CDXXXVI – The Virtue of Suppression

On the scale of bad ideas, there are ideas that are stupid because they have not been thought through; there are ideas that are dangerous because they HAVE been thought through and the bad outcome is desired; and there are ideas that ought to be suppressed because to know about the bad idea–even in curiosity–is dangerous.

Ideas that are stupid because they have not been thought through are bad ideas because they are faulty. “I like cake, so I will eat only cake” is a bad idea–cake does not have all the nutrients required, “liking” a food is not a qualification of it’s worthiness to eat, etc etc.

Ideas that are dangerous are dangerous because the bad outcome is desired. “I hate myself therefore I will eat only cake.” This is “suicide by cake” and the speaker knows it. He knows that cake does not have health benefits and he has decided that eating only cake is an appropriate response to hating oneself.

Ideas that ought to be suppressed are bad because you can poison someone’s mind with the mere knowledge of the bad idea. We see this in Eden, when God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. God suppressed the knowledge, and once Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit, they cannot un-eat the fruit–their eyes were permanently opened and humanity colored by original sin.

Ideas that ought to be suppressed are things that cannot be un-known once known. Suppressing those ideas is a virtue, nay an obligation.

Ignorance is bliss, if we are ignorant of bad ideas.

AMDG

CXLVIII – In the Shadow of Mount Doom

I have an afterthought about this idea of changing names and tearing down statues. I realized that there is nothing stopping us from changing every name of every feature. Every mountain, valley, river, city, and building can be renamed, and there’s literally nothing stopping us. So why do we change names, historically? Why do we keep them?

The function of names of features is, at it’s simplest, to identify features so that everyone can identify them, such as on a map or in conversation. If I call the big mountain “Mount Pleasant” and you call it “Mount Doom” we would not be able to communicate about the mountain. Likewise if my tribe calls it Mount Pleasant, and your tribe calls it Mount Doom, they would be able to communicate internally but would have trouble communicating between each other. Generally speaking, different tribes tend to agree on the name of geographical features for this reason, because they are fixed points for navigation. So the key things here are that a common culture will agree on a name, as well as those in a common geographical area. A named point is a reference point that tells everyone they are of the same or similar culture. If I speak to someone and they refer to the mountain as Mount Pleasant, I know they are my people. The Mount Doom people are foreigners.

Names do sometimes change. When the Normans invaded Anglo Saxon England, historians were able to trace the cultural movement because the names of towns would change but the names of the rivers would not. The Towns were occupied by a different people and so were given different names; the rivers were navigational reference points and so their names were preserved. Historically, human civilizations will preserve names of water features, probably for that very reason. The names will change when a new culture arrives, or when an invading nation arrives. An existing culture will rarely change names because that changes reference points. Names will change as a lagging indicator on a culture change, because the culture has to already know both the new and old names.

When Alexander was subjugating the Greeks, he conquered the city-state of Thebes, and rather than occupy it, he tore it to the ground and erased it from memory. The city is in ruins to this day. Names change after the conquest by a new culture. The old reference points don’t matter any more, people are already navigating by the new map of the world.

This movement to remove statues and change names is a sign that the culture has already changed. Whether you like it or not, you live in the foothills of Mount Doom now.

AMDG

CXLIII – More On Censorship

Background: On Censorship, On Rights.

---

The President has signed an executive order with the intent of revoking “Section 230” protections for social media companies. Section 230 says that organizations that give a platform to, but do not editorialize, users content, are exempt from publisher rules.

There are two ways this could go.

“Social Media Should Be A Free Speech Platform!”

Ok! Lets commit to it, then. Have your Free Speech! We know that Free Speech really means Government Sanctioned Speech, so instead of Jack Dorsey censoring your tweets, it’s the government. That’s all that means: I don’t want a private corporation censoring me, I want the government to censor me. And what will happen when someone whose name is not Trump enters the office? How long do you think to expect to maintain your free speech when they change the rules of what is considered protected speech?

“The Government Should Not Interfere With Private Corporations!”

Ok! Then Twitter is going to censor you and there’s nothing you can do about it. Don’t like it? Find a new platform! Terms of Use for using a private organizations product means accepting whatever changes they make to that product, unless you vote with your feet. It’s inherently nonsensical to complain about twitter, on twitter. Twitter will let you complain as much as you like as long as you do it using their tool.

“But Scoot, There’s A Real Problem! Someone Should Do Something!”

Yes, someone should. But not Jack Dorsey, and not President Trump. If you do not like how a product you don’t pay for is being used, then don’t use that product. “But I want to use the product!” Ok! Then you get what you pay for.

CX – Excursus on Censorship

Inspired by a series of posts by fellow blogger, Wood, who is a must-follow for pithy insights into Catholic and political life. See Here, Here, and Here

---

Censorship has the common understanding as “suppression of speech”. Here in the United States, speech is considered a right, which I have argued is a fallacious analogy to Natural Law. Perfect Free Speech is the idea that anyone can say anything; Perfect Censorship is the idea that no one can say anything. These are opposite ends of a continuum.

Free Speech is certainly not perfect in American society. While the Overton window of permissible speech is growing daily, it doesn’t include everything. You can’t shout bomb threats in an airport, or shout “fire!” in a crowded theater. These things are speech, but disallowed speech because they cause panic, and thus harm. It’s this small nugget that has drawn the fascination of modern leftists, that harmful speech is disallowed. A right-thinking conservative might say that there is a difference, and banning things that leftists consider ‘hate speech’ is actually censorship. Leftists would rebut that shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater is not censorship because of the harmful nature of the speech, therefore the harmful nature of other speech is validly prohibited.

So what about censorship? Censorship is the suppression of speech, specifically in modern usage it’s the suppression of speech which ought to be allowed. This is why leftists and rightists view it differently: when people agree on suppressing speech, it’s legal prudence. When people disagree, one will always argue it is censorship. So in the example above, when the rightist argues that the leftist is engaging in censorship, he’s really saying “they are prohibiting speech which should be allowed”, or to simplify even further, “they are banning speech which I like.”

Moral Speech

We cannot agree on either Free Speech or Censorship, so let us turn to what moral speech might look like. Moral speech is virtuous and glorifies God. At worst it is neutral, because we must speak to conduct our daily business. There are examples of Immoral speech which we might review during examinations of conscience in preparation for the sacrament of reconciliation. Profane speech, taking the Lord’s name in vain, irreverence in Holy places or about Holy things. This speech amounts variously to venial or mortal sins. In a perfectly formed society like Edeny, this kind of speech is absolutely prohibited. No one argues that it is censorship because everyone agrees that it should be prohibited, but the residents of Anakay, in contrast, would argue that Edeny lives in an oppressive society with rampant censorship.

All Aboard the Censorship

So what does all this tell us about Censorship or Speech? Really, that it is commonplace. Every regime must require Censorship because some speech is counterproductive to a stable and effective society. Can a society persist where people are allowed to profane the very society they live in? Can we have reverence for God if we are allowed to invoke his name in profane or irreverent ways? Nothing can be sacred if we do not first treat it as sacred. Likewise, the virtues we value as a society ought to be rewarded, and their corresponding social vices ought to be discouraged. Censorship is a means to that end.

The question ultimately is: What is important enough to us as a society that speaking against it ought to be suppressed? Think about what it should be. Now consider what it currently is.

AMDG