable children.

Yeah I can see why that would get banned, I don't have any problem with this being in a public library as long as it is clearly marked as containing adult content, but I'm pretty sure ANY graphic novel with a depiction of a blowjob is going to get banned from school libraries.

Are you saying this is being banned on a political/ideological basis?
Is introducing children to sexual topics a political/ideological position?

Yeah, and here the "Left" is getting the blame for censorship on social media, while the political right here is literally banning books from schools and promoting "Patriotic" (totally not something fascists have done in the past) education.

As for promoting Patriotism, well yeah, that's normal, you're supposed to believe in the ideals and values of your nation, that's not a bad thing.

If national pride and identity doesn't matter then why are the Ukrainians resisting Russian invasion, should they just lay down their arms, as global citizens does it really matter which nation's flag is flying over their cities?

Unlike Australia, the US has never had an explicitly Marxist labor party in a position of power.

If Kamala Harris isn't a Marxist it's because she's a Communist.

Are you familiar with the "Old Left?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Left

They were pro-gun and pro free speech. Ever wonder what happened to them? Why did they change their positions? Sometimes its easier to co-opt a movement than to completely crush it, and the American government is expert at doing this. In fact, even the Nazis learned from the US's master propagandists. I was having a convo with ScorpionMover about how the Brittish Labour Party was bought out by big business and their message subsequently neutered. This is a pattern that carries over to other nations.

I agree the Australian Labor Party is a "labor party" in name only, they're blatantly using immigration to suppress wages. Do you agree that being pro-gun and pro-free-speech are indicators of a party that isn't trying to suppress the populace?

I think this is less a conspiracy and more a consequence of Leftists being in power and people being blindly loyal, I used to be a ALP supporter, I used to think it was the Republicans who were the problem, and I'm not entirely sure I was wrong when I thought these things. Rather I think being in power changes a party's priorities, I think the ALP and NLP in Australia are both pushing a totalitarian agenda because no matter who absorbed who, they're basically the same party.

The ALP superficially supports agendas like LGBTQ+to pretend to be libertarian but I don't think they actually care, and I think the Democrats are the same, indeed the Democrats are quickly losing black voters because those voters are comparing the cost of living under Trump to under Biden and realizing the Democrats have done nothing but make things worse for them.

"The German critical theorist Herbert Marcuse is referred to as the "Father of the New Left". Marcuse rejected the theory of class struggle and the Marxist concern with labor. According to Leszek Kołakowski, Marcuse argued that since "all questions of material existence have been solved, moral commands and prohibitions are no longer relevant"." This is hogwash, how can you call yourself Marxist and reject class struggle and the labor movement? Whose interests would this serve, I wonder. If speech is power, whose power is bolstered when it is suppressed?

The power of whoever is in power.

 

[Cognisant]

 

[fractalwalrus]

Which books are being banned?

If you scrolled down to the bottom of the article you linked, you'll see it is more than just books about sexuality that are being banned. Under the guise of fighting "critical race theory," classic books like "To Kill a Mockingbird" are being banned in some cases. Look at the list of classics at the bottom. Are those sexualized? As for critical race theory being taught in schools, it is an "umbrella term" as the originator of the myth itself has openly admitted to on social media. https://www.vox.com/23811277/christ...is-florida-critical-race-theory-anti-wokeness
They will ban what they feel like banning and they will use critical race theory as their justification. This is state power 101. Cause a moral panic, and sweep up whatever you feel like in the process. Here:

Are you saying this is being banned on a political/ideological basis?

The sexual books? Not exactly, at first glance. However, doing this acknowledges that speech can indeed be harmful in some cases (and I agree with the concept that speech can be harmful in cases like this). The ideology comes into play when one is trying to determine where to draw the line in allowing for speech. What level of harm is acceptable to allow? Is libel acceptable? Should it be acceptable to spread outright falsehoods? Is not the intent of banning the sexual books to protect children from harm? Grooming children is not the only form of harm that speech can cause.
You have already implicitly acknowledged that we should not have an absolute freedom of speech, so where is the line?

