Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   :verified_2:防空識別區𝒔𝒐𝒄𝟶 (adiz@soc0.outrnat.nl)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 09:01:47 JST :verified_2:防空識別區𝒔𝒐𝒄𝟶

   There is nothing wrong with admitting a fact. You don't have to embrace or support anything further than simply conceding a reality. There're no other requirements appended to an acknowledgement of truth.

   • pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     autism :verified: (jeff@misinformation.wikileaks2.org)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 09:01:56 JST autism :verified:

     in reply to
     @adiz facts are omitted often when they are deemed a threat to democracy
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Komnene (komnene@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 09:01:59 JST Komnene

     in reply to

     • autism :verified:
     @jeff @adiz feels>reals
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 09:02:17 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to
     You can't get an ought from an is.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     :verified_2:防空識別區𝒔𝒐𝒄𝟶 (adiz@soc0.outrnat.nl)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 09:02:24 JST :verified_2:防空識別區𝒔𝒐𝒄𝟶

     in reply to

     • Hyolobrika

     @Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net To be honest, I don't even remember the context behind this post. I think it had to do with geopolitics where people wanted to support X by asserting that X wasn't conducting [some objective action], but my argument was that they could still support X while simultaneously accepting that X was conducting [some objective action] instead of vanguarding something patently false narrative or alternative reality in a bid to save face or something.

     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 09:02:25 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • Hyolobrika
     Therefore, any admission of an "is" belief is acceptable, including stating facts.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 09:02:30 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to
     The context behind my post was the wrong of pretending to allow free speech but outlawing the denial of historical atrocities.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 09:02:33 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • Hyolobrika
     But I also mean it in general.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 09:09:32 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • Hyolobrika
     @Hyolobrika @adiz
     
     > I.e. "ought" beliefs would be moderated against evil
     
     The problem is coming up with an acceptable definition of evil and the interminable arguments over what constitutes evil.
     
     > such as Nazism, paedophilia, ethnic supremacy
     
     See, you have, for any of those, some adjacent areas where people will disagree on which side of the line they are on. Selective presentation of facts gets you 90% of the way there, anyway: refusal to acknowledge a fact gets you 98% of the way there.
   • Embed this notice
     Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 09:09:34 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • Hyolobrika
     In fact, it would be cool if there were a forum that was moderated based on those principles.
     I.e. "ought" beliefs would be moderated against evil, such as Nazism, paedophilia, ethnic supremacy (but only on the moral level of "X 'superior' race is entitled to the land and resources of Y 'inferior' race", not on the factual level of "X race is on average better at Z skill than Y race"), promotion of other kinds of violence, totalitarian regimes, etc.
     But "is" beliefs would be completely free, even when they seem (to minds who don't recognise the fact-value gap) to promote something evil.
   • Embed this notice
     Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 11:40:08 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:
     There'll always be judgement calls.
     Personally, I would allow both of those things and rely on there being other people in the forum who can point out such flaws (I.e. because they have a motive due to having contrary opinions).
     
     Another good idea would be encouraging good arguing practises such as steelmanning, not falling for fallacies, etc.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.