Understanding rights

[Lady tehMa]

While digging a bit into the author of the linked article I came across this:

Dear Mr. Bolotin: I Wish It Were Only That Bad

Take, for example, Bolotin’s description of “the ruling opinions of our own political society”: “These are, I think, a belief in equality and a belief in freedom. We are taught that we are all equal, and we are also taught that we have the right to a very great degree of freedom . . . ” He then claims that such “equality” has come to mean equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunity. This is true to an extent, but even the concept of equality is now out of style, to be replaced by its nefarious cousin, “equity.” That is, it’s no longer enough to insist on equal treatment, or even equal outcomes. We must rather handicap the “privileged” in favor of the “oppressed” in student admissions, faculty hiring, and classroom instruction, therefore creating artificial, unequal outcomes favoring allegedly oppressed groups. Equality, even equality of outcomes, is outdated and has been supplanted by a reparations-centered form of equity.

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/ ... y-that-bad

The entire article, three pages of it, is an interesting read that offers some insight on what is going on, and while the author tends to paint with wide brush strokes he does bring the issue back to one with a familiar face, a lust for individual power.

I hadn't read that one - that is a good article. This particularly resounded with me, and underlined my point:

A recently published NAS critique of five widely used American history textbooks tells the same story.5 These are two examples among many—sadly, Bolotin’s assertion that we’re all taught “a belief in freedom” no longer holds true.

Bolotin goes on to say “freedom requires a questioning of all inherited assumptions, including the most fundamental assumptions of one’s political society—not necessarily a rejection of them, but at least an openness to the possibility that they are wholly or partly false.” When I was at Columbia—ostensibly one of the last great books programs remaining—we were taught something very different: necessarily reject all inherited assumptions and adopt a new set of assumptions and values that must not be questioned under any circumstances.

We need to be able to question beliefs, both ours and others. If we don't, they are meaningless. Being told we are not allowed to question, not allowed to deviate from the accepted narrative is in my opinion an infringement on our rights to our own beliefs. It alarms me that the response to "Look, Orwell is being fulfilled; Groupthink! Newspeak! Doublethink!" is "So?". People don't mind fascism, as long as it supports their own biases - and that terrifies me.

[fluffy]

We need to be able to question beliefs, both ours and others. If we don't, they are meaningless. Being told we are not allowed to question, not allowed to deviate from the accepted narrative is in my opinion an infringement on our rights to our own beliefs. It alarms me that the response to "Look, Orwell is being fulfilled; Groupthink! Newspeak! Doublethink!" is "So?". People don't mind fascism, as long as it supports their own biases - and that terrifies me.

Does the right to question have any value if it's not combined with a genuine intent to seek out reliable answers ? I'm thinking back to the OP and whether or not government should have the right to restrict access to untrustworthy media sources. We have seen so many cases since the beginning of the pandemic where people have taken stands on false information, stands that in turn have served no constructive purpose.

[zoo]

While digging a bit into the author of the linked article I came across this:

Dear Mr. Bolotin: I Wish It Were Only That Bad



https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/ ... y-that-bad

The entire article, three pages of it, is an interesting read that offers some insight on what is going on, and while the author tends to paint with wide brush strokes he does bring the issue back to one with a familiar face, a lust for individual power.

I hadn't read that one - that is a good article. This particularly resounded with me, and underlined my point:

A recently published NAS critique of five widely used American history textbooks tells the same story.5 These are two examples among many—sadly, Bolotin’s assertion that we’re all taught “a belief in freedom” no longer holds true.

Bolotin goes on to say “freedom requires a questioning of all inherited assumptions, including the most fundamental assumptions of one’s political society—not necessarily a rejection of them, but at least an openness to the possibility that they are wholly or partly false.” When I was at Columbia—ostensibly one of the last great books programs remaining—we were taught something very different: necessarily reject all inherited assumptions and adopt a new set of assumptions and values that must not be questioned under any circumstances.