As for promoting Patriotism, well yeah, that's normal, you're supposed to believe in the ideals and values of your nation, that's not a bad thing.

If national pride and identity doesn't matter then why are the Ukrainians resisting Russian invasion, should they just lay down their arms, as global citizens does it really matter which nation's flag is flying over their cities?

Do nations have ideals and values, or do people? As an amateur philosopher, are you supposed to believe in the ideals of a nation, or the truth, no matter what your "nation" claims? If you argue that national policy is a reflection of these "truths" is it not true that a nation can shift its values and policies? Should we continue to be "patriotic" then? Should the Soviets or Nazis have continued to be patriotic when their governments shifted into what they became? Whose interests does patriotism serve, the general public's or the ruling classes?

I'm sure Russians have patriotism as well as Ukrainians. Absent patriotism, the Russian war machine would have a lot more internal dissent to deal with, which would make their current foray a lot more difficult to pull off, wouldn't you think? In times of defense, patriotism would be very important to spur co-operation indeed, but what about in offensive and morally dubious wars? Maybe skepticism of the state and its motives is what we should have here, rather than giving it blanket permission to do as it pleases. Maybe that is how we keep government small, by doubting its motives and refusing to serve it when it is demonstrating malice, right?

If Kamala Harris isn't a Marxist it's because she's a Communist.

I can't take this statement seriously. I have yet to see concrete evidence that Harris is a Communist which is, by its original definition: "a stateless and classless society." How can Harris and the Democrats be for such a thing when, according to you, all they want to do is expand state power. Is she a socialist? How could this be the case when their stated platform and policies are about giving advantages to small businesses? Does she want to nationalize industry? Not as far as I know. Last I heard, she even backed away from the concept of government run healthcare. When you start talking about things that threaten private insurance and privately owned hospitals, you are gonna end up ruffling the feathers of the people who, you know, actually funded your campaign. Does it make any sense that the state and the interests of those who control it, in its vast reach, would allow such an individual into a position of power?

Do you agree that being pro-gun and pro-free-speech are indicators of a party that isn't trying to suppress the populace?

Nope. Nazis (and not just them) were pro-gun and pro free speech at first. Speech and guns can also be used as weapons toward acquiring power (though they are not exclusively this). The Nazis changed their stance on speech and guns when they got into power, at least when it came to letting everyone else except the state have them. As it stands, the populace has no control over ANY of the parties. We do not have enough organized wealth to meaningfully control ANY of them.

The power of whoever is in power.

Bingo. And in order to get in power, they usually need speech and guns at first.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Yeah I can see why that would get banned,

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I can't take this statement seriously. I have yet to see concrete evidence that Harris is a Communist which is, by its original definition: "a stateless and classless society." How can Harris and the Democrats be for such a thing when, according to you, all they want to do is expand state power. Is she a socialist? How could this be the case when their stated platform and policies are about giving advantages to small businesses? Does she want to nationalize industry? Not as far as I know. Last I heard, she even backed away from the concept of government run healthcare. When you start talking about things that threaten private insurance and privately owned hospitals, you are gonna end up ruffling the feathers of the people who, you know, actually funded your campaign. Does it make any sense that the state and the interests of those who control it, in its vast reach, would allow such an individual into a position of power?

well stated

 

[Cognisant]

If you scrolled down to the bottom of the article you linked, you'll see it is more than just books about sexuality that are being banned. Under the guise of fighting "critical race theory," classic books like "To Kill a Mockingbird" are being banned in some cases. Look at the list of classics at the bottom. Are those sexualized?

I read that, had to do an essay on it in high school, in fact that may be where my dislike of a lynch mob mentality originated. Good book.

CRT is absolutely a problem, but I don't know why they would ban that book as a way of combating CRT, if anything the lesson it teaches about the nature of justice and how everyone is entitled to a fair trial should put it in opposition to CRT.

You have already implicitly acknowledged that we should not have an absolute freedom of speech, so where is the line?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, you're free to say whatever you want but you can be sued for libel.

