I haven't read anything as brilliantly depressing as the Aella piece in ages. "If I, who to my cost already am / one of those strange prodigious creatures, Man" ...
Did you read the comment from one of her subscribers who explained he would pay for OF content instead of just using free porn “when his romance brain was triggered by a girl” and he thought there might be something special and worth investing in about her? Saddest thing I’ve read in a while. These guys are being pretty terrible to themselves.
I am an atheist and I am against blasphemy laws. People should be free to criticise the activities of religious groups. And in my view, there is a great deal of harm done by people who justify harmful or even hateful acts in the name of religion. That harm should be condemned and in many cases should be made unlawful.
But burning books is a violent act and should never be tolerated. Burning books is a violent denial of freedom of speech to others. I realise that this is not a fashionable view today. But there are so many non-violent ways in which one can criticise a belief system, and protest about a belief system, and try to get a government to ban harmful acts done in the name of a religion. Fire is violence and violence is NOT a form of free speech. And violence achieves nothing except the promotion of violence.
It seems to have become a matter of principle to most Muslims that even the most minor defacing of the Quran - scuffing the cover, say - is an outrage demanding ultimate sanctions. The issue for them is not the denial of being able to read that particular copy or the violence of the act - it is the justification for their own violence, which now appears to overrule the concept of freedom of expression in Britain.
Giving ground to cultural bullying just gives leeway to further appropriation. If the fervour of my belief gives me permission to break the law and impose my cultural codes on others, then the law stops having authority - and we move further away from the rationality of the Age of Enlightenment into the darkness of The Age of Emotional Blackmail.
If you read any kids book on how to handle bullies, we have graduated well beyond the "punch them and they'll leave you alone" to a more touchy feely "they're bullies because they're sad so be nice to them."
This is the approach that Britain (and Europe more generally) have taken to Muslims. Muslims bully, and the Europeans say "well if we are nice to them then they'll feel loved and be nice back."
Unfortunately, this is really not how real life works. I don't love a lot of things about Trump, but he does understand the bully mentality, and he knows that punching harder is really much more effective most of the time.
The message of burning a book is that whoever wrote or reads it has no right to do so. Heinrich Heine observed that "where one burns books, one will soon burn people."
I don’t think that conclusion follows at all. Especially in the case of the Quran, where we are now told effectively that “you can burn any book but this”.
I'm not sure who told you that, but my view is that no public burnings of any book should be tolerated in a society which supports free speech. I am opposed to the burning of the Bible, the works of Marx, Harry Potter, Boris Johnson's memoirs, you name it . . .
No. The message of an individual burning their book is that “ I find this book so contemptible I am willing to display that contempt publicly by immolating 20 quid I could have spent elsewhere” It says nothing about anyone else’s right to read it as you are burning your own personal copy, not someone else’s nor the library’s. The trite observations of Heinrich Heine have little of substance to say on the matter.
Strongly disagree. Burning books publicly is itself a form of speech. Granted, I’m an American, and my views have been shaped by the fact that we have a First Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that burning an American flag is a form of protected speech.
In this instance, the individual may have been breaking a law against public disturbance, but other than that, what law is being broken by burning a text that is sacred to others?
You also need to be careful about extending the concept of violence to include the “violence” of burning an inanimate object. Concept creep about what constitutes violence is what leads to arguments about “silence is violence” or that the cartoons of Muhammad in Charlie Hebdo were “violence.”
I’m with Helen. The judge’s comment is concerning as it sounds a whole lot like a prohibition against blasphemy.
Surely the highlight of the Grammys is Courtney LaPlante (Spiritbox) being mistaken for Poppy, *rolling with it*, and then being asked about female representation xD
It is interesting how hung up we get on how people (or dogs) die. I always thought it was silly, because they're dead, they don't care any more. And yet, I still feel guilty for not letting my grandmother believe that I was engaged when she desperately wanted to see me paired off before she went. (I did get engaged shortly after; it wasn't a big stretch.) I don't know if it really affected her slow passing -- she was in pain and barely conscious -- but I feel like *I* was a horrible person for caring more about what the other (living) people in the room would think if I said "yes grandma, I'm going to get married to him."
Does this make sense? Probably not. I guess even rational people don't make sense.
“How useful is any of this to the average reader? If you had fallen into a coma on December 1st and woken up at Christmas, you would be no less informed. In fact for most of the month you would have been better informed, by virtue of being unconscious.” Martin Robbins on news overwhelm and the problem of iterative journalism; I’m definitely feeling this with Donald Trump, who keeps doing and undoing policies and threats with breakneck speed
This is why I personally do not read any predictive pieces. If an article supposes to tell me what will come of something or what something means or how the future will be formed by the present, I don't read it. Just tell me what _is_ thank you very much.
