Given that fake news can lead to peoples’ death, insurrection, etc. should lying on public media be made a criminal offense?

[hal2kilo]

You should stop lying about what fskimospy said.

Not really lying. He just doesn't seem to understand that totalitarian authoritarianism works both sides of the street.

 

[Muse]

People believe what it is useful to them to believe, though. Whether Blair believed Iraq had WMDs and posed an imminent threat is irrelevant to his culpability for the consequences of the Iraq war. I'm sure he, in his lawyerly way, convinced himself they did. I don't care - he's still responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.

I won't argue against the responsibility of purveyors of information to corroborate its veracity. What they "believe" can be thought of as insubstantial when the consequences of their actions are highly consequential.

 

[Moonbeam]

Huh????

Fixed

 

[Moonbeam]

The problem with authoritarian certainty is that it creates what it fears. The question then becomes is that inevitable and similarly evil. It raises the question, also, it seems to me, as to the nature of the state of conscious needed for anybody to know how to properly respond.

Fanaticism and mass psychosis is a condition that seems to become amplified by fear and insecurity destroying everything in its path just by the very need it creates to discover a means to oppose it. How do you deal with the fact that people can be absolutely certain and absolutely dangerously wrong without yourself becoming fanatically certain yourself you have diagnosed the situation properly found the right solution to it?

Is there anything like the truth or knowing what truth is or are we all just the victims of egotistically blind opinion?

 

[dank69]

You cancel them, they cancel you.... the proposed solution is clearly a divorce in all but name. Though I guess a way forward is not necessarily a solution to a problem. Truth is... a solution is likely beyond us, when two peoples want very different things. Shunning them would at least convince the two sides to geographically separate over time as they seek friendly local laws.

So let me be absolutely clear. I'm not saying we need to cancel them entirely. That's why I specifically focus on their political opinion only. Free to do everything they always do as long as they can keep their politics the fuck out of it because as I am sure you've noticed, they're always the people that just can't even have a discussion about anything without injecting politics. So the rule is simple: inform them that their political opinion is worthless. If they continue to talk about it, everyone just replies with "sorry, but you if think Trump was good or conservatives/Republicans are good in any way, your political opinion is worthless." They can choose to stop foisting their unwanted opinions on people or risk being cut out entirely if they can't.

 

[dank69]

The problem with authoritarian certainty is that it creates what it fears. The question then becomes is that inevitable and similarly evil. It raises the question, also, it seems to me, as to the nature of the state of conscious needed for anybody to know how to properly respond.

Fanaticism and mass psychosis is a condition that seems to become amplified by fear and insecurity destroying everything in its path just by the very need it creates to discover a means to oppose it. How do you deal with the fact that people can be absolutely certain and absolutely dangerously wrong without yourself becoming fanatically certain yourself you have diagnosed the situation properly found the right solution to it?

Is there anything like the truth or knowing what truth is or are we all just the victims of egotistically blind opinion?

All there is is observable reality. If you can predict it reliably it is truth. Everything else is feelings/guessing.

 

[Moonbeam]

All there is is observable reality. If you can predict it reliably it is truth. Everything else is feelings/guessing.

And then what do you make of Plato's cave? What would you be able to predict if you observe that people hate themselves?

 

[dank69]

And then what do you make of Plato's cave? What would you be able to predict if you observe that people hate themselves?

Not sure how the cave relates here. All it does is highlight that guesses are not facts.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not sure how the cave relates here. All it does is highlight that guesses are not facts.

Allegory of the Cave

Plato seems to believe there is a reality he apparently sees but which he believes others do not see at all. The implication, I believe, is that there is a state of consciousness that corresponds to seeing what is really real that most of us never even suspect. How would we?

But clearly, if such a capacity for true sight actually exists, then those who can see know what is real and what isn't. They would be able to tell you what is the truth and what is a lie. But, as I often comment, in a room full of people some of whom sleep and some of whom are awake, it is only the awake who know who else is awake. Such information, I guess, would only be useful to blind people with a capacity to trust. I don't see very many of those either.

 

[dank69]

Allegory of the Cave

Plato seems to believe there is a reality he apparently sees but which he believes others do not see at all. The implication, I believe, is that there is a state of consciousness that corresponds to seeing what is really real that most of us never even suspect. How would we?

But clearly, if such a capacity for true sight actually exists, then those who can see know what is real and what isn't. They would be able to tell you what is the truth and what is a lie. But, as I often comment, in a room full of people some of whom sleep and some of whom are awake, it is only the awake who know who else is awake. Such information, I guess, would only be useful to blind people with a capacity to trust. I don't see very many of those either.

AFAIC truth is limited to the physical. Politicians love to pretend their opinion about what will happen if we implement policy X is as valid as any other opinion about what will happen. However, when policy X is something that has been implemented elsewhere and the results have been studied extensively, the idea that all opinions are valid needs to die a humiliating death.

