I've written about freedom of speech extensively in all manner of forums, but the one thing that has become clear to me lately, is that people are genuinely uninterested in the philosophical underpinnings of freedom of speech. Today they would rather quote an XKCD comic, than John Stuart Mill's seminar work On Liberty.
Because of this, I've decided to try to reframe the original notion of freedom of speech, into a term I coined: Open Ideas.
Open Ideas is nothing more than what freedom of speech has always been historically: a philosophical declaration that the open contestation of ideas is the engine of progress that keeps moving society forward.
Today the tyranny of the majority believes freedom of speech is anything but that. They believe that "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", despite the fact that such term came from nowhere, has no author, and in addition all great free speech thinkers argued precisely the opposite. The great thinkers argued that if people are afraid of expressing unpopular opinions, that is functionally the same as government censorship: ideas are suppressed, society stagnates, and progress is halted.
So far I have not yet heard any sound refutation of any of these ideas. All people do is repeat the aforementioned dogmatic slogan with zero philosophical foundation, or mention First Amendment details, which obviously is not equal to freedom of speech.
How is anything I've stated in any way an inaccurate assessment of what is happening?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There's a bunch of Islamic extremists on the other side of the world. So long as they stay on the other side of the world, why should this be a problem to me? They are far away, they do not rule me, I have nothing particular to gain from ruling them. Why not just leave each other alone?
They should recognize that this is a bad idea and stop doing it. No one has a strong enough claim to moral clarity to impose their morality over the whole world, and if this is a thing people think needs to happen, I agree if and only if it's my morality being imposed. The flaws with this idea should be obvious enough that we can coordinate an end to the practice, even with a considerable amount of values-incoherence.
For one, they seem very interested in ruling you. While the progress they have made towards this end has been entirely thanks to sympathetic elements in your midst, before they were allowed to advance their agenda inside accepted bounds they quite infamously attempted to advance it outside accepted bounds.
It is true that you have little to gain from ruling them. However, you have plenty to gain from the $72.25 trillion in oil they possess (total value of Middle Eastern oil reserves, per ChatGPT), or any of the other resources they control, or simply the land they inhabit. You talk about how progress is a myth and how there is nothing new under the sun; why would you ignore the eternal appeal of conquest?
A lot of black men would not be in prison right now had they simply realized that crime is a bad idea and they should stop doing it.
Europeans have not needed to coordinate with anyone other than themselves to impose morality for at least 500 years, and modulo China they still don't. To the extent that your enemies' values are a proxy for the values of non-Europeans/East Asians, the threat they pose is a paper tiger.
"Interested in ruling me" would imply they take actions likely to make this happen. They mostly are interested in doing their own thing on the other side of the world.
We are not as rich as we once were, but we are not so poor as to require banditry, and we certainly are not in need of additional desert.
Sure, and there will likely be serious consequences for Europe for the mistakes they're making. I, however, am not a European.
...My enemies are a threat because of their values, not because their values are a proxy for those of non-europeans/east asians. I am not worried about Africa or the middle east. I am worried about people who live in my country and don't want me to keep living in it.
None of these arguments are persuasive on why attempting to rule the world is a good idea. Leaving other people to do as they wish elsewhere is simpler and both morally and physically safer.
What did you think jihad meant?
I meant "Europeans" as in whites. It is my observation that a critical mass of whites are congenitally inclined to believe that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere; the missionaries, the activists, the reformers, the revolutionaries. These impulses can and will be directed towards whatever ideological end is fashionable.
Your enemies don't want you to keep living in your country because of the threat your values pose to the intersectional coalition, whose most powerful demographic are non-whites/asians. They believe that the things you believe are lower-order avatars of the same egregore whose purer incarnations included colonialism, patriarchy, homophobia, etc.; I think that they're more correct than you'd give them credit for.
You are correct. However, as I have established, I don't think that whites will be able to resist the allure of the Burden even if your side wins. To the extent that I wish they would take it up, it will likely be for misaimed motives and ineffective means, but a man can dream.
The only alternative is too horrible to detail.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link