butler talks about how 'saying' can be a kind of 'doing' and how naming someone can call a position in a context (~ identity) into existence
Also that we can't defeat harmful ideas if they're forced underground. I want them debated publicly so that the problem is clear.
-
-
i would propose the analogy of an epidemic that needs to be fought AND contained to challenge that, at least for certain cases
-
Id resist that. You can fight my ideas that God does not exist but if you try to contain them, we have a theocracy.
-
i wonder if the implied symmetry/interchangeability of positions (god vs. no god) is valid. a theocracy would take control over ppl's lives.
-
Not entirely sure what you mean but yes, one way theocracy takes control is by criminalising expression of disbelief in God.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But yes, I agree that undermining consensus on free speech for all does mean dominant groups will decide which ideas are harmful.
-
hrmm… interesting—i was actually thinking of the opposite scenario some ppl are worried about where harm can be claimed too easily by anyone
-
That's an adjacent issue. Once you decide atheist ideas are harmful, you then decide where the line is. Can they express any doubt at all?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.