On Sep 3, 2:06=A0pm, "steve" wrote:
> On =A03-Sep-2010, moviePig wrote:
> ...
> > Afaics (including from the passages you cite) "cognitive infiltration"
> > means publishing *rational* counter-argument in such a way as to
> > dispel the public's natural -- but *irrational* -- affinity for
> > melodramatic theories per se.
>
> > And, if I'm reading all this right, the safeguard against the
> > government's misuse of such a proposed program (as if *any* government
> > program were safe from misuse) is that its active ingredient -- as
> > stated here -- is to awaken the public's rationality ...always a good
> > thing to do, afaik.
>
> How is that a safeguard? =A0That's simply a stated intention. =A0Are you =
willing
> to cede power to the govt every time they state an intention that you fin=
d
> appealing?
>
> You dont see the devil in the details. =A0 If the govt can define a "fals=
e
> conspiracy theory" and take secretive action to combat that speech, then
> what happens if anti-govt rhetoric...clearly protected speech...is deemed=
to
> be so and these actions are taken against it? =A0That, without question, =
is an
> attack on, and violation of, the first amendment. =A0You cannot have a
> legitimate govt mechanism to distinguish between the "obviously false" an=
d
> otherwise that comports with the first amendment. =A0 The govt simply can=
not
> be entrusted to decide what political speech is sufficiently truthful to
> warrent protection, because then all speech is subject to govt interferen=
ce
> (if not control). =A0This is exactly what the 1st amendment is intended t=
o
> protect us against.
>
> It shouldnt be hard to see the danger, there, and yet it seems you cant s=
ee
> it.
>
> Try imagining that power in the hands of the politician you
> hate/fear/disagree with the most. =A0Are you still cool with it?
A "devil in the details" is a FUD argument that can apply to any
complex proposition anywhere anytime. Thus, it carries no practical
weight.
Meanwhile, the "power" (i.e., the "secretive action") we're talking
about seems to be the time-honored one of identifying unsympathetic
views and presenting counter-argument to them. But surely that's what
every politician does at every instant of public life. (And it
certainly doesn't stop when they're elected.) The 'safeguard' on this
particular power is that its effectiveness seems to depend, in each
instance, on the availability of the aforementioned *rational* counter-
argument. I.e., the mere existence of such an argument demonstrates
that the "epistemology" being targeted is indeed "crippled". Yes, we
must hope that the public can itself be occasionally jolted towards
such rational appraisal... but, after all, we hope for that each
November...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com |