Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
Tommy's post comparing Obama to King George prompted this response from Crow's Nest:
At first I thought to myself, "No, that's not possible. There is no way that someone on Ricochet was actually making the case that seceding from the United States was not only viable, but a just cause." ...
If you believe, as conservatives once did, that ideas have consequences, it is impossible not to recognize this argument as irresponsible.
If you believe, as the classical authors did, that the worst thing that can ever befall a people is civil war, then a moral man would never consider it as any option but the very last.
Now, go read the whole thread before judging, because pulling that quote out of the context of the discussion doesn't do either party to the conversation justice, I'm just extracting it because it leads me to another question.
Are some ideas so bad that it is irresponsible to discuss them? Surely there are: There's a reason we react with revulsion when Ahmadinejad proposes an international conference to debate the truth of the Holocaust. And Ricochet is not a free-speech zone: In fact, you're paying for it to be a restricted-speech zone, with a Code of Conduct that prohibits "Anything that makes the Ricochet Community look like a bunch of radical fruitcakes." That's a deliberately vague phrasing, but the point of it is to leave some latitude for editorial judgment while putting everyone on notice that we do find certain ideas irresponsible.
So: At what point does an idea move from "interesting and important for every generation to discuss" (the category in which Tommy's post falls, I think), to "Not in my house, you don't say that?"
Is it just a matter of taste, or can we find more formal rules by which to distinguish them?
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
Most likely we will all "know it when we see it".
Aside from that, the Code of Conduct pretty much covers everything, no?
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
For the record - Crow's Nest was right that my post was too easily misinterpreted because of the way I wrote it. It didn't become evident (and then barely so) that I was proposing a theoretical discussion and not plotting an actual secession until very far into the post.
To make up for that shortcoming, I posted a clarifying update at the top.
Wait there's a knock on my door...is that guy carring a secret service badge....?
Oct '10
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
OK, I'll bite:
Secession, civil war, and revolution are always on the table. The reason is simple: the natural condition of man, politically, is not to be free. The great accomplishment of the Founding Fathers was to apply revolutionary violence, not to the (re)-establishment of totalitarianism, but to its opposite—hence "A Republic, if you can keep it." To declare discussion of the possibility of secession, civil war, or revolution intolerable is to ignore the historically-proven tendency for any given civic/political system to ultimately degenerate into tyranny that must be resisted by mortal force. Such a belief somehow manages to ignore the Roman Republic, the British Colonies, the Weimar Republic... the list goes on and on.
"It can't happen to us. Not here. Not this time" is the last cry of the subjugated.
Edited on Jul 8, 2011 at 11:43amFeb '11
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
"Evil into the mind of God or man May come and go, so unapproved, and leave No spot or blame behind..." Paradise Lost
Of course "so unapproved" is the key qualifier, as Adam and Eve found out. The quote also summarizes some of the argument of Aereopagitica: moral virtue is improved, strengthened, to the degree to which we grapple with tempting ideas.
It's been quite a while since graduate school, so I'm not trying to initiate a Milton thread; just thought this a relevant quote. And, Milton's ideas justifying the 1648 revolution and regicide definitely had consequences, since he ended up (briefly) in prison after the Restoration
Jun '10
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
There is no way to legislate it. You'll know it when you see it, and Tommy's issue is not one that should be censored.
Here's an example of one that crosses the line: Let's assume someone starts a a conversation that argues that pedophilia is neither harmful to the children or society. If Ricochet would allow something so perverse, I'd go somewhere else.
If the subject makes most Ricocheteers to want to vomit in disgust, then that's one that should be taken up somewhere else. I can't define it any better than that.
May '10
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
To the left the revolution is on-going. Unfortunately for us, it's not the same revolution that we think of.
The spirit of our Revolution has always been thus: When does a legitimate government take on illegitimacy? When does the corruption become so pervasive and institutional that the most drastic of measures need to be taken?
