Trudeau Government Moves to Regulate Podcasts

[TurkeyOnRye]

Well, that's an "issue" regarding all aspects of civil organization, isn't it. And yet some means has to be instituted to oversee social civil interaction. And I think this is exactly what the Canadians are trying figure out. As opposed to here in the the U.S. where we can just lie with impunity about pretty much anything and everything, and as a result people are now simply believing whatever lies they happen to like.

I don't see how the fundamental goal of the ideal of freedom of speech is being served by allowing people and institutions to lie with impunity. Especially as the end result is that 'speech' becomes more and more valueless, and meaningless.

Is it really that impossible for modern society to institute some means of overseeing honesty in speech? I really don't think it would be that difficult. What will be difficult is that every politician and every corporate CEO will fight such oversight tooth and nail, as they are the most prolific liars among us.

Well, we can't just have people believing whatever they want, now, can we?


Much of what humans regard as "truth" is simply consensus or belief, and not ACTUAL truth. Again, the problem is determination of what is true and what is not. Just take scientific endeavor for instance. If you look at our scientific understanding of 100 years ago, very little of what we thought we knew was correct. We can only approximate truth. If there is no freedom of speech, it'll just drive deviant speech underground, and sooner or later, those seeds will bear fruit. During the pandemic, the "lab leak" hypothesis was regarded as conspiratorial nonsense. And yet, years later, the Department of Energy and the FBI both concede that that was the most likely origin of the coronavirus. Truth is only truth until it's found to be a lie. Lies are only lies until they're found to be truth.

Censorship is a very VERY dangerous thing. I am not concerned about "lies running amuck". Ultimately, lies and mistruths do not survive the course of time, because they have no purchase in reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree with this part from your source article:

"Teachers’ unions objected to the test being applied broadly to all teachers, questioning why a kindergarten teacher needed to be tested on secondary school math concepts or why an art teacher needed to pass a math test."

I think teachers should have general knowledge.
After having had dozens of employees, I discovered
that many don't have even basic enuf math skills
to do clerical or maintenance work.

 

[Orbit]

Well, we can't just have people believing whatever they want, now, can we?


Much of what humans regard as "truth" is simply consensus or belief, and not ACTUAL truth. Again, the problem is determination of what is true and what is not. Just take scientific endeavor for instance. If you look at our scientific understanding of 100 years ago, very little of what we thought we knew was correct. We can only approximate truth. If there is no freedom of speech, it'll just drive deviant speech underground, and sooner or later, those seeds will bear fruit. During the pandemic, the "lab leak" hypothesis was regarded as conspiratorial nonsense. And yet, years later, the Department of Energy and the FBI both concede that that was the most likely origin of the coronavirus. Truth is only truth until it's found to be a lie. Lies are only lies until they're found to be truth.

Censorship is a very VERY dangerous thing. I am not concerned about "lies running amuck". Ultimately, lies and mistruths do not survive the course of time, because they have no purchase in reality.

Again, please show a valid source that establishes that this policy means you can’t say what you want within applicable broadcasting law. It’s just not there but you keep going on about it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree with this part from your source article:

"Teachers’ unions objected to the test being applied broadly to all teachers, questioning why a kindergarten teacher needed to be tested on secondary school math concepts or why an art teacher needed to pass a math test."

God forbid should teachers need to show and demonstrate that they are intelligent.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Again, please show a valid source that establishes that this policy means you can’t say what you want within applicable broadcasting law. It’s just not there but you keep going on about it.

I wasn't addressing you, nor was I talking about that policy.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It seems to me that a sort of tyrannical imposition is being implemented in Canada.

It's happening everywhere with the left wing.

Less and less freedom with every policy that comes out of them.

I noticed Canada, like the US, is steadily dropping down in the freedom index.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's happening everywhere with the left wing.

Less and less freedom with every policy that comes out of them.

I noticed Canada, like the US, is steadily dropping down in the freedom index.

Voltaire used to say: I disagree with what you said, but I will fight to death so you have the right to say it.

Their ideological and political mantra is: I disagree with what you said, and I will fight to death to prevent you from saying.
So they use any means possible. Including this.

 

[PureX]

Well, we can't just have people believing whatever they want, now, can we?

No, we can't. For a society to function it needs to be able to cohere it's understanding of it's reality enough to agreee to work together on functioning within it. There has to be a unity of purpose or everyone starts working against everyone else. As is happening to us, now.

Much of what humans regard as "truth" is simply consensus or belief, and not ACTUAL truth.