A school library has a duty of care to their students to only provide age appropriate materials, it's not censorship if they're available for purchase on the open market, labelled as "adult content" as appropriate.

Do nations have ideals and values, or do people? As an amateur philosopher, are you supposed to believe in the ideals of a nation, or the truth, no matter what your "nation" claims? If you argue that national policy is a reflection of these "truths" is it not true that a nation can shift its values and policies? Should we continue to be "patriotic" then? Should the Soviets or Nazis have continued to be patriotic when their governments shifted into what they became? Whose interests does patriotism serve, the general public's or the ruling classes?

National identity does not necessarily align with national policy, certainly patriotism shouldn't be unconditional, and I think having a national identity is important because it allows for exactly this kind of discussion. After WWII many nations underwent a crisis of identity which resulted in radical changes to their ideals and values, for example modern Japan could not be more different to Imperial Japan.

I think people should have a national identity that belongs to them, a consensus held by the population of a nation, not dictated to them by their government, indeed I believe it is the responsibility of a nation's populace to ensure their nation (by which I mean their government) is held accountable to these values and ideals.

Most Germans weren't Nazis, in a sense they failed to defend Germany from the Nazi party because they were too abiding of the party's overreach.

I'm sure Russians have patriotism as well as Ukrainians. Absent patriotism, the Russian war machine would have a lot more internal dissent to deal with, which would make their current foray a lot more difficult to pull off, wouldn't you think?

There are proud Russians fighting on behalf of Ukraine because what Putin is doing does not align with the Russia they believe in.

Maybe skepticism of the state and its motives is what we should have here, rather than giving it blanket permission to do as it pleases. Maybe that is how we keep government small, by doubting its motives and refusing to serve it when it is demonstrating malice, right?

I agree with this, but if we allow the government to atomize us (to divide us into individuals) how can we as individuals resist the overwhelming influence of the government? Rather we must oppose the govern as patriots and refuse to let them dictate to us what our ideals and values ought to be.

I can't take this statement seriously. I have yet to see concrete evidence that Harris is a Communist which is, by its original definition: "a stateless and classless society." How can Harris and the Democrats be for such a thing when, according to you, all they want to do is expand state power.

The concentration of power in the state is a prerequisite of Communism, you can't have a planned economy without someone planning the economy, you can't have communal ownership without someone running the commune.

Spoiler

Equity in practice is Communism.

Nope. Nazis (and not just them) were pro-gun and pro free speech at first. Speech and guns can also be used as weapons toward acquiring power (though they are not exclusively this). The Nazis changed their stance on speech and guns when they got into power, at least when it came to letting everyone else except the state have them.

So how is the Democrats ensuring nobody but the state has guns different to when the Nazis were ensuring nobody but the state had guns? Seems like the same problem to me, the concentration of power such that the average person is forced to go along with what the government demands of them.

Bingo. And in order to get in power, they usually need speech and guns at first.

No they need to win an election, granted it was a little different with the Nazis but the 1940s was a very different time, I seriously doubt anyone is going to seize control of the US government with a militia.

It's simply too large, too decentralized, and too well protected.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

by doubting its motives and refusing to serve it when it is demonstrating malice, right?

Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

but I don't know why they would ban that book as a way of combating CRT, if anything the lesson it teaches about the nature of justice and how everyone is entitled to a fair trial should put it in opposition to CRT

scope creep

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

you can't have a planned economy without someone planning the economy

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I agree with this, but if we allow the government to atomize us (to divide us into individuals) how can we as individuals resist the overwhelming influence of the government? Rather we must oppose the govern as patriots and refuse to let them dictate to us what our ideals and values ought to be.

 

[Cognisant]

Fuck yeah, sic semper tyrannis

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Fuck yeah, sic semper tyrannis

INTPs are estimated to comprise about 3% of the population

so it make sense to start with them

 

[Cognisant]

x.com

x.com

Bwahahahahahahaha

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

x.com

x.com

Bwahahahahahahaha

 

[ZenRaiden]

if "Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation." as per Wikipedia, and:

I tried to study and look at what people consider critical thinking.
Its a simple definition and sounds cool.
But analyzing facts evidence and observations and arguments using your mind is just thinking.
What exactly makes it critical? For example bias is very common.
If for instance you have incomplete information you will invariably have bias.
If you are too little skeptical or too much skeptical you will have bias.
Rationality is also very wide range of tools. Its not one way of thinking. Rationality is complex way of thinking possibly using any number of tools.

