Fall of Western Civilization, Was Has Windows Version 3 Been Scrapped?

[kewms]

And I'll start off by saying, as a part of the aforementioned process of exorcising abusive ghosts, I've come to the conclusion that I can't afford to decide that any opinion is "wrong." I may think it's narrow; I may think it doesn't take into account factors that I personally find important... but wrong? If I start there, I'm halfway back to my old abuse-cycle ways.

Some opinions are sufficiently misguided that I'll put a good bit of effort into avoiding people who hold them. Right/wrong in an absolute sense is less important to me than worth my time/not.

Katherine

[Silverdragon]

Some opinions are sufficiently misguided that I'll put a good bit of effort into avoiding people who hold them. Right/wrong in an absolute sense is less important to me than worth my time/not.

Katherine

I happen to agree, with a recent example of leaving one support group for another that is more community-minded. But I left, not because the first group’s effective leader was wrong, but because I was tempted to try to convince her that I was right. I have died on that hill too many times in a Groundhog Day-like fashion. To quote the immortal Robert A. Heinlein. “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” (perhaps not original with him, but nonetheless to be found on p. 31 of Time Enough for Love, Ace edition 1988.)

I might add that it annoys the voice instructor, too.

There’s an awful lot of pig voice lessons on the internet...

[devinganger]

Some opinions are sufficiently misguided that I'll put a good bit of effort into avoiding people who hold them. Right/wrong in an absolute sense is less important to me than worth my time/not.

Exactly. Everyone does have the right to their opinions. That doesn't mean that the free expression of an opinion is always harm-free to society. Societies are a balancing act between individual good and greater good, and there are some opinions out there that are toxic in the amount of others' time they eat up and the harm they do.

Speaking is an action, and not all actions can be allowed for the greater good.

[DavidR]

I'm not sure how much I'll have to contribute here, but I do want to say a couple of things. First, thank you SilverDragon, for your willingness to be vulnerable about your own history. I know it has take a lot of work to get to a healthy place.

WRT free expression of opinions, I think Devin makes a good point. Things look different in different societies with different histories, of course. Here in the USA, racist language and racist opinions have a unique and convoluted history--including opinions about what exactly is racist. An insult is not simply an opinion; an intentional lie is not an opinion; a statement meant to do personal or social harm ought not to have the same protections as a simple opinion. In my opinion! In high school (a very long time ago) I was taught that there is a legal principle according to which one person's right to extend their arm ends where another person’s nose begins (sources traced here: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/). And we all know that words can and do have real effects; otherwise, why write?

Part of the difficulty is that arm-extenders often profess not to have realized that there was even a nose out there. If we truly mean no harm or offense when expressing an opinion, or making any kind of a statement, then we have an obligation to genuinely listen to those who claim to find it hurtful. We may learn something.

None of this is meant to apply specifically to anyone here or to anything said here. Just a rumination. Which I guess makes me a ruminant, and we know what ruminants express: from one end "Moo"; from the other....

[garpu]

Even in the US, there are limits to freedom of speech. Like the old test in Schenk vs. US that you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Private individuals and organizations have no compunction to support your freedom of speech either. I think a lot of times the notion of free speech is being confused with the notion that every opinion is equally valuable and beneficial to society. (Clearly, it isn't.)

Should organizations like the KKK exist? One could argue that they fail the test in Schenk vs. US, that they present a threat to a part of the population. Note, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV. I, personally, think that the KKK is repugnant, and they aren't welcome in my home. (Which is my right as a private owner, or renter.) Should they be made illegal? The government doesn't think so. (I think public pressure and societal shunning is sometimes more effective than legal pressure. LIke your racist uncle will get the hint faster, if he doesn't get a Christmas invite for being an asshole.)

[devinganger]

There’s an awful lot of pig voice lessons on the internet...

This is probably the best bit of wisdom I have seen this month, if not this year. And sadly, I have contributed to far too many of them.

[devinganger]

In high school (a very long time ago) I was taught that there is a legal principle according to which one person's right to extend their arm ends where another person’s nose begins (sources traced here: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/). And we all know that words can and do have real effects; otherwise, why write?

Also known as "your right to free speech does not shield you from the consequences of your words."

[garpu]

In high school (a very long time ago) I was taught that there is a legal principle according to which one person's right to extend their arm ends where another person’s nose begins (sources traced here: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/). And we all know that words can and do have real effects; otherwise, why write?

Also known as "your right to free speech does not shield you from the consequences of your words."

A more concise way of expressing what I was trying to write.

[lunk]

I don’t know the laws in the US, but in Sweden (and most of Europe) the constitutional laws that guarantee freedom of speech, opinion and religious belief has very little to do with the relation between people. They say that the state (the government or its authorities) is not allowed to limit your right to express yourself, hold any opinion you want and hold any religious belief. There are a few exceptions, but they are few.

[Silverdragon]

I can't afford to decide that any opinion is "wrong."

Opinions are mostly based on how we value things, and that’s a personal choice. Like "Me and my family having decent leaving conditions is more important to me than the existence of some obscure insect, so I won’tvsupport scrapping western society to save that bug". But then we have all thióse cases where the opnion is based on false facts, and where the person refuses to accept that the facts are wrong.

The problem is that I can neither force nor persuade someone else that their facts are wrong, or even incomplete. I'd like to think that I can, but I really don't have that power. Usually the other party is equally convinced that my facts are wrong., and neither of us can convince the other – but we can surely make ourselves crazy trying.