Referring to these groups as “Rationalist community” conflates them with the historical groups going by that name, which advocate for the plain unsexy reasoning that would debunk them. A simple web search of “rationalist” comes up with the historical ones, and I think shows the ones in the recent news as a co-opt, possibly seeking to get a pass on some unreasonable leaps?
The modern Rationalists (or at least the better-educated among them, including a handful of professional philosophers) are well aware of their historical predecessors :-) Some prefer the term "aspiring rationalist", because true rationality can never be achieved but only approached. I don't know how a movement intended to promote clearer thinking ended up spawning vegan Sith death cults: Max Read's theories make some sense to me, though I'm a little worried that he approvingly links to an article by prominent Rationalism-critic Emile Torres, who appears to be barely more hinged than the Zizians: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/yAHcPNZzx35i25xML/emile-p-torres-s-history-of-dishonesty-and-harassment
It's interesting to me that the Rationalist movement has spawned actual cults - people have been asking whether the movement as a whole was a cult for so long that LessWrong posters started using "phyg" ("cult" encoded using the rot13 cipher) instead. I first encountered LessWrong-style Rationalism in about 2009 through Roko, and like several of his friends I was concerned he was joining a cult - when he got kicked out because of the Basilisk thing we were somewhat relieved!
[At its best the Rationalist movement can produce some very interesting ideas; I think overall its effect on the world has been positive, and I'm a huge fan of the Rationalist writer Scott Alexander. But it can definitely be wacky, and somewhat totalising.]
So enjoyed that blast from 2001 by Lynn Barber about Marianne Faithfull. It so accurately portrays that world of slightly grubby sleaze, punctuated by the odd shaft of fabulousness, now entirely disappeared.
I haven't read anything as brilliantly depressing as the Aella piece in ages. "If I, who to my cost already am / one of those strange prodigious creatures, Man" ...
Did you read the comment from one of her subscribers who explained he would pay for OF content instead of just using free porn “when his romance brain was triggered by a girl” and he thought there might be something special and worth investing in about her? Saddest thing I’ve read in a while. These guys are being pretty terrible to themselves.
I am an atheist and I am against blasphemy laws. People should be free to criticise the activities of religious groups. And in my view, there is a great deal of harm done by people who justify harmful or even hateful acts in the name of religion. That harm should be condemned and in many cases should be made unlawful.
But burning books is a violent act and should never be tolerated. Burning books is a violent denial of freedom of speech to others. I realise that this is not a fashionable view today. But there are so many non-violent ways in which one can criticise a belief system, and protest about a belief system, and try to get a government to ban harmful acts done in the name of a religion. Fire is violence and violence is NOT a form of free speech. And violence achieves nothing except the promotion of violence.
It seems to have become a matter of principle to most Muslims that even the most minor defacing of the Quran - scuffing the cover, say - is an outrage demanding ultimate sanctions. The issue for them is not the denial of being able to read that particular copy or the violence of the act - it is the justification for their own violence, which now appears to overrule the concept of freedom of expression in Britain.
Giving ground to cultural bullying just gives leeway to further appropriation. If the fervour of my belief gives me permission to break the law and impose my cultural codes on others, then the law stops having authority - and we move further away from the rationality of the Age of Enlightenment into the darkness of The Age of Emotional Blackmail.
If you read any kids book on how to handle bullies, we have graduated well beyond the "punch them and they'll leave you alone" to a more touchy feely "they're bullies because they're sad so be nice to them."
This is the approach that Britain (and Europe more generally) have taken to Muslims. Muslims bully, and the Europeans say "well if we are nice to them then they'll feel loved and be nice back."
Unfortunately, this is really not how real life works. I don't love a lot of things about Trump, but he does understand the bully mentality, and he knows that punching harder is really much more effective most of the time.
Burning your own property in a controlled manner is not violence.
Burning a book which you own does not deny anyone else their right to free speech.
The message of burning a book is that whoever wrote or reads it has no right to do so. Heinrich Heine observed that "where one burns books, one will soon burn people."
I don’t think that conclusion follows at all. Especially in the case of the Quran, where we are now told effectively that “you can burn any book but this”.
I'm not sure who told you that, but my view is that no public burnings of any book should be tolerated in a society which supports free speech. I am opposed to the burning of the Bible, the works of Marx, Harry Potter, Boris Johnson's memoirs, you name it . . .
Why should someone not be allowed to publicly burn their personal property as a statement of conscience?
