Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2021 11:41:59 GMT
I think that too many people seem to forget that in the US, at least, the Constitutional protection of free speech extends only to what the government can do. It does not apply to individuals or corporations. That is, the US government can't restrict what you publish but Facebook or Amazon can. That's an excellent assessment Ron, and thanks for pointing that out. For instance, those in education are often required to sign papers when they're hired to the effect the school has some control over what they (teachers, et al) can publicly post. Unfortunately, like TOS, this is often overlooked and the school employees get chastised when they are "out of bounds." This seems not to be the case for colleges; at least the stories I've found the administration usually sides with their professors for their right to speak freely.
Police departments also seem to have policies about what officers are allowed to say publicly, and even if they don't, they may come down on the individual if it doesn't shine pretty lights on their administration.
Non-disclosure agreements are part of many company's hiring policies. Lawsuit settlements often include similar terms. To effect, you are trading your freedom of speech for a job or money.
To borrow from the hack line from Spider-Man (or I think it's Spider-Man, maybe it's just the Mandella effect?) "With great power comes great responsibility." I think among our greatest freedoms is the ability to speak our minds. Words, spoken or printed have incredible power. But I also think we show respect for that freedom by using it wisely. My wife shared with me this concept of speaking or writing... "Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?" That may not cover ALL situations, but I truly think if those of us who share this right would consider those three questions instead of lashing out knee-jerk reactions, we might be a calmer, more civil society.
Off-topic but... An interesting note about how we react to information, is that the majority (IMHO, I can't cite a source) tend to give credence to the first information they hear. I don't think it's a sign of stupidity but rather that empty slot in our brain functions on the "first come first served" principle. I am far from wise, but when my boys were in school, I admonished them that if they were ever in any form of altercation, be the first to speak up, because if they didn't, "the other guy" would be treated as the victim. Perhaps this (if accurate) is why so many are concerned about misinformation. Once "out there" it's hard to pull back.
I close with Mark Twain:
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt."
Or in my words: "Best not to say anything unless you've got something to say."
Or in my wife's words: "I can talk all day as long as I don't have to say anything."
Peace all!
That's what Harper Lee said when she was asked once to speak publicly. Then she sat down.
|
|
|
Post by benziger on Sept 25, 2021 22:23:23 GMT
The difference between criticism and conspiracy theory is not always easy to discern. Under the guise of diversity, some critics try to instrumentalise their audience for their own purposes.
Conspiracy theories, however, are not always easy to identify or prove. It is typical for them to thematise a social development that they perceive as negative and behind which they suspect a string-pulling power that is recognized as such only by the conspiracy theorists themselves. They do not even admit facts that contradict their theory or reinterpret them into facts that confirm their theory. Thus the conspiracy theory is always right in the end. In contrast, serious science - or good journalism - verifies the correctness of a theory with empirical data, with competing theories or with argumentative objections. If, consequently, the criticism expressed is not substantive and argumentative, does not engage in concrete, fact-based justifications, but is improper and undifferentiated, the suspicion of conspiracy-theoretical encapsulation and hostility is obvious. In particular, the unsubstantiated and sweeping criticism is an indication that the verdict has already been reached and that exculpatory arguments do not even come into view. For the debate, we need different opinions, substantive and well-founded in terms of arguments. Also as a book.
|
|
|
Post by thunderguy on Sept 26, 2021 14:20:12 GMT
Marvelously expressed, benziger. I concur, we need a variety of viewpoints in order to keep our thinking challenged and make sure we are dealing with, as close as possible, the "absolute" truth. The current pandemic is something people will be writing about and talking about for years. It is unfortunate that many will indeed be stating opinions as fact. One of the most disarming tactics in a debate is the simple challenge to "cite your source." It is a mixed blessing for journalists to be able to protect their source, as it could be used as a cover for incorrect or biased information. I think as far as any social media, such as our boards, as long as we can provide first-hand information, give clarity to "in my opinion" or "my personal conclusions are" then perhaps there is a reasonable argument to allow posts for near-taboo topics. That said, like the "gossip game" many of us played in our early school years, it only takes a few repetitions before "opinion" becomes repeated as fact. Ah, humanity...
I also like your implication that our communications can lead to suspicion and hostility. My wife was expressing the events in the lives concerning friends of hers, and someone in the room immediately wanted to challenge the version; this individual was, in my humble and personal opinion, one who is very possessed by their ideology, and was actively seeking to put down any information that contradicted her belief. In this instance, it appeared to be an example of Frantz Fanon's "core belief disorder." To quote him:
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
It is a rare individual (in my humble and personal opinion) that wishes only the truth, has a skin thick enough to see the error of their beliefs, their conclusions, and will embrace, in your words, "concrete, fact-based justifications" even if it conflicts with the long-rooted views of their own.
So to return to the concept of the original post concerning Covid-related topics, at this point it is hard to 100% believe something is true. While a trend may stay relatively consistent, from day one we have been fed far more opinions than we have 100% facts. Even the science of it has shifted from time to time, so with that in mind, perhaps it is best not so much to "control" or "ban" discourse, but to coral it where it can be distilled to the most reliable information available at the time.
Someone might also posit "why are we even talking about this on a Lulu board?" Ah! Well first under the General Description it does say we may talk about anything (with the unstated agreement "within reason"). But secondly, we are about writing, yes? And so this wonderful topic about "what can and can't we write?" Is fully justifiable, with the beautiful addition of intelligent people such as Maggie, Ron, Benziger and others contributing from their experience, which is a delightful way to start my day.
My gift for the day:
“The truth is not always beautiful, nor beautiful words the truth.” - Lao Tzu
Peace all!
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Sept 26, 2021 15:33:33 GMT
Often enough people will interpret new information in ways that tend to confirm or support what they already think [confirmation bias]. The idea that all it takes to be successful at a particular endeavor [and life in general] is talent, some sacrifice, and hard work is seen as a truth when in reality there are many incredibly talented people who aren't [or haven't successful] no matter how much they sacrificed or worked themselves. People like the idea because otherwise life can seem out of their personal control, bleak, and unfair, which it often can be. At one point in time doctors could go from performing an autopsy to delivering a baby without washing their hands, with the result a lot of women died after giving birth [puerperal fever]. One doctor who believed in antiseptic procedures saw the rate of postpartum deaths go down after hand washing before deliveries, then instituted a rule at his hospital which further reduced postpartum deaths. His contemporaries disagreed, he was institutionalized where he was beaten by guards, and died 14 days later. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
|
|