Responding in English, though let me know if you’re OK if I still use Ukrainian, I enjoy it much more. Good post. I agree with the individual points you make and with the overall message/issue, though strongly disagree with the middle-scale logical connections.
Item 1: comparing topics of eugenics and statistical analysts of differences between races is bad cheating. Eugenics is evil in itself (unless we talk about breading chickens or wannabe royal blood lines), statistical population research is not. True, it can be used by some to justify racism or whatever other bad ideas. But that is no reason to silence it, it’s like to censoring genetics or evolution theory discussions, because they were used to justify eugenics. Well, both genetics and evolution theory have been censored for ideological reasons from two edges of ideological spectrum. So, I would say this example underlines the fact that we should censor as few topics as possible. Item 2: you are right on past issues with censoring certain other kinds of speech, like Holocaust denial, . And you right to use the past tense in pointing out asymmetries there. What happens now is an attempt to either replace one set of taboos with another, or plain expand the list of things one cannot say. Both are bad even though motivations might be ok. Those fair motivations are a good reason to differentiate between levels of risky speech: challenging Holocaust and doubting affirmative action.
+100 on the loss of ability to lead a constructive discussion. Nice example of Chomsky: I also strongly dislike him, but really like some of his argumentative freedom and consistency. I do have to say, that taken in his entirety, Chomsky may be about as worth discussing as any serious proponent of, say, eugenics: one with questionable set of underlying values, yet elegant ideology built on top, who should be heard if only because that ideology is popular with enough people. (I don’t want to discuss specific chomskys or bannons or whoever, just want to point out that in order to stay civilised, such discussion has to be either about their underlying values or about specific arguments within the ideologies, disregarding the underlying moral values. Not both.)
But all of the above are minor comments, the main question of the post, how to have a good faith discussion, has a simple solution. Well, at least, the first step to the solution: one should avoid dichotomising ones opponents right away into set in stone ideologies, allow dissent or just lack of position on some issues or details, then discuss what is left. ‘Cause either side likes to declare anyone who is not fully aligned too radical to even talk to (Based on observation: 3/4 of my opponents think me radical liberal leftist, 1/4 thinks me a radical right winger, whereas I have only one position that is somewhat radical, and it has nothing to do with the US)
no subject
Good post. I agree with the individual points you make and with the overall message/issue, though strongly disagree with the middle-scale logical connections.
Item 1: comparing topics of eugenics and statistical analysts of differences between races is bad cheating. Eugenics is evil in itself (unless we talk about breading chickens or wannabe royal blood lines), statistical population research is not. True, it can be used by some to justify racism or whatever other bad ideas. But that is no reason to silence it, it’s like to censoring genetics or evolution theory discussions, because they were used to justify eugenics. Well, both genetics and evolution theory have been censored for ideological reasons from two edges of ideological spectrum. So, I would say this example underlines the fact that we should censor as few topics as possible.
Item 2: you are right on past issues with censoring certain other kinds of speech, like Holocaust denial, . And you right to use the past tense in pointing out asymmetries there. What happens now is an attempt to either replace one set of taboos with another, or plain expand the list of things one cannot say. Both are bad even though motivations might be ok. Those fair motivations are a good reason to differentiate between levels of risky speech:
challenging Holocaust and doubting affirmative action.
+100 on the loss of ability to lead a constructive discussion. Nice example of Chomsky: I also strongly dislike him, but really like some of his argumentative freedom and consistency. I do have to say, that taken in his entirety, Chomsky may be about as worth discussing as any serious proponent of, say, eugenics: one with questionable set of underlying values, yet elegant ideology built on top, who should be heard if only because that ideology is popular with enough people. (I don’t want to discuss specific chomskys or bannons or whoever, just want to point out that in order to stay civilised, such discussion has to be either about their underlying values or about specific arguments within the ideologies, disregarding the underlying moral values. Not both.)
But all of the above are minor comments, the main question of the post, how to have a good faith discussion, has a simple solution. Well, at least, the first step to the solution: one should avoid dichotomising ones opponents right away into set in stone ideologies, allow dissent or just lack of position on some issues or details, then discuss what is left. ‘Cause either side likes to declare anyone who is not fully aligned too radical to even talk to (Based on observation: 3/4 of my opponents think me radical liberal leftist, 1/4 thinks me a radical right winger, whereas I have only one position that is somewhat radical, and it has nothing to do with the US)