OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

No Steak for Babies!

Entry 2188, on 2021-11-30 at 15:35:14 (Rating 4, Philosophy)

Mark Twain was a very accurate observer of the human condition, and a very witty commenter on it. I have many favourite quotes from him, but this one which I think is particularly relevant in the current political climate: "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

This relates very well to the current state of the world, where we are increasingly controlled by draconian laws, which are designed to stop extreme opinions and actions, but end up affecting more moderate and fair people just as much, or more.

Additionally, there is a lack of evenness in the execution of these laws and rules, because quite extreme opinions are permitted on one side, but the equivalent is severely penalised on the other. It's a bit like saying one group can't have steak (because of the babies), but for another group it's OK.

I agree there are few outright laws against free speech, although they undoubtedly exist. But it is really the subtle, and not so subtle, societal penalties against it which I am more concerned about. And if some current regimes are allowed to get away with it, new laws will undoubtedly be introduced in the future. Plans of that type are certainly being considered by the New Zealand government for example.

Many people might be tempted to think that I am just ranting on about my pet subject again, and that either it doesn't matter that much, or I am imagining a problem where none exists, but I (not surprisingly) disagree.

Free speech is arguably the most important right we have. Democracies depend so much on fair representation of all ideas, which leads to better informed voting. Without free speech anti-democratic actions, and others which harm society in various ways, cannot be criticised.

So if we can agree that it is important, let's look at the quote and analyse it. Basically it is saying that people who oppose free speech are quoting the harm it does in the extremes. For example, saying that there are only two genders might be seen as an attack against gender diverse people. But those people who find that idea problematic are the babies whose lack of robustness is used as an excuse to restrict the rest of us.

Just while we are on this subject: I think "gender" is a social construct, and an argument could be made to say that there are many genders. I think there are only two "normal" sexes though, although I recognise that there are abnormal situations where others might arise through genetic anomalies.

But although I think the idea that there are many genders is an argument which can quite rationally be made, I also think that people who oppose that idea also have a fair point. Like many debates of this sort, it gets back to the definition of the words.

And if we listened to each other, instead of having challenging opinions censored on-line and elsewhere, we might get a more fair idea of what debates of that type are really about. Both sides can be right to some degree. Both sides can be moral. And both sides are worth listening to.

So I'm sorry to have to re-visit this issue yet again, but this is all about political correctness. Any non-PC opinions have to be quickly eliminated by the forces of censorship. And unfortunately, this repressive attitude has often come from technology companies, such as Twitter and Facebook. It is deeply disappointing that the internet - which originally promised to be a place where everyone could offer an opinion - has become almost as repressive as traditional sources, such as the legacy media.

The next question must be this: why does one side of these debates insist of shutting down the other side, instead of engaging in debate with it, and (presumably) proving that other side is wrong?

Well, there is one obvious possible answer here: that the PC side know they can't show the other side is wrong, in most cases because they aren't. So in the example I gave above, if it was provable that there are a hundred (or whatever number is currently fashionable) genders, why no prove that to those who insist there are only two, and shut them down that way instead?

Well the answer must be that they can't, so they resort to censorship instead. Again note that I could go either way on this question (either 2 or 100 genders) depending on the definition of the words. But, either way, people should support one side or the other, not because it is politically correct thing to do, but because it is true!

But truth doesn't seem to matter that much any more, possibly due to the philosophical influence of relativism. If truth is really just an opinion, based on cultural preferences and traditions, then it actually doesn't matter what is true, because the existence of absolute truth is denied by this group.

Ironically, the only truth which appears to be genuinely based on cultural preferences here is the fact that truths are based on cultural preferences! If that isn't the ultimate circular argument, then I would be interested in hearing a better one.

So to sum up my position on this (and I'm sorry if you have heard this before), all forms of speech should be allowed and debated, as long as the speech doesn't involve a clear incitement to harm, or reveal any information that could be reasonably assumed to be private.

For example, I shouldn't be able to publish a person's bank password and invite people to steal all their money. But I should be able to say I think people who are biologically male but prefer to identify as female are actually male and shouldn't be able to compete in sporting competitions as a female.

And if a person does make a contentious statement like that, we shouldn't want to have the comment deleted, or have that person banned from the platform (Twitter or Facebook for example), or try to have them fired from their job, or abuse them as a homophobe. Instead, if you think they are wrong show them where, and if you can't do that, you really should start wondering why. Maybe it is you who is wrong.

Sure, we know that many babies can't chew steak, but the rest of us can, and why shouldn't we? If the babies can't stand us enjoying a steak, then I suggest they are the ones with the problem!

There are no comments for this entry.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.