"Marketplace of Ideas"?

[Cavemonster]

I find that a really good way to reduce corruption and increase civic integrity and accountability is to take a very corrupt city and then make its populace and particularly its leaders and governmental figures increasingly comprised of African-Americans.

Really tends to stem the flow of the corruption, bring it down to a mere drip at most.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably their shared history of oppression that has made them have a particularly keen understanding of the importance of civic institutions functioning in a transparent and even-handed way. Also, they have the vast and august body of African law and history to draw upon and let's be honest, more than any other factor it is probably their raw nobility as a people.

There is a certain philosophy on the marketplace of ideas that's popular in a lot of places and in fact is part of the underlying idea behind the rules of this very forum.

The main gist of it is that no idea or viewpoint is so ugly or dangerous that it ought to be prohibited, even in privately owned discussion spaces.

This viewpoint goes on to argue that its more than slavish devotion to the idea of free speech or fear of a slippery slope but is in fact a positive good to air these ideas in public spaces. Supposedly this allows terrible ideas to be debated publicly where truth and logic will of course win the day! There is often an accompanying claim that absent this public airing these ideas will somehow fester underground and their believers will become worse.

I disagree with all of that. I think that the "marketplace of ideas" just gives more exposure and recruitment to bad ideas and allows people tentatively embracing them to find compatriots and strengthen their grasp on these ugly beliefs. It isn't logic or truth that wins the day, but rhetoric and emotion. The same ideas that fueled the Nazis, slavery and a good chunk of the most horrific things in human history really do not need to be debated over and over again. That merely gives the impression that they're up for debate.

It seems a very mild expectation of civil human society to say we've settled some very basic things.

 

[William Parcher]

I think that the "marketplace of ideas" just gives more exposure and recruitment to bad ideas and allows people tentatively embracing them to find compatriots and strengthen their grasp on these ugly beliefs. It isn't logic or truth that wins the day, but rhetoric and emotion.

I agree and I think that Bigfoot believers shouldn't be allowed to say anything on the Internet.

 

[Cavemonster]

I agree and I think that Bigfoot believers shouldn't be allowed to say anything on the Internet.

Lets just start with the white nationalists. Not many people have been murdered in the name of Bigfoot.

 

[Checkmite]

I disagree with all of that. I think that the "marketplace of ideas" just gives more exposure and recruitment to bad ideas and allows people tentatively embracing them to find compatriots and strengthen their grasp on these ugly beliefs. It isn't logic or truth that wins the day, but rhetoric and emotion. The same ideas that fueled the Nazis, slavery and a good chunk of the most horrific things in human history really do not need to be debated over and over again. That merely gives the impression that they're up for debate.

I have to agree with this. There are certainly any number of examples where a certain ideas, by virtue of being allowed to proliferate unchecked in the "free marketplace of ideas", has contributed nothing but misery to the human condition, even directly costing lives. Anti-vaxxers' "right to be heard" has predictably resulted and continues to result in dead and hospitalized children and its thought leaders pointedly are okay with that. White supremacy and the "great replacement" delusion have cultivated a growing and increasingly deadly terrorism threat with worldwide reach.

The fact that people are able to, and do, freely argue with and rebut these malignant viewpoints has not stopped them from proliferating, or killing. The notion that good people with "better" arguments is all that's need to defeat bad people with toxic ideas, is a failure.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I have to agree with this. There are certainly any number of examples where a certain ideas, by virtue of being allowed to proliferate unchecked in the "free marketplace of ideas", has contributed nothing but misery to the human condition, even directly costing lives. Anti-vaxxers' "right to be heard" has predictably resulted and continues to result in dead and hospitalized children and its thought leaders pointedly are okay with that. White supremacy and the "great replacement" delusion have cultivated a growing and increasingly deadly terrorism threat with worldwide reach.

The fact that people are able to, and do, freely argue with and rebut these malignant viewpoints has not stopped them from proliferating, or killing. The notion that good people with "better" arguments is all that's need to defeat bad people with toxic ideas, is a failure.

It could also be that you are just simply mistaken about which side is morally right, has the "better" ideas and is more perceptive about the facts and future trends.

That's part of the danger of shutting other people up. Sometimes you're wrong about them being wrong.

 

[Checkmite]

It could also be that you are just simply mistaken about which side is morally right, has the "better" ideas and is more perceptive about the facts and future trends.

This is of course true as a theoretical generalization, although it can be ruled out when discussing specific cases; as it is with the two examples I previously mentioned for instance.

