The free marketplace of ideas and the power of controversy

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

The notion that someone or a set of people could even judge an idea or group of ideas as 'quality' or 'controversial', judging the value of ideas for a group larger than those judging, is presumptuous and immature at best.

Imo the article is just a thinly veiled attempt at justifying the author's own obstinate behavior.

I dunno about that. Certain ideas are simply not true. For example, most of the ideas in "The Bell Curve" have been refuted and rejected. Those ideas are not true and do not hold up to scrutiny. To any degree one could judge the quality or value of ideas, surely the degree to which they are true is an important factor, no?

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

The notion that someone or a set of people could even judge an idea or group of ideas as 'quality' or 'controversial', judging the value of ideas for a group larger than those judging, is presumptuous and immature at best.

Imo the article is just a thinly veiled attempt at justifying the author's own obstinate behavior.

I judge you, do you not judge me? Even when they say do not judge, that is judging. People unconsciously does it. You cannot fail to have an opinion unless you have no emotion. Then you do not care. Judge them because they refuse to judge themselves. To refuse to judge is to refuse to be just and righteous.

Edit:

Afaik Milo filled every university hall with people who were interested in what he had to say. This means his ideas have a valid place in the market. If nobody came to see him the author would have a point. Also what the author views as "quality" is entirely arbitrary.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

The notion that someone or a set of people could even judge an idea or group of ideas as 'quality' or 'controversial', judging the value of ideas for a group larger than those judging, is presumptuous and immature at best.

Imo the article is just a thinly veiled attempt at justifying the author's own obstinate behavior.

I dunno about that. Certain ideas are simply not true. For example, most of the ideas in "The Bell Curve" have been refuted and rejected. Those ideas are not true and do not hold up to scrutiny. To any degree one could judge the quality or value of ideas, surely the degree to which they are true is an important factor, no?

I agree certain ideas are simply not true but as deathflower wrote literal truth doesn't factor into the lifespan and popularity of an idea but rather perceived truth. Which means the problem with trying to measure the value of an idea based on whether or not it's literally true is that you're not judging the idea you're judging the people related to it.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Afaik Milo filled every university hall with people who were interested in what he had to say. This means his ideas have a valid place in the market. If nobody came to see him the author would have a point.

Then the free marketplace of ideas is failing, and some degree of pushback is necessary to correct it. It's clearly not self-correcting.

"

Also what the author views as "quality" is entirely arbitrary.

Ideas, to the degree that they can be judged at all, must be judged by their truthfulness and utility. And most of what Milo says is both objectively wrong and harmful. Or, if you like Milo, how about Ken Ham? Virtually nothing he says is true or useful in any way, and he still is popular and influential enough to build a freakin' Noah's Ark replica.

"

deathflower wrote:

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

The notion that someone or a set of people could even judge an idea or group of ideas as 'quality' or 'controversial', judging the value of ideas for a group larger than those judging, is presumptuous and immature at best.

Imo the article is just a thinly veiled attempt at justifying the author's own obstinate behavior.

I judge you, do you not judge me? Even when they say do not judge, that is judging. People unconsciously does it. You cannot fail to have an option unless you have no emotion. Then you do not care. Judge them because they refuse to judge themselves. To refuse to judge is to refuse to be just and righteous.

I wasn't talking about not judging at all I was talking about a group of people applying their judgment to another group that disagrees.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

The notion that someone or a set of people could even judge an idea or group of ideas as 'quality' or 'controversial', judging the value of ideas for a group larger than those judging, is presumptuous and immature at best.

Imo the article is just a thinly veiled attempt at justifying the author's own obstinate behavior.

I judge you, do you not judge me? Even when they say do not judge, that is judging. People unconsciously does it. You cannot fail to have an option unless you have no emotion. Then you do not care. Judge them because they refuse to judge themselves. To refuse to judge is to refuse to be just and righteous.

I wasn't talking about not judging at all I was talking about a group of people applying their judgment to another group that disagrees.

Why should they not? That judging in itself.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Maybe some replies from someone who can read and write at a level that would allow for a book review of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban would be nice.

Thank you for pushing more people away from liberalism

It's wild how much better than other people you think you are. You're not the enlightened intellectual you think you are, you're average like the rest of us.

You posted a liberal piece from a liberal source, you posted it because it aligns with your opinions, but not everyone has the same opinions, doesn't mean everyone else is a mouth breathing subhuman and you're an amazing genius.

I really wonder what the person on the other side of the computer screen looks like when I see comments like these and your post being like "alright explain quantum physics in 15 words, have fun"

It's the ultimate 'nice guy weeaboo i hate my le generation dae le enlightened gentlesir' shtick, like the exact characterization if you were doing it on purpose to give off that image.

"

Manocean wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Maybe some replies from someone who can read and write at a level that would allow for a book review of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban would be nice.

Thank you for pushing more people away from liberalism

It's wild how much better than other people you think you are. You're not the enlightened intellectual you think you are, you're average like the rest of us.

You posted a liberal piece from a liberal source, you posted it because it aligns with your opinions, but not everyone has the same opinions, doesn't mean everyone else is a mouth breathing subhuman and you're an amazing genius.

You really can't figure out that if someone completely misrepresents what you have to say, you respond with "you have misrepresented my arguments" and they say, "nuh uh", they probably aren't good at reading? I didn't insult you. I'm perfectly willing to have a reasonable argument about my beliefs. You disagree with what I have to say? Great, let's hear it! Why? What's wrong with my opinions? Help me correct myself, for as you say, I am average. Run of the mill. There are a lot of things I don't know much about, and a lot of things I have yet to understand fully. I am, in many regards, an idiot. But at least when someone makes an argument, I can typically understand it. And if that person tells me I have not understand their arguments, and makes it clear that their position is exactly the opposite of the position I claimed they held, I will take a step back, apologize, and try to get it right. [Removed by Support]

"

deathflower wrote:

Why should they not? That judging in itself.

I'm talking about within the context of a free marketplace of ideas in regards to the op and the article.

I'm saying judging ideas based on literal truth and obstinately applying those judgments to other groups of people who disagree is counter-productive to the idea itself, which is the 'why should they not'.