What, Why & How do we Know ?
[NOTE August 2024: Skip down to see actual “Rules START:“] With Elon Musk taking a free-speech-absolutist approach to his takeover of X/Twitter, it is becoming ever more obvious that these good-faith rules of “civilised discourse” below, apply to open social media communications just as much as to any other limited discourse, dialogue, argument or debate … Continue reading “Rules of Engagement in Discourse”
I have a string to my agenda I call “The Court Jester“. It’s not just about our “freedom” to mock, but also about how it is an essential part of progressive dialogue – dialogue towards human progress that is. Once we understand the limits to logically objective argumentation in human decision-making, proper dialogue is all … Continue reading “Context for Humour – The Memes Matter”
Apart from passing references, I’ve never made this the focal issue of any post or tweet, but it is a pet hate of mine in the way Twitter works. The baying mob is easy to see in the trolls that inhabit comment threads of pretty much all on-line content these days, so much so that … Continue reading “The Baying Mob”
Wow that’s made my day (decade?) a mention of @frankieboyle liking a @nntaleb post. All things are possible when such stars align? https://t.co/xhApSQ8z1B — Ian Glendinning (@psybertron) February 19, 2017 Nassim Taleb Excellent on Umberto Eco:pic.twitter.com/dQZ1LYq3vP@nntaleb — Paul Holdengraber (@holdengraber) May 7, 2016 The Paul Holdengraber tweet came into my feed because it was liked … Continue reading “Sustainable Reading – Antilibrary requires no apology.”
One way or another “scientism” is at the core of many of my conversations in recent years, and in fact several in recent days too. In the last decade and a half I’ve also become quite a fan of Wittgenstein; initially suggested by Sam Norton a theologian-philosopher on a discussion-board we both frequented in the early … Continue reading “Joining up some Dots of the Day on “Scientism””
I made a link to the Dave Rubin / Steven Fry conversation a couple of days ago. I was making the connection between Julian Baggini’s piece of why simple – black and white – moral logic seems to be more popular than anything that appears more complicated or thoughtful, and linking this to some of … Continue reading “When Rationality is PC – Simplistication and Infantilism”
Hat tip to @SamiraShackle for drawing my attention to @FrankieBoyle’s Comment is Free piece in the Grauniad. The theme and conclusion is telegraphed in the title, but the content is explicitly about the seemingly deranged rationale of supporting vaguely motivated bombing in Syria but resisting direct support for Syrian refugees. It’s a very intelligent read, … Continue reading “Our addiction to “Weary Rationale” @FrankieBoyle”
Amidst the flurry of social media debate around the Charlie Hebdo massacre, I created this set of three more carefully considered posts: #1Â There Is No “Right To Offend” http://dlvr.it/835pwf Freedoms of expression are protected in law, but the nature of expressed content is not objectively defined as “rights” in law. #2Â The Court Jester http://dlvr.it/84rSXv Defence … Continue reading “Pulling Charlie Together”
This is the third of three related posts. The first #1 There Is No Right To Offend looked at self-restraint on freedom of offensive expression, and the second #2 The Court Jester concerned the specific cases where expression of offensive humour has satirical intent. These were argued most generally, but were obviously prompted by the Charlie Hebdo massacre and … Continue reading “Islam, We Have A Problem”
Humanist declarations, and UN Human Rights declarations include the double-negative form of words: “No-one has the right not to be offended.” And often in debate, or other free one-way expression of opinion, people express the sentiment “offense is taken not given”, “why should I care if you’re offended” – usually in less polite “fuck you” … Continue reading “There Is No “Right To Offend””