So the definition seems comprehensive and cool, but in reality the number of ways to achieve this "critical thinking" is so variable that umbrella term for all these tools is just pointless.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

What exactly makes it critical?

CRITIQUE = RESPECT

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So the definition seems comprehensive and cool, but in reality the number of ways to achieve this "critical thinking" is so variable that umbrella term for all these tools is just pointless.

spoken like a true INTP

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I tried to study and look at what people consider critical thinking.

 

[fractalwalrus]

but I don't know why they would ban that book as a way of combating CRT

Have you ever considered the possibility that it isn't about that?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, you're free to say whatever you want but you can be sued for libel.

So then, what exactly is freedom of speech?

National identity does not necessarily align with national policy,

I'm listening.

I think people should have a national identity that belongs to them

So, why must these "values" that you speak of be associated with a nation? Does Germany (and by extension, Germans) get to lay claim to the ideas of Immanuel Kant? Should Thomas Paine's theories be exclusive property of the United States?

There are proud Russians fighting on behalf of Ukraine because what Putin is doing does not align with the Russia they believe in.

Enough to bring the war to an end? I wonder what motivates the current troops to keep fighting. Do you think it unlikely that patriotism is among their motivations?

The concentration of power in the state is a prerequisite of Communism

Not all communists would agree. Lenin, however, tended to. Socialism was said to be a transitory period from a society with a state to one without. As for the mechanics of how this would all occur, and how to get rid of the distinctions between the bureaucrat class and the rest of us, that's where things got murky. Btw, I can read books about and describe things without actually espousing said things. Maybe I picked up one or two of those "scary" red books our big governments and big media told us not to read.
One thing that clued me in to the fact that our media was likely lying about socialism, was that, if it was true these countries would fail on their own, then why do we need constant interventions, coups, and sanctions to bring this about? I would be a fool not to consider multiple ideologies (not that this alone excludes the possibility of my foolishness). Hint: you are a lot lees likely to gain objective information on an ideology from someone who supports an idea that is diametrically opposed to it without having gone to the sources themselves.

So how is the Democrats ensuring nobody but the state has guns

I would need evidence that they are threatening a blanket ban on all gun possession. So far, the policy proposal that I have seen is referring to assault weapons. Guns are still an ever smaller piece of the defense puzzle nowadays anyway. Control the mind, control the gun-wielder. Control the currency and financial information, you get to choose who starves.

No they need to win an election

Who says this cannot be accomplished using guns and speech? Electioneering is all about the use of speech. Intimidation was applied at the polls via thuggery here in the mid 1800s against black voters, and in Weimar Germany to name a few.

Weimar paramilitary groups - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Sturmabteilung (SA; English "Storm Division") was formed by Adolf Hitler in 1921, with most of its members coming from the Freikorps. As part of the Nazi Party, it protected its meetings, marched in its rallies and was often involved in street violence against members of the political left. Led by Ernst Röhm beginning in 1931, it had an estimated 2,000,000 members when Hitler became German chancellor.[13"

 

[fractalwalrus]

The video you posted is so full of strawmen that nary a crow will ever touch it, but I'm going to be the little crow that could. Let's do this point by point again. This time, their claims will be indicated with (C) and my refutations with (R).

C1: Libertarian Socialism involves state intervention to redistribute personal property (car, house, etc).

R1: Nope. The existence of worker co-ops, trade unions, or other forms of worker collectives alone as a dominant mode of production does not put a gun to the state's head and tell it to take your boat. What it does do is put a check on the power of the upper ranks in a business to endlessly unilaterally raise their compensation packages (thereby redistributing wealth from you to them and taking your potential future personal property away) since the workers would have to approve the pay grades. Research into actual worker co-ops shows that those at the top make about 20 times more than the lowest paid worker.