Some would say that the corruption is complete when a majority of the citizenship becomes comfortable with, nay, dependent upon the corruption. That's the tipping point, when the rulers know that they have nothing to fear from the ballot box. If there's no fear of the ballot, that's what leads others to begin thinking of the barrel of the gun.
That thinking is what people think of when the left plots against the Second Amendment. A supple, unarmed citizenry with no recourse but fearfully obeying the ruling class is their dream.
Mar '11
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
"Anything that makes the Ricochet Community look like a bunch of radical fruitcakes."
That clause makes me a little uncomfortable simply because it's so vague and subjective. Kind of like the military's Article 134 of the UCMJ, the "catch-all clause". Basically it depends on the mood and temperament of the moderators. It also strikes a chord of "don't embarrass me in front of my left wing friends". In case no one noticed, they think we're all crazy and evil anyway. Except for David Brooks. He's a good little pet, err, I mean, a responsible conservative writer.
I like my laws spelled out clearly and easy to understand and objective. Clauses like this are too close to "I know what it is when I see it".
Mar '11
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
But please remember that some topics which are freely discussed on Ricochet today would have been considered perverse and beyond the pale ten or fifteen years ago. And so our standards devolve.
tabula rasa: There is no way to legislate it. You'll know it when you see it, and Tommy's issue is not one that should be censored.
Here's an example of one that crosses the line: Let's assume someone starts a a conversation that argues that pedophilia is neither harmful to the children or society. If Ricochet would allow something so perverse, I'd go somewhere else.
If the subject makes most Ricocheteers to want to vomit in disgust, then that's one that should be taken up somewhere else. I can't define it any better than that. · Jul 8 at 11:46am
Sep '10
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
This is a fascinating discussion because its about emergent order on ricochet. Did you see Jim Geraghty's comments on the Casey Anthony trial this morning? I'm exactly the same way, the prurient delight of the MSM over describing this disgusting act makes it all the more horrid and as a father I find it nauseating. As one who lives in the capital markets I am perhaps a bit more cynical and also a bit more aghast at the default discussions going on today but I do not consider these topics nor even the topic of civil war to be taboo as long as the discussion is one of thoughtful people fleshing out well reasoned positions regardless of my opinion about their position. That's what I like about ricochet. I am no expert but I suspect that flamewars that erupt on other boards are more about intransigence and willful irrationality than any specific topic.
Mar '11
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
Claire,
Incisive as usual. You’ve gotten to the heart of a vital question with dispatch.
Tommy—I was too quick on the trigger with your post. I wanted to counter a trope I have seen on the Right too frequently, and failed to give the abstract premise the time it deserved. I hope my follow ups have proven my Lockean bona fides.
To my fellow members: The last thing that I want is to stifle discussion or invite some kind of language police here. I wouldn’t post if I wanted a topic to die a quick death.
I am a partisan of the true liberal education. Controversial subjects should be considered and debated, and a person must have intellectual courage to approach themes and ideas that they may not be in agreement with in a spirit of open-mindedness and with the goal of understanding the opposition—even if it is in order to oppose it more fully.
But in our willingness to have an Oxford style debate about an issue, we must not be careless in our presentation of it or screed-ridden in our temperament.
Sep '10
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
Its inevitable, when discussing the demographic problem in Peter Robinson's latest, to wonder what is the theoretical purpose of any nation state. I know its distasteful for most moderns and post moderns to discuss but there were 2 reasons that the right to vote was so restricted in the ancient Greek city states and they revolved around property ownership and military service.
Just because you have the right to vote, doesn't mean you can't be a serf.
Jun '11
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
Paul Snively: OK, I'll bite:
Secession, civil war, and revolution are always on the table. The reason is simple: the natural condition of man, politically, is not to be free. The great accomplishment of the Founding Fathers was to apply revolutionary violence, not to the (re)-establishment of totalitarianism, but to its opposite—hence "A Republic, if you can keep it." To declare discussion of the possibility of secession, civil war, or revolution intolerable is to ignore the historically-proven tendency for any given civic/political system to ultimately degenerate into tyranny that must be resisted by mortal force. Such a belief somehow manages to ignore the Roman Republic, the British Colonies, the Weimar Republic... the list goes on and on.
