›

Liberal Democracy thread.

Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Shipmate
in The Styx
Starting here

In the context of a thread where the Ship is being held up as an exemplar of how restricting free speech can work for the common good, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to point out the fact that said “common good” has come at the price of removing or otherwise silencing all dissent.

I don’t wish to debate the Ships moderation policy there or here, merely to point out that any definition of “the common good” that is only actually good for those who agree with it and actively punishes and silences those who disagree isn’t particularly “common”. Is that ok?

Comments

  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    Just agreeing with @Marvin the Martian here.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    I'd disagree with the description of Ship policy as "restricting free speech". It's much more about enabling free speech, by allowing those normally excluded from public discourse to be heard, so diametrically opposed to restricting.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Shipmate
    edited May 9
    It was pease (a member of the admin team) who so described it.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Yes, and he used language which I don't see as representing what we're aiming for. So I clarified it.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    Marvin the Martian wrote: »
    In the context of a thread where the Ship is being held up as an exemplar of how restricting free speech can work for the common good, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to point out the fact that said “common good” has come at the price of removing or otherwise silencing all dissent.

    I don’t wish to debate the Ships moderation policy there or here, merely to point out that any definition of “the common good” that is only actually good for those who agree with it and actively punishes and silences those who disagree isn’t particularly “common”. Is that ok?
    The idea that those who disagree with the definition of the common good are actively punished, or that all dissent is silenced, is interesting. I personally disagree with many aspects of the common good as practised on these forums, but I broadly accept it for the sake of these forums. I accept it because I think it's a positive thing for the forums, to put the interests of the forums ahead of my own personal interests.

    So, to you and to ChastMastr, in what way is it acting for the common good to repeatedly state that you dissent from a particular view? How is it in the interests of a community for its individual members to focus on putting their own interests first?

    One of the reasons people get sanctioned here is because they are deemed to be having an excessively disruptive effect on the forums - they are perceived to be significantly undermining the common good.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Shipmate
    Opinions differ.

    So, is it ok to use the Ship as an example on the liberal democracy thread or not?
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Shipmate
    pease wrote: »
    So, to you and to ChastMastr, in what way is it acting for the common good to repeatedly state that you dissent from a particular view? How is it in the interests of a community for its individual members to focus on putting their own interests first?

    A century or so ago, dissenting from the view that homosexuality is wrong is what got it legalised. And that happened because some individual members of the community focussed on putting their own interests first. Were they wrong to do so? In what way were they acting for the common good as it was seen at the time?

    Campaigning for changes to the laws of a community (and the freedom to do so without being sanctioned as a disruptive element) is the very heart of freedom and democracy. It is the common good.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Marvin the Martian wrote: »
    Opinions differ.

    So, is it ok to use the Ship as an example on the liberal democracy thread or not?
    Given that the Ship isn't a democracy, I can't see the relevance.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Shipmate
    Fair enough.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host
    As a Purgatory host, I would definitely send any comment of that kind back to the Styx.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    Alan Cresswell wrote: »
    Marvin the Martian wrote: »
    Opinions differ.

    So, is it ok to use the Ship as an example on the liberal democracy thread or not?
    Given that the Ship isn't a democracy, I can't see the relevance.
    Given that the question of the Ship being a democracy isn't relevant to the Ship being a “fairly straightforward example of a community where freedom of speech is curtailed for the common good”, why does it matter whether it's a democracy?
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host
    That particular thread is about liberal democracies, which is usually understood to mean laege geopolitical entities. Talking about the Ship on it is massively off topic, and not the right place for discussing the Ship.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    Marvin the Martian wrote: »
    A century or so ago, dissenting from the view that homosexuality is wrong is what got it legalised. And that happened because some individual members of the community focussed on putting their own interests first. Were they wrong to do so? In what way were they acting for the common good as it was seen at the time?

    Campaigning for changes to the laws of a community (and the freedom to do so without being sanctioned as a disruptive element) is the very heart of freedom and democracy. It is the common good.
    I think I'd have more sympathy for your position if you were campaigning for anyone's else's rights, rather than your own right to say what you like, as often as you like, without any apparent consideration for the effect that it has on other people.

    My understanding is that the campaigns for the civil rights of sexual minorities involved large numbers of people coming together, and putting aside their own individual differences for the sake of the common good of their various communities.

    In the context of community, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility for the consequences of your speech for the other members of the community.

    For something to change, there needs to be a broad consensus that something needs to be changed. And if you do want to build a consensus for change, it helps if people can empathise with your position. Just campaigning for something, in itself, doesn't often lead to change.

