(no title)
neonological | 4 years ago
>You are correct that I did not listen to it, but only because I don't listen to any podcasts, ever. If it's worth communicating it's worth doing so in written form.
Basically my post contained nothing except a recommendation to listen to a podcast. How you came up with that huge of a response to a podcast you didn't even listen to is beyond me. But you know what there's a transcript of the ENTIRE podcast on that site. I'm willing to bet that you won't even read it,
>I'm already very familiar with both the good and the bad about Oliver Wendell Holmes, thanks. I don't need to hear the ideal articulated again, and to be frank I think clinging to pretty ideals in the face of data that shows their limitations is a kind of nostalgia.
First off the podcast contained a shitload of data and science that is INLINE with the data you presented.
Second, You don't know much about Oliver Wendell Holmes. I'm pretty sure you're lying here. Oliver Wendell Holmes was a supporter of the type of free speech espoused by your "data." He was an ardent supporter of not allowing speech to be completely free such that anyone can spread false information or incite conflict. The man pretty much put people in jail for saying things that was against the grain. If that version of Oliver was alive today and still a Judge, Trump would absolutely be in jail for his tweets.
The quote by Oliver came later. After much internal conflict and after seeing a close friend get put down and censored for talking about his ideas, Oliver made a choice for what he thought was the greater good. This is after much deliberation and a complete 360 degree turn from his original hard stance. This is the important part. Because he wasn't an extremist and he didn't declare one ideal as completely wrong and the other as completely correct. He acknowledge the benefits and flaws of both and he chose what he thought at the time was the better choice.
Perhaps at the time it was the better choice, but times change and the world is so much more complicated that it's no longer clear which is better.
The Story of Olivers' eternal struggle shaped the way we interpret free speech today and it is the same eternal struggle we continue to face. The story of Oliver is not a story "clinging to an ideal" it is a story of a on-going journey to find the true meaning of that ideal. What do we mean when we say "free speech"? Is trump being censored by facebook to prevent a riot a violation of free speech? Is feminism being censored by facebook a violation of free speech? THIS is the story that the podcast presents ALONG with Scientific DATA that illustrates your point.
That's what pisses me off so much about your post. The podcast LITERALLY is talking about the same thing you're talking about BUT with far more nuance.
Looking at your profile. It looks like your gay. Well guess what? If it wasn't for Oliver, there would be no way in hell homosexuality is as widely accepted as it is today. Freedom of speech allowed for the normalism of homosexuality to be introduced to the market place of ideas and eventually become reality.
You know what? Don't listen to the fucking podcast. There's no point. And don't reply either. I don't want to talk to someone who is rude and didn't even read/listen to the main fucking point of my post. No seriously don't bother replying just read and leave. Or don't read at all just go away.
No comments yet.