> I think Mill either ignored or did not anticipate just how dangerous a viral bad idea can be on a global scale.
I'll be as charitable as I can here, but the fact that you're even willing to call an idea "dangerous" tells me that you didn't quite understand Mill. Ideas, even though they might be "good" or "bad" -- do no harm. Ideas are meant to be thrown in the marketplace where the stifling of ideas hurts not the idea itself (or its inceptor), but rather everyone else. So an idea like "Bill Gates started COVID" might be a bad one, but Mill's argument is that I would be deprived if, say, Facebook or Twitter, would censor it.
Mill has no problems with ideas, but he does have a problem with harm (this is much more narrow). See, for example, how he differentiates between the two when he writes about the French Revolution[1].
Sorry, it's not immediately obvious to me how this excerpt is relevant. I don't really know anything about the French Revolution, so that's probably part of my confusion.
I think my key takeaway from it is:
>Men are not to make it the sole object of their political lives to avoid a revolution, no more than of their natural lives to avoid death. They are to take reasonable care to avert both those contingencies when there is a present danger, but not to forbear the pursuit of any worthy object for fear of a mere possibility.
And I can get behind this.
I think the key difference, though, is that there is not really much equivalence between the liberal ideals of the French Revolution and a misinformation campaign to burn down 5G towers. As Mill says, the former "did not choose the way of blood and violence in preference to the way of peace and discussion", but the latter certainly has. The intent behind each are just so wildly different.
You're not arguing against the post you replied to. You say "Mill says ideas are not dangerous". The poster said "I think Mill didn't know how dangerous they can be". The poster has already acknowledged what Mill's position was, and has said that they suspect that his position is wrong.
> You're not arguing against the post you replied to
Yeah, I'm not granting the premise that an idea can be "dangerous" (neither would Mill) -- I think the burden is on @tyrust proving how/why/when ideas are "dangerous" because that's kind of a tall order.
It is a tall order! To make it a little easier (and hopefully clear up a potential semantic misunderstanding), I don't mean the idea itself, but its communication and implied call to action. Ideas rattling around in your head certainly aren't going to cause any harm.
The trite example is shouting "fire" in a movie theater. Hate speech or other inciting speech are other examples; this article mentions recent destruction of 5G towers.
Mill argues that the truth will win out, but doesn't (to my recollection) acknowledge the consequences that happen in the meantime.
(I haven't had a chance to read the French Revolution thing you linked, I'll reply to that comment once I do)
> The trite example is shouting "fire" in a movie theater. Hate speech or other inciting speech are other examples; this article mentions recent destruction of 5G towers.
These are edge cases that are well-covered by laws that are already in place. People blowing up 5G towers? Send them to jail. Censorship shouldn't even part of the discussion here; that's destruction of property.
I'll be as charitable as I can here, but the fact that you're even willing to call an idea "dangerous" tells me that you didn't quite understand Mill.
Positioning myself as an implicit authority, the fact that you're willing to write something I can subtly misrepresent allows me to switch rhetorical tracks and 'explain' a rudimentary concept in order to gain the appearance of superior cleverness.
Your unnecessary mental masturbation aside, Mill would never call an idea (or speech, to be precise) “dangerous” — ever under the most lax of definitions. I’d invite any evidence to the contrary.
The statement you took issue with was I think Mill either ignored or did not anticipate just how dangerous a viral bad idea can be on a global scale.
Nobody argued that Mill held ideas to be dangerous; if anything, that is being suggested as a shortcoming of Mill's philosophy. There is no good reason to solicit evidence for a proposition which nobody was making to begin with.
I'll be as charitable as I can here, but the fact that you're even willing to call an idea "dangerous" tells me that you didn't quite understand Mill. Ideas, even though they might be "good" or "bad" -- do no harm. Ideas are meant to be thrown in the marketplace where the stifling of ideas hurts not the idea itself (or its inceptor), but rather everyone else. So an idea like "Bill Gates started COVID" might be a bad one, but Mill's argument is that I would be deprived if, say, Facebook or Twitter, would censor it.
Mill has no problems with ideas, but he does have a problem with harm (this is much more narrow). See, for example, how he differentiates between the two when he writes about the French Revolution[1].
[1] https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/jsmill/diss-disc/fren...