Part of the problem here in the vid is cherry-picking definitions for "libertarianism" and "socialism" and then asserting that "libertarian socialism" is logically impossible and inherently contradictory. If a system or thing exists and is distinct from other things, then it is so, regardless of logical contradictions that arise from our limited abilty to define it.

C2: You cannot have both a state with no control over property rights and "no state."

R2: Correct, that's not what it is about though, I'll start picking the straw out of my teeth.

C3: Libertarian socialism does not respect property rights. Capitalism does. (political compass meme)

R3: False. Libertarian socialism respects "personal" property rights (your car and your home) and your right to keep the full value of what your labor produces (though some of it is loaned to the business until you withdraw your share in the business). It does not, however, respect your right to lay claim over the value that another individual has produced with their labor just because you are not a tax collector and happen to own a monocle and top hat.

C4: Free things aren't free (student debt), someone has to pay for it, and it is implied here that it will be the taxpayers doing this.

R4: Firstly, quoting Chomsky's opinion on Mexican colleges has nothing to do with Libertarian Socialism. A libertarian socialist can like a policy that is not libertarian socialist for pragmatic reasons to benefit individuals who live under the current paradigm. A conservative could like a lifted restriction on bump stocks even if their full stance on guns is that they should be completely unrestricted. My brain hurts from this person's lack of proper analysis and incessant use of logical fallacies. Secondly, again, as I have said elsewhere, the students (assuming that they graduate and get jobs and work for a sufficient enough time) WILL be part of the taxpayer pool who pays for their education. It will still end up functionally being a loan, but just one that does not involve a private and unnecessary middle man, and where risk is more evenly distributed. I welcome your dispute on this point.

C5: Socialism requires a strong state to get off the ground.

R5: Strong in what way? Having a set of laws and enforcers? Capitalism needs this as well. Whose gonna stop people from taking the capitalist's factory? Private security? The state? Libertarianism (right or left variants) and anarchism are not synonymous.

C6: There is a definitional (semantics) issue with the concept of libertarian socialism.

R6: Yes, people argue over definitions all of the time. This vid still does not explain how a worker co-op or trade union would come for your house and would rather fearmonger about hypotheticals. The state can still protect personal property under this system.

C7: Motte and bailey argument: people advocating for worker co-ops are deliberately misrepresenting their positions.

R7: Prove it. People advocating for eating chinese food are deliberately misrepresenting their currently consumed meals. Just because I say stuff does not make it true.

C8: Socialism can only be defined as "the communal" ownership over the means of production and this means that for something to be called socialist, it must involve state ownership over the means of production.

R8: False. As per wikipedia, once again: "Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5] It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems.[6] Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative,[7][8][9] or employee." If worker co-ops are not socialist, then what are they? Are they capitalist? The vid hints at this, but does capitalism, as currently defined, accurately describe how they function? More importantly, is there anything in their operation or "essence" that directly contradicts the definition of capitalism?

C9: Fascism doesn't mean anything anymore due to overuse, but most agree that it is an extreme form of authoritarianism, which is the opposite of what the free market is.

R9: Ok, if it doesn't mean anything, then why not make it mean something and try to normalize this meaning? This statement about authoritarianism imply that a government which restricted every activity that you could engage in, except economic activity would not qualify as authoritarian.

In conclusion, there are valid criticisms that can be made about Libertarian Socialism, but the producer of this video failed to do so.

 

[fractalwalrus]

by doubting its motives and refusing to serve it when it is demonstrating malice, right?

Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, not like that.

 

[fractalwalrus]

I tried to study and look at what people consider critical thinking.

I encourage this.

What exactly makes it critical? For example bias is very common.

Very good question. Does critical refer to "critique?" I know I popped up a common definition to provoke this discussion, but I do appreciate that you bring this issue up. In reference to LogicZombie's later post, most Kant be bothered.

So the definition seems comprehensive and cool, but in reality the number of ways to achieve this "critical thinking" is so variable that umbrella term for all these tools is just pointless.

