Freedom of speech/censoring

[Kksd74628]

Important lesson about relativity.

There are advantages and disadvantages in cencoring and it just all depends on the situation, perspective and goal. When you're leading people you need to be extremely smart and you'd want pretty much to be couple steps ahead of people you're leading if not even more. In the structure level you need to learn the skill to see in the future and analyze possible direction different scenarios could go to. As a conscious leader you want to impact society or at least the group you're leading. There are couple possible ways to make impact and I could divide those methods to 2 groups, content-level impact and structure-level impact.

In content-level impact you try to make people see required perspectives in order to go to healthier and "better" society or group. That is everything that happens within conversations. That is pointing out blindspots in worldviews, showing the advantages of the opposite views, showing new possibilities and ideas, reducing hate between different perspectives and reducing the amount of automatical responses and thought patterns (biases). If you want to make content-level impact on society you should have good arguments so people can really see the thing you're trying to show. The idea is not to sell "wrong" perspective using force, but helping the sales of "right" ones.

In structure-level impact you try to make the same impact that is covered in last paragraph, but by changing the "environment" of conversations and human interactions. That is how we get to censoring, deplatforming and to freedom of speech. Sometimes you know that the advantages of censoring content (reducing the hate and fights between different groups and people, deleting harmful worldviews and thought loops from big groups of people and redirecting conversations to better direction) outrun the disadvantages of censoring content (people being mad, people starting to become suspicious and not being able to really discuss the nuances of the spesific topic).

Freedom of speech and actions versus the level of maturity.

Only problem in freedom of speech is when it is used harmfully and only problem in censoring is when it is done without good reason and it restricts healthy, important and required dialogue. If you feel like you can't express truth you'll start to fight for the freedom of speech and if you feel offended by some thoughts (right or wrong) you'd want that to be censored. The more maturity you have to make better decisions and therefore act better way the more freedom can be handed to you. As long as we can't trust people to act correctly we have to guide them using laws, censoring or whatever structural method that exist.

End conclusion

Everything is perspectival and depends on the situation so I don't speak for any individual case, but I just tried to cover some key points about this very important concept. Censoring could and has been used to wrong egoistical goals, but that is what lead us to grow to this point we are right now with our development. Should we censor more or less, to that question you can't even know the answer, because in order to answer to that you'd need to predict future of society using your knowledge, know it like your pockets and just have mastery of human mind and still you could fail to know. Universe keeps surprising us time after time.

Thanks for reading whole thing .

With love -joNi- <3

Edited December 19, 2022 by Kksd74628
Typo

[Tyler Robinson]

Regarding freedom of speech I have two things to say —

One is that freedom of speech is no license for saying absolutely anything. And must not be used in this manner. 

 

Second, freedom of speech should not suppress relative truths. That's injustice. 

 

Balance the pendulum to the middle and we have the perfect pancake. 

 

[Kksd74628]

@Tyler Robinson

Freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you can by the definition. Still you have to stay responsible of your words. You're right on that. Sometimes suppressing something which is true could still be useful and I wouldn't call that unfair. Goes the same way as white lie. See White Lie.

[Tyler Robinson]

@Kksd74628 a white lie situation is different and can be useful. 

Yet suppressing truth that could benefit people can be harmful and unjust. 

For example let's say a new drug has dangerous effects and most people are forbidden from challenging the efficacy of the drug. That seems like a deliberate sabotage of well being. 

 

[Kksd74628]

@Tyler Robinson

4 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

For example let's say a new drug has dangerous effects and most people are forbidden from challenging the efficacy of the drug.

Sounds familiar

5 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Yet suppressing truth that could benefit people can be harmful and unjust.

The important word is "can". I agree it can, but also it might be the opposite.

[Kksd74628]

Anyone got thoughts about that?