 

[Amol S.]

No.

You should stop lying about what fskimospy said.

Isn't sending people to jail for saying something the government does not like and calls a lie unproven, is something that China does. There is a difference between a proven and unproven lie. An unproven lie is a lie where one has no logical proof that it has not happened.

fskmospy did state, "...giving the government the power to jail people for telling lies often leads to the government deciding ‘lie’ means ‘say something the government doesn’t like’. ...".

 

[sandorski]

Isn't sending people to jail for saying something the government does not like and calls a lie unproven, is something that China does. There is a difference between a proven and unproven lie. An unproven lie is a lie where one has no logical proof that it has not happened.

fskmospy did state, "...giving the government the power to jail people for telling lies often leads to the government deciding ‘lie’ means ‘say something the government doesn’t like’. ...".

You called "Totalitarianism" "Communism".

 

[nickqt]

Allegory of the Cave

Plato seems to believe there is a reality he apparently sees but which he believes others do not see at all. The implication, I believe, is that there is a state of consciousness that corresponds to seeing what is really real that most of us never even suspect. How would we?

But clearly, if such a capacity for true sight actually exists, then those who can see know what is real and what isn't. They would be able to tell you what is the truth and what is a lie. But, as I often comment, in a room full of people some of whom sleep and some of whom are awake, it is only the awake who know who else is awake. Such information, I guess, would only be useful to blind people with a capacity to trust. I don't see very many of those either.

True sight is impossible unless you're omniscient. I always took The Cave's shadows as being just a representation of what's going on, without actually being able to see every aspect of what is going on and why, i.e. motivations, goals, etc., of the actors and their actions. Sure, someone might look charitable by making a charitable contribution, but the giving away of money might just be the shadow, with the real motivation and goal of getting a tax break that far exceeds the value of the charitable contribution. Just look at how many "charities" operate simply to launder money and give tax breaks.

So, you can never truly see anyone else's actions, since the motivations and goals aren't always totally obvious. And, for a lot of people - if not most/all people - hidden fears/desires can mask the true motivations and goals even to the actors themselves. In that case, everything is just shadows on the cave wall.

 

[brandonbull]

Also consider that most of the dishonesty we see from conservative media is lies of omission. As much as I believe something needs to be done, I don't know if it can be done by government. I still think the only way forward is for everyone else to make conservatives into social pariahs. They should feel ashamed to share their political opinions in public.

So Biden's WH relationship with the media is ok?

 

[ivwshane]

So Biden's WH relationship with the media is ok?

Listen traitor, if you have a point to make, use your words. We aren’t going to watch a fucking YouTube video just to guess what stupid point you are trying to make.

 

[pmv]

Isn't sending people to jail for saying something the government does not like and calls a lie unproven, is something that China does. There is a difference between a proven and unproven lie. An unproven lie is a lie where one has no logical proof that it has not happened.

fskmospy did state, "...giving the government the power to jail people for telling lies often leads to the government deciding ‘lie’ means ‘say something the government doesn’t like’. ...".

I guess the point is that sort-of-thing is by no means limited to communist regimes. It's a feature of authoritarian regimes of left or right. (Also there's a bit more to 'communism' than just state control of the media).

Though, I do think there's a near-insoluble problem there that you may have been alluding to. i.e. either you leave speech to 'the market' (i.e. let those who own the wealth that allows them to control the mechanism of speech get to decide what gets said) or you have the state 'regulate' it (i.e. let those who control the state get to decide what gets said). Either way there's no truly 'free speech'. True 'free speech' doesn't seem to exist in this world.

 

[Moonbeam]

Isn't sending people to jail for saying something the government does not like and calls a lie unproven, is something that China does. There is a difference between a proven and unproven lie. An unproven lie is a lie where one has no logical proof that it has not happened.

fskmospy did state, "...giving the government the power to jail people for telling lies often leads to the government deciding ‘lie’ means ‘say something the government doesn’t like’. ...".

Yes, we see the Tepublican

AFAIC truth is limited to the physical. Politicians love to pretend their opinion about what will happen if we implement policy X is as valid as any other opinion about what will happen. However, when policy X is something that has been implemented elsewhere and the results have been studied extensively, the idea that all opinions are valid needs to die a humiliating death.

I think I disagree. Mulla Nasrudin claimed he could see in the dark. He also said he could intuit truth and gave as an example, the certainty that a rumor he heard that he was dead was simple false.

 

[Jaskalas]

So let me be absolutely clear. I'm not saying we need to cancel them entirely.