We need to be able to question beliefs, both ours and others. If we don't, they are meaningless. Being told we are not allowed to question, not allowed to deviate from the accepted narrative is in my opinion an infringement on our rights to our own beliefs. It alarms me that the response to "Look, Orwell is being fulfilled; Groupthink! Newspeak! Doublethink!" is "So?". People don't mind fascism, as long as it supports their own biases - and that terrifies me.

[Ka-El]

People don't mind fascism, as long as it supports their own biases - and that terrifies me.

This is the threat of existing fascist forces using the same strategies of historical fascist governments in attacking mainstream media and replacing it with pure propaganda. Real news becomes "fake" and bona fide fake news becomes the truth. Trump and his supporters used this strategy very effectively and Putin is using it now with great effect even beyond his own borders. I don't want to support censorship and I 100% support responsible free speech but I do believe we have to do something about the deliberate spread of disinformation and hate in our society today.

[Ka-El]

When did confused regressives become such a whiney bunch .

I'm thinking around the time AOC was elected.

Why are right-wing regressives so threatened by AOC?

[Ka-El]

Does the right to question have any value if it's not combined with a genuine intent to seek out reliable answers ? I'm thinking back to the OP and whether or not government should have the right to restrict access to untrustworthy media sources. We have seen so many cases since the beginning of the pandemic where people have taken stands on false information, stands that in turn have served no constructive purpose.

And with destructive consequence

[Lady tehMa]

Does the right to question have any value if it's not combined with a genuine intent to seek out reliable answers? I'm thinking back to the OP and whether or not the government should have the right to restrict access to untrustworthy media sources. We have seen so many cases since the beginning of the pandemic where people have taken stands on false information, stands that in turn have served no constructive purpose.

It is my opinion that students these days are being taught what to think, not how to think.

fluffy, I think we are perhaps of a similar age; do you remember being taught how to debate? I remember being in socials and the teacher giving us a topic to debate. He lined us up according to our thoughts on the topic and then handed us the assignment to debate for the opposite side. We had to research. We had to work at understanding the arguments of the proponent. I remember that it gave me a better understanding of - well, everything. I didn't like it at all - it was work.

This is what we need. We need to understand that we are not all inherently correct in our beliefs. We need to look at the data from the other side. We need to try to understand their mindset. Then, and only then can we be confident when we make our own decisions. We can't make them based on knee-jerk reactions (of which I am guilty as the rest) and emotional responses. When we are in an echo chamber, we don't grow; we stagnate.

I don't trust any government to decide what is true and what is false. We all need to make those decisions for ourselves. Reasoning may be becoming a lost art, however. Instead, it is being replaced by epithets and fallacies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies It has been a while since I actually studied them - I could use a refresher. But many have never even heard of them or considered them.

We will all come to different conclusions from the same evidence; it has to do with what our core values are. We are all navigating the same world, but we aren't all doing it the same way. And we need to be allowed to grow at our own pace, to learn and decide. We can't do that if the world (books, internet, people) is being censored.

[YzzzR1]

Does the right to question have any value if it's not combined with a genuine intent to seek out reliable answers? I'm thinking back to the OP and whether or not the government should have the right to restrict access to untrustworthy media sources. We have seen so many cases since the beginning of the pandemic where people have taken stands on false information, stands that in turn have served no constructive purpose.

It is my opinion that students these days are being taught what to think, not how to think.

fluffy, I think we are perhaps of a similar age; do you remember being taught how to debate? I remember being in socials and the teacher giving us a topic to debate. He lined us up according to our thoughts on the topic and then handed us the assignment to debate for the opposite side. We had to research. We had to work at understanding the arguments of the proponent. I remember that it gave me a better understanding of - well, everything. I didn't like it at all - it was work.

This is what we need. We need to understand that we are not all inherently correct in our beliefs. We need to look at the data from the other side. We need to try to understand their mindset. Then, and only then can we be confident when we make our own decisions. We can't make them based on knee-jerk reactions (of which I am guilty as the rest) and emotional responses. When we are in an echo chamber, we don't grow; we stagnate.