    That's probably why, for better or worse, on the specific issue of campaigning, these forums have a long-standing rule that says:
    8. Don’t crusade – Don’t promote personal crusades. This space is not here for people to pursue specific agendas and win converts.
    Most people seem to accept this as being in keeping with the aims of these forums.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    la vie en rouge wrote: »
    That particular thread is about liberal democracies, which is usually understood to mean laege geopolitical entities. Talking about the Ship on it is massively off topic, and not the right place for discussing the Ship.
    Crumbs. I'm afraid it had not occurred to me that that the various principles and issues relating to how the Ship is organised might be deemed to not be relevant to the principles and issues that relate to how communities and societies are organised.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited May 10
    la vie en rouge wrote: »
    That particular thread is about liberal democracies, which is usually understood to mean laege geopolitical entities. Talking about the Ship on it is massively off topic, . . . .
    As, it seems to me, is talking about any other voluntary organizations, communities or groups. Free speech in the context of liberal democracies is about a government’s ability, or restraints on a government’s ability, to prohibit speech, particularly speech the government doesn’t agree with or speech that’s critical of the government. Ideas of a government’s ability to limit or allow free speech are predicated on the reality that no one in a given society can simply remove themselves from the authority of the government, at least not without removing themselves from the territory controlled by that government, as well as the reality that governments have the power to enforce violations of government regulation through criminal laws.

    Comparisons with a group that someone can voluntarily join and voluntarily leave is not a comparison of like with like.


  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Shipmate
    pease wrote: »
    la vie en rouge wrote: »
    That particular thread is about liberal democracies, which is usually understood to mean laege geopolitical entities. Talking about the Ship on it is massively off topic, and not the right place for discussing the Ship.
    Crumbs. I'm afraid it had not occurred to me that that the various principles and issues relating to how the Ship is organised might be deemed to not be relevant to the principles and issues that relate to how communities and societies are organised.

    It’s the bit where dissenters are penalised by temporary or permanent exile that I don’t think would be a good thing if adopted by larger and less voluntary communities and societies.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Shipmate
    edited May 10
    pease wrote: »
    Marvin the Martian wrote: »
    A century or so ago, dissenting from the view that homosexuality is wrong is what got it legalised. And that happened because some individual members of the community focussed on putting their own interests first. Were they wrong to do so? In what way were they acting for the common good as it was seen at the time?

    Campaigning for changes to the laws of a community (and the freedom to do so without being sanctioned as a disruptive element) is the very heart of freedom and democracy. It is the common good.
    I think I'd have more sympathy for your position if you were campaigning for anyone's else's rights, rather than your own right to say what you like, as often as you like, without any apparent consideration for the effect that it has on other people.

    Right now I’m campaigning for everyone’s right to openly state why they believe, whether I agree with them or not.

    Anyone who has known me for any decent amount of time on this website will know that I stand against homophobia, racism, bigotry, and so forth. But I will always stand for the right of homophobes, racists, bigots and so forth to say what they believe without being punished for it. So in point of fact, I am campaigning for other people’s rights. They’re just people you don’t like, so you don’t think they count.
  • BasketactortaleBasketactortale Shipmate
    pease wrote: »
    Alan Cresswell wrote: »
    Marvin the Martian wrote: »
    Opinions differ.

    So, is it ok to use the Ship as an example on the liberal democracy thread or not?
    Given that the Ship isn't a democracy, I can't see the relevance.
    Given that the question of the Ship being a democracy isn't relevant to the Ship being a “fairly straightforward example of a community where freedom of speech is curtailed for the common good”, why does it matter whether it's a democracy?

    There is no general "freedom of speech". This is not a thing - nobody has a general right to say whatever they like wherever you want. This is a complete misunderstanding of what freedom of speech means.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Marvin the Martian wrote: »

    Anyone who has known me for any decent amount of time on this website will know that I stand against homophobia, racism, bigotry, and so forth.

    No, we know that you claim to...
    But I will always stand for the right of homophobes, racists, bigots and so forth to say what they believe without being punished for it.

    ...but when push comes to shove you're more interested in defending bigots than their targets.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Shipmate
    Only when their rights are being violated. Even bigots have rights. Even bigots deserve to have their rights defended.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Bigots and Soapbox Dominators all have their rights, but these rights have to be exercised with responsibility and respect for others.
    If that isn’t done, then the person exercising free speech has to carry the can for the disruption to public order which may ensue.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Marvin the Martian wrote: »
    Only when their rights are being violated. Even bigots have rights. Even bigots deserve to have their rights defended.

    Inciting racial hatred isn't a right.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    edited May 10
    Marvin the Martian wrote: »
    I don’t wish to debate the Ships moderation policy there or here,

    Then what piece of ships’ business is this thread about ?

    Doublethink, Styx Hosting
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Shipmate
    It was to ask if using the Ship as an example of the sort of freedom-limiting society pease was advocating - and by extension whether pointing out the downsides thereof - was ok on the Purg thread. As the answer appears to be “no” (albeit without that having been explicitly stated) and the Purg thread has moved on anyway there’s no real need for this one to continue. Unless of course, you wish to make an explicit ruling about the salient point prior to its closure.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    In theory it would be fine, in practice it would inevitably lead to a discussion of ship’s business - so therefore, no, please don’t use this type of exemplar.

    Doublethink, Admin
This discussion has been closed.