"It can't happen to us. Not here. Not this time" is the last cry of the subjugated. · Jul 8 at 11:40am
Edited on Jul 08 at 11:43 am
Well put, well put.
Mar '11
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
“Secession and civil war are always on the table”
Here we are in vast and perhaps unbridgably disagreement. Perhaps if you’ve seen a civil war up close you have a different perspective. Civil war is always a failure of politics, not an outgrowth of it.
In the distance, in a free society, there always remains the possibility of the people’s judgment. Even further in the distance, there is the possibility that that judgment includes the appeal to Heaven that is war.
But you have a shallow view of war and history if you think the side that is morally right always wins the war. See, for example, the Peloponnesian War.
Wars are decisive in ways that elections are not.
Yes, the right to revolution exists within the pantheon of natural rights. But, it should not be summoned casually, as though it remains in the foreground and not the very, very distant background, of daily politics.
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
I blame Martin Luther. Otherwise, we could still loftily discuss issues in the rarefied isolation of Latin and not have to worry about stirring up murderous masses of peasants with pitchforks and torches.
Where’s my quill…
Jul '10
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
I think we can make a distinction between the Main page and the Member feed.
The Main page is a public forum, where our thoughts are subject to public scrutiny.
The Member feed is the kitchen table, where, among friends, we're free to loosen up a bit.
That being said, I don't think a discussion of secession is nutty or irresponsible. It goes back to the Declaration of Independence and, over the past two years, has gained purchase in the minds of a broad swath of the general public.
Oct '10
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
Crow's Nest:
“Secession and civil war are always on the table”
Here we are in vast and perhaps unbridgably disagreement.
I disagree that we disagree. :-)
And this is why.
Sep '10
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
I blame Martin Luther. Otherwise, we could still loftily discuss issues in the rarefied isolation of Latin and not have to worry about stirring up murderous masses of peasants with pitchforks and torches. Where’s my quill…
Words cannot express my disappointment in your unfortunate slip, Bill. I hope its the humidity. Latin was not rarefied -- Greek was. Latin was for everyone. And -- you knew this was coming -- I had a Member Feed post on that very topic. And all Richard Weaver fans know that it was the nominalism of William of Ockham that is the real culprit.
Edited on Jul 8, 2011 at 2:47pmJan '11
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
There's an opinion market. Ricochet competes in that market.
It's a big internet. If you want to find a discussion on killing puppies or nun-slapping, you can probably find it somewhere. That doesn't mean that every website has to be open to every conversation. That's the fallacy of division.
Because it's a competitor in the market, most of the "selection" of topics will happen naturally. It's one thing to toss out ideas, hoping to attract a conversation, and having few or no responses. That's just life in the opinion market. No harm no foul. But when you push offensive ideas to poison the product, that is harm, and should be a foul.
This isn't a government operation. It's a business. Ricochet isn't a civil right; it's a mutual cooperation between producer and consumer. No one has a right to post anything, but then again, the editors make business decisions to allow as much as possible. I say that's pressure enough ... on both sides ... to create a boundary. The boundary may float on occasion, but that's how markets work.
Apr '11
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
You are looking at it the wrong way. The worse the idea the more it must be discussed and argued down. Otherwise you wind up saying "I was never for this, but.."
Re: Ideas Have Consequences. Does That Mean We Shouldn't Discuss Bad Ones?
That was going to be my first response, until I asked myself, "So, how about Ahmahdinejad's conference to discuss the evidence for the Holocaust?" The fact that there are some ideas we won't even dignify with a discussion means it's not true that the worse the idea the more it must be discussed. Yet I think there's some wisdom to what you're saying and to my first instinct--which is why I asked the question, "So how do you decide?" (Beyond gut feeling.)