That may be the suggestion, sure. How will our future unfold though? Deplorable being excommunicated. They strike back. It's a low boil now, throw some sparks in and it'll really take off. They already feel like they need their own social media. Then that is attacked and taken down. They'll need their own states to protect their social media. They think 2020 was stolen. They enact laws to "fix" that. Democrats shrieked in horror and made Georgia suffer consequences for it. More red states are joining in.

Where does it all end?
Perhaps forces outside out control steer us in a similar but more confrontational direction.

 

[dank69]

Yes, we see the Tepublican


I think I disagree. Mulla Nasrudin claimed he could see in the dark. He also said he could intuit truth and gave as an example, the certainty that a rumor he heard that he was dead was simple false.

Why should we care what someone claims to be able to see? If the topic is governmental regulation of lies the bare minimum threshold has to be proof of a lie beyond reasonable doubt. As always: "better 1000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be punished." Philosophy can be used to make anything unreasonable right up to and including our own existence. That isn't helpful. It's just muddying the conversation.

 

[dank69]

That may be the suggestion, sure. How will our future unfold though? Deplorable being excommunicated. They strike back. It's a low boil now, throw some sparks in and it'll really take off. They already feel like they need their own social media. Then that is attacked and taken down. They'll need their own states to protect their social media. They think 2020 was stolen. They enact laws to "fix" that. Democrats shrieked in horror and made Georgia suffer consequences for it. More red states are joining in.

Where does it all end?
Perhaps forces outside out control steer us in a similar but more confrontational direction.

Where does it end? It ends when they snap out of it or they attack and force us to defend ourselves with deadly force/imprisonment. Why are their feelings of any concern. They make it known every day they don't care about anyone else's feelings.

Gosh if we don't allow rapists to do their thing as they please they might get mad and kill people. Form their own rape state. We don't coddle other dangerous people, so what makes these conservatives so special? Why do they deserve so much leeway?

They don't. They get it for the same reason cops get so much leeway, because we allowed the system to be tilted in their favor. 600whateverthousand dead and counting. They should feel like they need their own social media. I can't stand using FB for more than a few minutes because my families' posts are drowned out by Trumptards and their Trump trashposts.

 

[1prophet]

There is no way to implement this that I can think of that wouldn’t cause more problems than it solves. Also, historically giving the government the power to jail people for telling lies often leads to the government deciding ‘lie’ means ‘say something the government doesn’t like’.

That is always the end result no matter how good the intentions.

At least 5 people in China have disappeared, gotten arrested, or been silenced after speaking out about the coronavirus — here's what we know about them

Wuhan doctor Li Wenliang, who died of the new coronavirus, was initially censored by police. He wasn't the only whistleblower to go silent.

www.businessinsider.com

We already started down that path using social media, next is government censorship.

Twitter suspends Spanish MP for saying men can't get pregnant | Gript

Contreras, who is deputy leader of Vox and a professor of legal philosophy, said the decision to suspend him was "fascist biology".

gript.ie

 

[Muse]

And, for a lot of people - if not most/all people - hidden fears/desires can mask the true motivations and goals even to the actors themselves. In that case, everything is just shadows on the cave wall.

"Don't ask me nothin' about nothin', I just might tell you the truth!" - Bob Dylan

 

[dank69]

That is always the end result no matter how good the intentions.

At least 5 people in China have disappeared, gotten arrested, or been silenced after speaking out about the coronavirus — here's what we know about them

Wuhan doctor Li Wenliang, who died of the new coronavirus, was initially censored by police. He wasn't the only whistleblower to go silent.

www.businessinsider.com

We already started down that path using social media, next is government censorship.

Twitter suspends Spanish MP for saying men can't get pregnant | Gript

Contreras, who is deputy leader of Vox and a professor of legal philosophy, said the decision to suspend him was "fascist biology".

gript.ie

Super important stuff here. Temporary suspension by a private company over what qualifies as a man in the opinion of a bigot. Really important stuff. You are fighting the good fight.

 

[fskimospy]

L

That is always the end result no matter how good the intentions.

At least 5 people in China have disappeared, gotten arrested, or been silenced after speaking out about the coronavirus — here's what we know about them

Wuhan doctor Li Wenliang, who died of the new coronavirus, was initially censored by police. He wasn't the only whistleblower to go silent.

www.businessinsider.com

We already started down that path using social media, next is government censorship.

Twitter suspends Spanish MP for saying men can't get pregnant | Gript

Contreras, who is deputy leader of Vox and a professor of legal philosophy, said the decision to suspend him was "fascist biology".

gript.ie

No. Private companies choosing what they publish is the essence of the first amendment. Conservatives who try to change this are the totalitarians.

 

[Moonbeam]

No. Private companies choosing what they publish is the essence of the first amendment. Conservatives who try to change this are the totalitarians.

Incredible how he missed this. But it gives private media the right to confine mask and vaccine recommendations to drinking bleach, the best of which I can sell you for 20 dollars a bottle.