Let's assume that the relatively low cognitive ability of certain racial groups is a problem. If we have free speech, then we can openly diagnosis the cause of the problem (genetic differences). Suppose this catches on and more people begin to realize the true causes of race differences. This might convince people to invest in looking for actual solutions. For example, we might invest the modicum of resources necessary to create reliable genetic predictors of cognitive ability and then use these predictors for embryo selection to enhance cognitive ability. Obviously, this is only a long-term solution, but I don't see any other one. And this won't happen if we can't openly tell the truth, do research on this topic, or advocate in favor of the only viable solution.
"This might convince people to invest in looking for actual solutions. For example, we might invest the modicum of resources necessary to create reliable genetic predictors of cognitive ability and then use these predictors for embryo selection to enhance cognitive ability."
Excellent idea. This is something I promote at every opportunity. This and genetic enhancement. Not just cognitive ability but other positive traits as well.
Most readers and most people in general will say yes, and many even consider themselves free speech absolutists."
Yes, I am in favor of free speech, and I am an absolutist. Speech is either free or controlled. The very definition of the word 'FREE' is not under the control or in the power of another.
"If you think about all the ways someone could get in trouble for saying something, there's a lot of ways:"
A number of the examples you list are not free speech issues; they involve breaking an agreement or contract.
If you are for limiting speech, do not claim you are for free speech; be honest; you are for controlling some speech. Use a term like bounded speech.
In your screen grab, Ireland appears at ~ (1.6, -44) on the left graph. In the article to which I link, Ireland appears at ~ (1.1, -44), overlapping the Canada label. The other points seem the same or close to it; Ireland jumped out and it seemed odd that it was different. It is less of an outlier on the publication to which I link.
An aside, a friend pointed out that the x log scale minimizes the disparate arrest rates graphically though readers of the original article would be aware of the difference between 10^(0.5) and 10^2.
Your articles are interesting. OK, I just subscribed!
Free speech requires both that one party wants to speak and the other party wants to listen: it needs to be consensual for all involved. In practical terms, allowing rightful property owners (of buildings, websites, TV programmes, journals, etc.) to decide what speech is allowed appears to maximise free speech. This property approach can answer any questions and solve any paradoxes concerning free speech. To impose your speech on property where it is not allowed or your speech is fraudulent is not to exercise free speech but to make a nuisance of yourself.
In general I share the concerns expressed in this post.
Why is the pair of graphs shown here different from the pair in the actual paper, "Net Opposition To Immigrants Of Different Nationalities Correlates Strongly With Their Arrest Rates In The UK,"
Noah Carl, DOI: 10.26775/OQSPS.2016.11.10, Published: 10th of November 2016 ISSN: 2446-3868, Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science?
Smith's 2016 YouGov Data tables are good, open information. I have not compared them to the log graphs.
The UK Met Police data set is interesting in the context of free speech. One of the most common categories of crime is "hate crime" with the protected group specified. It is not clear whether these are "crimes" of speech or physical offenses.
Let's assume that the relatively low cognitive ability of certain racial groups is a problem. If we have free speech, then we can openly diagnosis the cause of the problem (genetic differences). Suppose this catches on and more people begin to realize the true causes of race differences. This might convince people to invest in looking for actual solutions. For example, we might invest the modicum of resources necessary to create reliable genetic predictors of cognitive ability and then use these predictors for embryo selection to enhance cognitive ability. Obviously, this is only a long-term solution, but I don't see any other one. And this won't happen if we can't openly tell the truth, do research on this topic, or advocate in favor of the only viable solution.
There is a lot more money and power in attempting to solve the problem then in solving it.
"This might convince people to invest in looking for actual solutions. For example, we might invest the modicum of resources necessary to create reliable genetic predictors of cognitive ability and then use these predictors for embryo selection to enhance cognitive ability."
Excellent idea. This is something I promote at every opportunity. This and genetic enhancement. Not just cognitive ability but other positive traits as well.
"On the limits of free speech."
The very title is an oxymoron.
"Are you in favor of free speech?
Most readers and most people in general will say yes, and many even consider themselves free speech absolutists."
Yes, I am in favor of free speech, and I am an absolutist. Speech is either free or controlled. The very definition of the word 'FREE' is not under the control or in the power of another.
"If you think about all the ways someone could get in trouble for saying something, there's a lot of ways:"
A number of the examples you list are not free speech issues; they involve breaking an agreement or contract.
If you are for limiting speech, do not claim you are for free speech; be honest; you are for controlling some speech. Use a term like bounded speech.
Here is the publication to which I refer. http://urisohn.com/sohn_files/wp/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/6265-Carl-OQSPS-2016-Net-opposition-to-immigrants-of-different-antionalities-correaltes-strongly-with-their-arrest-rates-in-the-uk.pdf. (sic)
In your screen grab, Ireland appears at ~ (1.6, -44) on the left graph. In the article to which I link, Ireland appears at ~ (1.1, -44), overlapping the Canada label. The other points seem the same or close to it; Ireland jumped out and it seemed odd that it was different. It is less of an outlier on the publication to which I link.
An aside, a friend pointed out that the x log scale minimizes the disparate arrest rates graphically though readers of the original article would be aware of the difference between 10^(0.5) and 10^2.
Your articles are interesting. OK, I just subscribed!
Free speech requires both that one party wants to speak and the other party wants to listen: it needs to be consensual for all involved. In practical terms, allowing rightful property owners (of buildings, websites, TV programmes, journals, etc.) to decide what speech is allowed appears to maximise free speech. This property approach can answer any questions and solve any paradoxes concerning free speech. To impose your speech on property where it is not allowed or your speech is fraudulent is not to exercise free speech but to make a nuisance of yourself.
>typing about Twitter files and corporation censorship
>read "The Libertar[d]ian Conjecture"
gotcha.
Olivier Traldi seems to love the worst arguments
In general I share the concerns expressed in this post.
Why is the pair of graphs shown here different from the pair in the actual paper, "Net Opposition To Immigrants Of Different Nationalities Correlates Strongly With Their Arrest Rates In The UK,"
Noah Carl, DOI: 10.26775/OQSPS.2016.11.10, Published: 10th of November 2016 ISSN: 2446-3868, Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science?
Smith's 2016 YouGov Data tables are good, open information. I have not compared them to the log graphs.
The UK Met Police data set is interesting in the context of free speech. One of the most common categories of crime is "hate crime" with the protected group specified. It is not clear whether these are "crimes" of speech or physical offenses.
They are not different. It's literally a screenshot I took while writing this. I don't understand the comment.