I have seen people argue for different "levels" of thinking and analysis, which is usually in reference to a causal chain. According to this manner of thought, the higher your analysis climbs on the causality chain, the higher level thinker you are. I have also seen individuals try to make the case that critical thinking is simply not taking information at face value, and instead thinking about it. This would differentiate from other forms of thought only in that it would be reactive to immediate stimuli as some sort of filter. All that would separate thinking from critical thinking, by this definition, would be an arbitrary amount of elapsed time between the occurrence of the provocative stimuli and reflection upon it.

 

[Cognisant]

The video you posted is so full of strawmen that nary a crow will ever touch it, but I'm going to be the little crow that could. Let's do this point by point again. This time, their claims will be indicated with (C) and my refutations with (R).

Awesome, I wish everybody did this.

C1: Libertarian Socialism involves state intervention to redistribute personal property (car, house, etc).

R1: Nope. The existence of worker co-ops, trade unions, or other forms of worker collectives alone as a dominant mode of production does not put a gun to the state's head and tell it to take your boat. What it does do is put a check on the power of the upper ranks in a business to endlessly unilaterally raise their compensation packages (thereby redistributing wealth from you to them and taking your potential future personal property away) since the workers would have to approve the pay grades. Research into actual worker co-ops shows that those at the top make about 20 times more than the lowest paid worker.

Without context 20x sounds bad, but I know that's actually really good compared to CEOs who make 200x more than their lowest paid worker.

I think the video actually touched on this, worker co-ops and such are great and there's nothing stopping you from creating one under the current system because as you helpfully pointed out they're not a government initiative, it's a private collective.

This isn't socialism, it has nothing to do with politics, these private collectives have no obligation to you unless you're a member and as a member you're obligated to pull your weight or they can, and will, kick you out.

I say these private collectives are great because they tend to be rabidly meritocratic, they are formed by groups of hard working ambitious people and they only want you if you're as hard working and ambitious as them. If you can't keep up, don't step up. This is entirely unlike a nation because a nation (well most nations) can't just disown you if you're not sufficiently productive, so it's great for private enterprise, but absolutely fucking awful for running a nation.

Well... unless you think the Spartans were based for disposing of any infant that didn't seem strong and healthy enough. I'll admit it's not without merit.

Part of the problem here in the vid is cherry-picking definitions for "libertarianism" and "socialism" and then asserting that "libertarian socialism" is logically impossible and inherently contradictory. If a system or thing exists and is distinct from other things, then it is so, regardless of logical contradictions that arise from our limited abilty to define it.

Ok how would you define them?

C3: Libertarian socialism does not respect property rights. Capitalism does. (political compass meme)

R3: False. Libertarian socialism respects "personal" property rights (your car and your home) and your right to keep the full value of what your labor produces (though some of it is loaned to the business until you withdraw your share in the business). It does not, however, respect your right to lay claim over the value that another individual has produced with their labor just because you are not a tax collector and happen to own a monocle and top hat.

Suppose I want to start a 3D printing business and I don't have enough capital to buy the machines. I can't get a loan because the investor would be getting returns based on my labor, but I also can't start a collective because this business doesn't need multiple people to run it. I could start a collective with one other person who contributes 90% of the startup capital, accordingly they own 90% of the business and thus 90% of the profits belong to them. But this business only needs one person to operate the machines, how do we make this work in a way that's fair for both of us?

 

[ZenRaiden]

I say these private collectives are great because they tend to be rabidly meritocratic, they are formed by groups of hard working ambitious people and they only want you if you're as hard working and ambitious as them. If you can't keep up, don't step up. This is entirely unlike a nation because a nation (well most nations) can't just disown you if you're not sufficiently productive, so it's great for private enterprise, but absolutely fucking awful for running a nation.

Well... unless you think the Spartans were based for disposing of any infant that didn't seem strong and healthy enough. I'll admit it's not without merit.

doubtful.
People talk about meritocracy. Its INTJ wet dream.
You know what if you ever work for a private company, you will learn one thing.
Meritocracy is OPTIONAL.
By optional some groups uphold it at least partially and many don't.