I have to ask myself "What are the consequences if I'm wrong?" For example, what if I'm wrong that wearing a face mask during a pandemic helps prevent the spread of disease? Why then, I've inhaled my own bad breath to no purpose. But if I'm right, I've helped limit the spread of a deadly disease and perhaps saved a life or two. I'm content with that.

As for my neighbour who thinks that the pandemic is a hoax and that wearing a face mask will shorten her own life from breathing carbon dioxide, the consequences if she's wrong is that she's endangered lives – her own and others. I hope she can live with that – I couldn't. Meanwhile I avoid her. It's all I can do. Because my attempts to correct her views – and hers to correct mine – are just pig voice lessons.

[Login]

All face coverings get moist from inhalation and exhalation, and as people breathe in, they attract and concentrate whatever is in the air around them. The coverings get dirty and become havens for germs, which will live longer on fabrics than they do in the air.

People touch face coverings that have high concentrations of bacteria, viruses, and other organisms, and they then go on to touch other things (in shops, at work, etc) and spread higher concentrations of dirt and germs than they otherwise would.

Sure, if you can change masks every 15 minutes under strict hygiene measures, they might offer some minor benefits. But as they are now, the mask wearers are collecting, concentrating, and then spreading more germs (and all the consequences associated with that) than people who aren’t.

If someone has a cold, the flu, covid, or any other airborne illness, they should isolate.

But personally, I keep well clear of people wearing masks; just as I have long avoided people wearing scarves around their faces in the past.

My family cancelled its Xmas celebrations last year as we knew there was a major new bug going around at the time. I think you have to protect vulnerable groups and encourage good hygiene. Everything else is hysteria, and that hysteria (and the bad, nonsensical practices it leads to) has caused so many avoidable covid and non-covid deaths.

[nontroppo]

Login, are you goading us to commit the crimes to which this thread is deigned to save us from!?!? Is your misguided touchy-feely germ theory against the population efficacy of mask use, and seeming ignorance of a large body of epidemiological evidence from multiple countries demonstrating how mask use reduces community transmission a cunning ploy for us to practice as well as reflect on Jaysen and SilverDragon's words?

[lunk]

We don’t use masks in Sweden. A recent review of available studies suggest that keeping a distance of at least 1 m reduces the risk of infection more than wearing masks. The only exception is in health care, where people trained at using protection can use face masks in a way that is protective. But it still requires washing hands if you accidentally touched the mask, maximum 30 minutes and then the mask has to be changed and disposed of in a safe container, more washing hands, etc.

[Jaysen]

Do you all recognize that within 2 pages we have already degraded from discussion of the issues of opinion sharing (which is in fact opinion sharing) to antagonistically pointing at others? You have proven to me that my opinion, that all of this "social media" is absolutely futile, is terribly well founded.

I've come to the conclusion that opinions have no intrinsic value. They are the ravens shiny rock. The fool's gold of emotions. You think you have something of value, but in the end, the only value is that which you assigned to it based on your emotional attachment to an idea. Rarely do any of us make factually based opinions; nearly all of us are making assumptive opinions. We assume the "facts" we've been told are in fact, true. Yet we can not verify those facts outside of reading the opinion (aka analysis) of yet another third party. Let me provide a socratic style hyperbole as a way of explanation.

A first world leader decides NOT to pass a travel ban between sections of the country. Folks get all up in arms about the infection rate of a certain virus. Folks start passing local ordinances requiring masks. Analysts boil down the massive amount of information and tell the world "the leader is failing to take charge". People repeat this over and over. Soon there are protests and factions built in support of and against the leader. What has been noticeably ignored by ALL parties is one simple fact; the leader is explicitly forbidden to enact the travel ban based on constitutional limits to the office. Are the opinions of the factions valid? No. They are based on meta-analysis where the original analysis is inaccurate or fraudulently skewed to a predetermined position.

If you believe the above paragraph in any way expressed my opinion on current events in the US, you have just proven my point that opinions are meaningless. To arrive at that opinion, you blatantly ignored my qualification about the paragraph itself (last sentence of prior paragraph). You assumed that my writing was more than what I STATED IT TO BE. Assumptive reasoning leading you to an opinion invalidates the opinion you hold. (the writing was not the example, the interpretation of the writing is the example).

What is my point? Logic and reason allow us to have opinions. Basic humanity tells us "I should be allowed to formulate my own opinions". The respect we all claim to want for ourselves, would, to a just and righteous mind, force us to extend the same respect to others. If one ever decides to share an opinion in any way, that individual MUST allow others to hold a contrary opinion; allowing them to hold it in peace and dignity with NO malice. Any other approach reduces society too little more than an emotional cesspool where the mob dictates the fact of the day based solely on who has the most likes at any given moment.

To state this using wording from other posts in this thread; as a human being, I fully support my rights ending at the end of someone else's nose, just remember that my rights start at the tip of my nose.

[kewms]

If someone has a cold, the flu, covid, or any other airborne illness, they should isolate.

Nice idea. Except the whole point is that people don't necessarily *know* that they're sick. Pre-symptomatic people are a major disease vector.

The Asian countries that have largely brought Covid under control have all turned to universal mask wearing. What do you know that their public health officials don't?

Katherine