The good thing about football teams is you know your team and that’s that. If you’re a Saints fan – which, alas, we are – then you’re a Saints fan, come hell or high water, with reason having absolutely nothing to do with it. But politics is different, or at least it damn well should be. You’re a Democrat? Fine. The Republicans have had nothing resembling a sane principle since Eisenhower, and Trump is a demagogue, a divisive racist and, increasingly, an out and out lunatic. So, sure, be a Democrat. But don’t pretend that Biden is not a doddering old man, or that Kamala isn’t vacuous and second rate,* or that the Democrats don’t have plenty of skeletons in and out of their own closet. You’re a Laborite? Fine. Dutton is an unprincipled, potato-headed Queensland thug-cop leading a parade of cretins and goons and born-to-rule twats. But don’t pretend that Albo and his gang are the White Knights of Goodness and Reason. Mostly they’re better, no question, if only for being remotely human, with the ability to feel empathy. But on (and not only on) free speech, Labor – and the Democrats – suck balls, and no one should be pretending otherwise.
The latest stoush is over Labor’s reintroduced censorship bill, which is ready to whack social media, but not the legacy media, on “misinformation” and “disinformation”. Famously, Elon Musk responded with a reasoned reply:
But Musk, unprincipled and self-righteous and self-serving and dishonest and dangerous asshole that he is, is right. What Labor is doing here is deeply authoritarian, genuinely dangerous stuff.
We’ve written enough that we’re not going to get into again here. Suffice to say, one cannot logically declare what is “misinformation” or ‘disinformation” without also declaring what is true. And, anyone who thinks it is a good and safe idea to back a government or their chosen thug-representatives to be the legal determiners of truth understands nothing of either history or the present.
There will be plenty of time and opportunity next week to loathe Trump and Musk and Dutton and IPA sprog Paterson and all of them. On this one, however, they are right. The assholes here are Albo and Plibersek and Rowland. They are up themselves with their sanctimony and they are dangerously wrong.
*) That is a compliment, given we had Kamala pegged as third rate. Since becoming the Democratic nominee, however, Kamala has been a lot better than we had expected.
UPDATE (18/09/24)
We had missed that Albo had an op-ed in the Murdoch rags on September 16, shooting back at Musk. The piece is just nonsense, with “won’t someone think of the children?” blather and whatnot. But it contains a telling line:
But a right to free speech isn’t a right to spread deliberate lies, to trap or trick people. Freedom always comes with responsibility.
Yes it is, and no it doesn’t. The price of free speech is that irresponsible people have the right to lie and to trick people. Sorry, Albo, but that’s the way it works. You simply don’t understand the nature of free speech, and few people in Australia do.
This will be completely open to abuse by any political party. Most already try to control information that is inconvenient for achieving their goals.
Of course. There is the pretence that one can objectively determine “misinformation”, and that there are “misinformation experts” to do so. But there isn’t, and there isn’t. The “experts” are invariably con men, and almost invariably “left” con men.
The most difficult time for truth is when everything can be truth.
That’s clearly a huge problem now, although i don’t think it’s the impetus for or much related to the misinformation-censorship campaigns. But maybe both are a consequence of the dilution of power of the legacy media and the resulting tribalism.
Part of the double-edged sword of free speech is that people will (and should be) say things we don’t like and we think is wrong. Having a government entity target and label views they don’t like and shutting it down is not a good thing. (eg…Covid/vaccines/etc.). I don’t trust people, especially an unaccountable bureaucratic monopoly, to use this power well. No matter which side is in power.
Of course. No one should be so trusted.
I have been a PhD student in mathematics at Claremont Graduate University in the 1980s and left abd(long story tlwr, too long won’t write). Since I left in 1989 I have spent most of my time studying psychology, philosophy as well as other arts and humanities subjects like the philosophy of religion. That is a 35 year span. What I have learned is that very few people have the level of self awareness and philosophical skills to be able to say anything that comes close to not being self delusional. One of my sub areas of interest which is very much related to politics is the relationship between IQ and openness to experience. This area is related to politics because political orientation is positively correlated with openness to experience. The more open, the more liberal. Also creativity is correlated with openness to experience but only mildly correlated with IQ. IQ is correlated to skilled use of language or more generally systems of symbols(like mathematics). One of the other personality factors from the five factor model is conscientiousness. It is the people who combine all three high IQ, high in openness to experience and highly conscientious where the interesting things happen. Virtually all, if not all, Nobel Laureates come from that group. The same goes for pretty much all forms of human endeavor that requires a stong analytical and creative mind. That is the main reason why almost all the faculty at the best universities in the world are politically liberal. I think being aware of this experimentally verified fact can be helpful when looking for sources of reliable information. Noam Chomsky has aptly pointed out that academia is made up of many very cowardly individuals who will not stand up and oppose the extant power structure. Postmodernism is a prime example.
Thanks, Charles. This is interesting although I’m far from convinced (to the extent that I understand.) I’ll highlight a couple of your points.
(1) You wrote,
“… very few people have the level of self awareness and philosophical skills to be able to say anything that comes close to not being self delusional.”
I’m hardly the guy to be defending the common man, but this is pretty arrogant. I think most people are pretty stupid most of the time, at least if it requires thinking about the wider world. But, even if the analytical skills and intuitions are not so strong, most of this stupidity seems to me to stem from laziness and disinterest. I’m not sure I can argue why people should in general be otherwise.
(2) You wrote,
“[the requirement of a strong analytical and creative mind] is the main reason why almost all the faculty at the best universities in the world are politically liberal.”
Maybe, but I’m very sceptical. i don’t buy into the standard right-wing whine that certain faculties being more left-liberal is evidence of deliberate or implicit bias. But you’ll have to do a lot of selling with a *lot* of evidence to convince me that the very high density of liberal academics is due primarily to the requirements of intelligence et al, and not at least in significant part due, rather, to groupthink and the promotion of company lines.
I don’t think academic liberalism has covered itself in glory in recent years, and I don’t see that being adventurous or having a great analytic mind is the primary key to academic success. (Although “creativity” has played an unfortunate role.) Maybe for the really top guys what you say is true, but for the worker ants, I don’t see it.
I really think you’d have to look carefully, discipline by discipline, and department by department, to make the kind of case you’re making. And maybe you might have been able to make the case forty years ago. But with the increasing industrialisation of the universities, which now rewards agreeing and playing safe much more than originality, I think you really have you work cut out.
Anyone who finishes with a swipe at postmodernism is worth reading. Thanks.
Sure. How does that fit with the rest of Charles’ message?
Freedom of speech issue aside, being a St Kilda supporter is almost grounds for martyrdom. A hard road to walk
It certainly ain’t rational.