No. The message of an individual burning their book is that “ I find this book so contemptible I am willing to display that contempt publicly by immolating 20 quid I could have spent elsewhere” It says nothing about anyone else’s right to read it as you are burning your own personal copy, not someone else’s nor the library’s. The trite observations of Heinrich Heine have little of substance to say on the matter.
It is interesting to consider the position of UK law regarding the burning of flags and other forms of protest which may cause serious offence to part or all of the community. In short: it's not very clear. https://internationalhatestudies.com/is-the-burning-of-the-pride-flag-a-hate-crime/#:~:text=Unlike%20in%20many%20other%20jurisdictions,purview%20of%20the%20criminal%20law.
Strongly disagree. Burning books publicly is itself a form of speech. Granted, I’m an American, and my views have been shaped by the fact that we have a First Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that burning an American flag is a form of protected speech.
In this instance, the individual may have been breaking a law against public disturbance, but other than that, what law is being broken by burning a text that is sacred to others?
You also need to be careful about extending the concept of violence to include the “violence” of burning an inanimate object. Concept creep about what constitutes violence is what leads to arguments about “silence is violence” or that the cartoons of Muhammad in Charlie Hebdo were “violence.”
I’m with Helen. The judge’s comment is concerning as it sounds a whole lot like a prohibition against blasphemy.
Am I allowed to say how drop -dead gorgeous Marianne Faithfull looks in that picture?
Surely the highlight of the Grammys is Courtney LaPlante (Spiritbox) being mistaken for Poppy, *rolling with it*, and then being asked about female representation xD
https://youtu.be/oGi843XWcNA
I first encounter the Zizians here - the whole Extropia’s Children sequence is interesting reading, but the specific detail is chapter 2.
https://open.substack.com/pub/aiascendant/p/extropias-children?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Although it all feels another chapter in a long line of California cults.
Helen Lewis + Sam Harris! Two of my favs—great episode, and I hope he has you back.
It is interesting how hung up we get on how people (or dogs) die. I always thought it was silly, because they're dead, they don't care any more. And yet, I still feel guilty for not letting my grandmother believe that I was engaged when she desperately wanted to see me paired off before she went. (I did get engaged shortly after; it wasn't a big stretch.) I don't know if it really affected her slow passing -- she was in pain and barely conscious -- but I feel like *I* was a horrible person for caring more about what the other (living) people in the room would think if I said "yes grandma, I'm going to get married to him."
Does this make sense? Probably not. I guess even rational people don't make sense.
“How useful is any of this to the average reader? If you had fallen into a coma on December 1st and woken up at Christmas, you would be no less informed. In fact for most of the month you would have been better informed, by virtue of being unconscious.” Martin Robbins on news overwhelm and the problem of iterative journalism; I’m definitely feeling this with Donald Trump, who keeps doing and undoing policies and threats with breakneck speed
This is why I personally do not read any predictive pieces. If an article supposes to tell me what will come of something or what something means or how the future will be formed by the present, I don't read it. Just tell me what _is_ thank you very much.
Referring to these groups as “Rationalist community” conflates them with the historical groups going by that name, which advocate for the plain unsexy reasoning that would debunk them. A simple web search of “rationalist” comes up with the historical ones, and I think shows the ones in the recent news as a co-opt, possibly seeking to get a pass on some unreasonable leaps?
The modern Rationalists (or at least the better-educated among them, including a handful of professional philosophers) are well aware of their historical predecessors :-) Some prefer the term "aspiring rationalist", because true rationality can never be achieved but only approached. I don't know how a movement intended to promote clearer thinking ended up spawning vegan Sith death cults: Max Read's theories make some sense to me, though I'm a little worried that he approvingly links to an article by prominent Rationalism-critic Emile Torres, who appears to be barely more hinged than the Zizians: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/yAHcPNZzx35i25xML/emile-p-torres-s-history-of-dishonesty-and-harassment
It's interesting to me that the Rationalist movement has spawned actual cults - people have been asking whether the movement as a whole was a cult for so long that LessWrong posters started using "phyg" ("cult" encoded using the rot13 cipher) instead. I first encountered LessWrong-style Rationalism in about 2009 through Roko, and like several of his friends I was concerned he was joining a cult - when he got kicked out because of the Basilisk thing we were somewhat relieved!
[At its best the Rationalist movement can produce some very interesting ideas; I think overall its effect on the world has been positive, and I'm a huge fan of the Rationalist writer Scott Alexander. But it can definitely be wacky, and somewhat totalising.]
So enjoyed that blast from 2001 by Lynn Barber about Marianne Faithfull. It so accurately portrays that world of slightly grubby sleaze, punctuated by the odd shaft of fabulousness, now entirely disappeared.