We humans don't get to know the "actual truth". Why are we here? What are we here to achieve? How do we achieve it? We don't know. But we are here. And we will never know why unless we stay here and keep seeking. And to do that, we humans need to cooperate with each other for the sake of our collective well-being. And that means we need to agree on how to do that. We need that consensus of belief. It's what holds us together.

Again, the problem is determination of what is true and what is not.

We aren't going to be able to do that beyond relative factuality. And that factuality requires the pursuit of HONESTY more-so than or half-baked assessments of "truth". As a people we need to be as honest with ourselves and each other as we can be, so that we can make the most effective decisions enabling our continued well-being as a human collective.

Just take scientific endeavor for instance. If you look at our scientific understanding of 100 years ago, very little of what we thought we knew was correct. We can only approximate truth. If there is no freedom of speech, ...

Who is proposing "no freedom of speech"?

Anyway, science has a mechanism for keeping itself as honest as it can be. And the people involved in it, for the most part. believe in that goal, and that mechanism. But that is not so for the people involved in politics, and commerce. They believe that lying for the sake of their own political or financial gain is not only acceptable, but mandatory. And this complicit dishonesty is spreading, and is destroying the cognitive cohesion of our society. And it really needs to be addressed.

Canada is trying to address it within it's borders. The U.S. is not.

Censorship is a very VERY dangerous thing.

No, it's not. It's only "dangerous" to people that think selfishness is "freedom". Or that "greed is a virtue". It's the abuse of power that is dangerous, not censoring lies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Voltaire used to say: I disagree with what you said, but I will fight to death so you have the right to say it.

Their ideological and political mantra is: I disagree with what you said, and I will fight to death to prevent you from saying.
So they use any means possible. Including this.

The latter mentality is certainly the banter of despots and tyrants.

 

[Estro Felino]

The latter mentality is certainly the banter of despots and tyrants.

It's the mentality of the lounge-loving and carefree, rainbow-like European Left.
A Left who rolls red carpets at speculators who fund LGBT associations and illegal immigration.
A Left who hates and despises Caucasian factory-workers, because they are beneath them.
They don't even have a 1/10 of what socialism really is.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

No, we can't. For a society to function it needs to be able to cohere it's understanding of it's reality enough to agreee to work together on functioning within it. There has to be a unity of purpose or everyone starts working against everyone else. As is happening to us, now.

I didn't expect you to come out and admit that you're in favor of outright fascism, but there it is.

We aren't going to be able to do that beyond relative factuality. And that factuality requires the pursuit of HONESTY more-so than or half-baked assessments of "truth". As a people we need to be as honest with ourselves and each other as we can be, so that we can make the most effective decisions enabling our continued well-being as a human collective.

Honesty is a powerful bridge of communication, but people don't necessarily arrive at the same conclusions just because they're being honest. Further, it would be of great harm if honest discourse were silenced simply because it didn't agree with the established narrative.

Who is proposing "no freedom of speech"?

You are. And blatantly so.

Just because you regard your form of censorship as just and of benevolent cause (which it isn't), doesn't mean it retains the sacred status of free speech. If I've heard you correctly, you're advocating censorship of speech that deviates from government-accepted narratives. How you could cram that ridiculous idea into the extremely restrictive definitional space of "free speech" is beyond my comprehension.

Anyway, science has a mechanism for keeping itself as honest as it can be. And the people involved in it, for the most part. believe in that goal, and that mechanism. But that is not so for the people involved in politics, and commerce. They believe that lying for the sake of their own political or financial gain is not only acceptable, but mandatory. And this complicit dishonesty is spreading, and is destroying the cognitive cohesion of our society. And it really needs to be addressed.

The problem with science is not in science itself, but in the fact that once scientifically-validated information is released from its rigorously controlled test environment, it becomes dispersed in ways that compromises its informational integrity. Furthermore, science is not always cut and dry. There is a lot of subjective interpretation involved. In the broadest sense, not all scientists agree on what the appropriate controls are, or how best to implement them. I just don't understand how you could recognize the pervasive issue of dishonesty and corruption in the political leadership while simultaneously advocating for that same leadership to impose sweeping controls on speech.

You claim, without any sort of logical rationale or evidence that prohibiting certain speech will act as some kind of unifier of society. But you have to acknowledge that it is through discourse, through hashing out differences—just like we are doing now—that a mutually clear perception of the total picture can resolve. This is obvious. If a husband and wife were having a disagreement that was hurting their marriage, would you recommend that one dominate the discourse while the other acquiesce? Or would you encourage them to talk things through?