 

[Border Reiver]

It could also be that you are just simply mistaken about which side is morally right, has the "better" ideas and is more perceptive about the facts and future trends.

That's part of the danger of shutting other people up. Sometimes you're wrong about them being wrong.

No, we can be absolutely correct that anti-vaxxers are wrong. The "great replacement"/racist folk are just as wrong.

 

[sadhatter]

There is a certain philosophy on the marketplace of ideas that's popular in a lot of places and in fact is part of the underlying idea behind the rules of this very forum.

The main gist of it is that no idea or viewpoint is so ugly or dangerous that it ought to be prohibited, even in privately owned discussion spaces.

This viewpoint goes on to argue that its more than slavish devotion to the idea of free speech or fear of a slippery slope but is in fact a positive good to air these ideas in public spaces. Supposedly this allows terrible ideas to be debated publicly where truth and logic will of course win the day! There is often an accompanying claim that absent this public airing these ideas will somehow fester underground and their believers will become worse.

I disagree with all of that. I think that the "marketplace of ideas" just gives more exposure and recruitment to bad ideas and allows people tentatively embracing them to find compatriots and strengthen their grasp on these ugly beliefs. It isn't logic or truth that wins the day, but rhetoric and emotion. The same ideas that fueled the Nazis, slavery and a good chunk of the most horrific things in human history really do not need to be debated over and over again. That merely gives the impression that they're up for debate.

It seems a very mild expectation of civil human society to say we've settled some very basic things.

If you ignore the basic fact you mentioned that it actually increases the spread of this crap, and makes the communities more tight knit, for sure.

Look at other things that get banned because "people can't handle them", as just one example, do you think anyone really thinks cannibal holocaust is a great film? No but the fact it was "banned" at one point, makes sure it is in the collection of 90 per cent of film buffs.

Tale a step back to high school. Are you old enough to remember any c.ds being banned? How well did that work out for them?

Go back a step further, to public schools, did the virtual pet bans work? What about the yo-yo bans? Comic books?

But no, this is the one time banning something you can't really ban will work.

 

[Cavemonster]

If you ignore the basic fact you mentioned that it actually increases the spread of this crap, and makes the communities more tight knit, for sure.

Look at other things that get banned because "people can't handle them", as just one example, do you think anyone really thinks cannibal holocaust is a great film? No but the fact it was "banned" at one point, makes sure it is in the collection of 90 per cent of film buffs.

Tale a step back to high school. Are you old enough to remember any c.ds being banned? How well did that work out for them?

Go back a step further, to public schools, did the virtual pet bans work? What about the yo-yo bans? Comic books?

But no, this is the one time banning something you can't really ban will work.

I'd suggest the mods split this thread.

I created my post as a direct response to another posters argument that was loosely related to this case, but further discussion would only be a detail in this thread. I'm happy to discuss further in a new thread.

 

[Checkmite]

If you ignore the basic fact you mentioned that it actually increases the spread of this crap, and makes the communities more tight knit, for sure.

Look at other things that get banned because "people can't handle them", as just one example, do you think anyone really thinks cannibal holocaust is a great film? No but the fact it was "banned" at one point, makes sure it is in the collection of 90 per cent of film buffs.

I highly doubt that 90 percent of film buffs actually own a copy of Cannibal Holocaust; I would be surprised even even close to half did. It's more the point that everyone knows of the film.

But never mind; the argument is a non-sequitur. NAMBLA is essentially banned from public presence anywhere except its own website, and yet nobody is sympathetic to NAMBLA's message except NAMBLA members.

Banning items like toys, books, or objets d'art is not analogous to deplatforming and shunning an ideology. The people who do own copies of "Cannibal Holocaust" did not buy it because the fact that it was banned by someone convinced them it was a good and worthy movie to own; they bought it because "you can't tell me what I can or can't own". The same attitude doesn't transfer well to ideologies because people don't subscribe to ideologies the way they buy copies of a movie. In theory it might be true that "you can't tell me what I can or can't believe", but nobody who thinks NAMBLA is awful is going to support their message anyway out of spite for others who don't like it, save perhaps internet trolls/contrarians.

 

[Belz...]

I disagree with all of that. I think that the "marketplace of ideas" just gives more exposure and recruitment to bad ideas and allows people tentatively embracing them to find compatriots and strengthen their grasp on these ugly beliefs. It isn't logic or truth that wins the day, but rhetoric and emotion. The same ideas that fueled the Nazis, slavery and a good chunk of the most horrific things in human history really do not need to be debated over and over again. That merely gives the impression that they're up for debate.