I don't trust any government to decide what is true and what is false. We all need to make those decisions for ourselves. Reasoning may be becoming a lost art, however. Instead, it is being replaced by epithets and fallacies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies It has been a while since I actually studied them - I could use a refresher. But many have never even heard of them or considered them.

We will all come to different conclusions from the same evidence; it has to do with what our core values are. We are all navigating the same world, but we aren't all doing it the same way. And we need to be allowed to grow at our own pace, to learn and decide. We can't do that if the world (books, internet, people) is being censored.

Nailed it.

[Ka-El]

fluffy, I think we are perhaps of a similar age; do you remember being taught how to debate? I remember being in socials and the teacher giving us a topic to debate. He lined us up according to our thoughts on the topic and then handed us the assignment to debate for the opposite side. We had to research. We had to work at understanding the arguments of the proponent. I remember that it gave me a better understanding of - well, everything. I didn't like it at all - it was work.

Great post Lady, and what you are describing here is the fundamentals of critical thought. It does take work but it seems to me that people have become lazy. All too easy to simply dismiss mainstream media because some orange buffoon labeled it fake and then to accept disinformation and propaganda without challenge because it lines up with pre-existing beliefs or values. I'm not a proponent of government censorship but I am concerned about the deliberate spread of disinformation currently underway.

[fluffy]

I don't trust any government to decide what is true and what is false. We all need to make those decisions for ourselves.

And in a perfect world we would all make those decisions responsibly, but you and I both know that our world is far from perfect.

The internet is still a work in progress, and when it comes to ethics and responsibility we still have miles to go. There are some very clever people online that don't have an ethical cell in their whole body, and plenty of people unwilling to do the work it takes to have an informed opinion. Personally I'm okay with restricting access to "known offendors" when it come to distribution of lies and hate, at least when it concerns with giving them permission to stand alongside reputable journalists. I don't look at it as censorship, it's more like licensing where there are requirements to hold that license.

[The Green Barbarian]

Why are right-wing regressives so threatened by AOC?

Why are left-wing regressives so threatened when all of AOC's stupidity is pointed out?

[ferri]

[MAPearce]

I'm thinking around the time AOC was elected.

Why are right-wing regressives so threatened by AOC?

She's a delusional idiot with not an ounce of intelligence ..

But everyone that isn't a dumb azzed delusional idiot knows that , not just "regressive right wingers" ...

*removed*

[The Green Barbarian]

People don't mind fascism, as long as it supports their own biases - and that terrifies me.

Yes that is terrifying, but it's also terrifying that some people don't mind communism, and want to see it spread, so much so that they spread far Left disinformation on a variety of subjects. We saw a lot of that during the trucker convoy, when even heads of our government like Jagmeet and Justin were deliberately lying to sell a flawed and diseased narrative. It was sad to see so many swallow that disinformation. Leftist disinformation is a giant threat to democracy.

[Rejigger]

It shouldn't have anything to do with one's "true motivations".

Of course it should. If you're out there intentionally spreading information you know to be false then you're abusing the right to free speech, and I wouldn't bat an eye if those rights were taken away from you.

In fact, by definition, it doesn’t matter what one’s true motivations are when sharing ideas and information. Lying is not a crime.
Taking your argument a bit further, one would get a pass, then, if they were sharing information that that believed to be true, even if it isn’t. Which, IMO, is most often the case. I do not believe that most people intentionally spread mis/disinformation.

And by not batting an eye to protect the right to free speech, you are agreeing to censorship and are actively against free speech.

This discussion board wouldn’t exist if not for free speech. And any discussion board that DID exist would be a boring echo chamber. But the righteous know-it-alls whose opinions trump all others won’t have their feelings hurt. No one would be offended. They’ll never be challenged by another’s opposing opinion and can easily remain closed-minded forever. Such fun.

~