Ok but how do you then deal with unwanted ideas without it blowing up in your face at some point?

 

[Cavemonster]

Ok but how do you then deal with unwanted ideas without it blowing up in your face at some point?

I've asked that the mods split this topic so as not to derail this thread. I will happily discuss any related ideas in the new thread.

 

[dudalb]

I have to agree with this. There are certainly any number of examples where a certain ideas, by virtue of being allowed to proliferate unchecked in the "free marketplace of ideas", has contributed nothing but misery to the human condition, even directly costing lives. Anti-vaxxers' "right to be heard" has predictably resulted and continues to result in dead and hospitalized children and its thought leaders pointedly are okay with that. White supremacy and the "great replacement" delusion have cultivated a growing and increasingly deadly terrorism threat with worldwide reach.

The fact that people are able to, and do, freely argue with and rebut these malignant viewpoints has not stopped them from proliferating, or killing. The notion that good people with "better" arguments is all that's need to defeat bad people with toxic ideas, is a failure.

And who decides what is allowable and what is not? Who Will Watch The Watchers?
I will tell you exactly how it will end up. The people in power will decide that ay idea that threatens their power is dangerous and should be banned.
It really scares me that the ideologues on both the left and right in this country want to attack free speech. It's the same old story, "Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee.
I admit that allowing racist ideas a open hearing hurts society, but attacking Freedom of Speech will do any more.
I do not see any difference between some Left Wing Philosopher saying he should be allowed to decide what is permitted speech and what is not,and some Right Wing Religious fanatic doing so. The hell with them both.

 

[dudalb]

Ok but how do you then deal with unwanted ideas without it blowing up in your face at some point?

You can't. Period.

 

[Cavemonster]

Free speech and the marketplace of ideas

To avoid derailing the other thread, I've copied my response to Skeptic Tank here.

Anyone wanting to discuss what I posted, please do so here.

There is a certain philosophy on the marketplace of ideas that's popular in a lot of places and in fact is part of the underlying idea behind the rules of this very forum.

The main gist of it is that no idea or viewpoint is so ugly or dangerous that it ought to be prohibited, even in privately owned discussion spaces.

This viewpoint goes on to argue that its more than slavish devotion to the idea of free speech or fear of a slippery slope but is in fact a positive good to air these ideas in public spaces. Supposedly this allows terrible ideas to be debated publicly where truth and logic will of course win the day! There is often an accompanying claim that absent this public airing these ideas will somehow fester underground and their believers will become worse.

I disagree with all of that. I think that the "marketplace of ideas" just gives more exposure and recruitment to bad ideas and allows people tentatively embracing them to find compatriots and strengthen their grasp on these ugly beliefs. It isn't logic or truth that wins the day, but rhetoric and emotion. The same ideas that fueled the Nazis, slavery and a good chunk of the most horrific things in human history really do not need to be debated over and over again. That merely gives the impression that they're up for debate.

It seems a very mild expectation of civil human society to say we've settled some very basic things.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The "Marketplace of Ideas" is a good and valid concept. If an idea can't survive debate, it probably isn't worthwhile.

Problem the people who like it the most are sad edgelords who think "Lookit me making a big show of it only when in reference to the most wrong, dangerous, and hateful ideas out there makes me cool" or who think "I'm somehow doing the world a service by pretending we have to have the same discussions over and over."

 

[BobTheCoward]

Skeptic tank thinks his ideas are good. You think your ideas are good. The issue is which ones are the bad ideas .

 

[TragicMonkey]

Even the most accommodating marketplace kicks you out if you shout 'fire' to start a panic.

 

[Cavemonster]

The "Marketplace of Ideas" is a good and valid concept. If an idea can't survive debate, it probably isn't worthwhile.

The part I have a problem with is the underlying assumption that worthwhile ideas will do well in debate and dumb and destructive ideas won't.

Public debate, the popularity and spread of ideas has little to do with logic and more to do with effective rhetoric, emotional attachments etc.

The "market" value of ideas has a very loose relation to factual truth, moral goodness or levels of help or harm.

 

[Cavemonster]

Skeptic tank thinks his ideas are good. You think your ideas are good. The issue is which ones are the bad ideas .

Do you believe we should throw up our hands in all questions where disagreement occurs or just this one?