foundations of free speech

[Total Workup]

I would like to address the foundations of free speech = FS. They say it's one of the cornerstones of the western society, and those in favor often use it to great oratorical effect, crafting an imposing story – a foundational myth if you will – with themselves as the heroes. Those ready to censor are of course the villains in that story, and those claiming to be in favor, but making excuses for censorship are the false friends.

There's something to be said for a good oratorical flow, and I enjoy it as much as anyone. But let's see if the story holds up when we check even slightly under the surface.

It appears FS is nowhere near as clever or useful as the common wisdom would have you think. FS is rooted in a fundamental lack of understanding of where to move or how to move there. From the very beginning it showed utter contempt for science / reason / logic / evidence and instead embraced willful stupidity, where no designer or supporter ever sincerely declared on the subject of FS: "Let's be intelligent." I hope you fine folks can prove me wrong, but tell me this: would our society have any sizable preventable suffering left if FS were well-conceived? After 200+ years of running, probably not.

I'm not sure if people will like this topic, so how about this: I'll give you a preview, and you tell me if it's interesting to you at all?

If you agree, here are the problems I find with FS in order of discovery:
....1. no real goal.......................=> no criteria for assessment
....2. bad results........................= no healthy discussion
....3. bad intent.........................= intentionally broken flow of good ideas from source to destination
....4. FS proponents are not real...= they are actually in favor of brutal censorship of the flow of ideas
....5. FS is not desirable..............= to maximize the flow of good ideas, we need science-regulated speech

I feel like these should be conducive to an exciting and productive discussion, but you tell me.

Thank you.

 

[Mach]

While there is an intelligent discussion to be had about the mythology of western democracy, and on the blind faith in phrases like "freedom of speech", I don't think your post will advance that.
With such a low post count, and when you frame the issue in such a way that it looks extraordinarily anti-western rather than thoughtful and reasonable, I have to conclude your post is simply anti-American propaganda.

This was a real gem:

I hope you fine folks can prove me wrong, but tell me this: would our society have any sizable preventable suffering left if FS were well-conceived? After 200+ years of running, probably not.

Suffering is the human condition, FYI. The idea that the existence of human suffering is proof that freedom of speech is a failure, is so absurd it hurts.

From a high-level look at human suffering:
Western philosophy tries to reason its way out of it.
Eastern philosophy tries to eliminate it via non-dualism.
Nihilists tell you it's all **** and there is nothing you can do about it. Where did that nihilistic movement begin? Your post quacks like a duck.

 

[Total Workup]

I don't think your post will advance that.

Do you mean "your thread"? Because my post itself is just a foreshadowing of a potential discussion; I didn't mean for it alone to bring about intellectual progress.

.

With such a low post count

How's that relevant? Examine what is said, not who speaks.

.

extraordinarily anti-western ... anti-American propaganda

You've lost me – how's it anti-western or -American or anti any other place in the world?
I suppose it's anti- {free speech warriors} in a way, but that's regardless of where they are geographically.
Maybe they are mostly in the West, but they are individuals, they only speak for themselves.

And even more significantly, I'm making this criticism out of a desire to help, not hurt, so ultimately it's not anti anyone.

.

looks extraordinarily anti-western rather than thoughtful and reasonable, I have to conclude your post is simply anti-American propaganda.

You should really be saying
...."this post seems really <bad, etc.> to me,
....but I could be wrong – after all I'm a bio-computer and have a non-zero error rate;
....if I'm missing something – please tell me; I'll be happy to be educated.
....It's like they say – in a philosophical dispute, those gain most who are defeated, since they learn most."

.

This was a real gem:

This is clearly sarcastic, which is fine only after you've won the point and only if I'm recalcitrant, otherwise it's neither courteous nor productive.
And you haven't won the point yet.

Now, I don't want to sterilize the discussion, I can appreciate a good confrontation. But ethically we must first exhaust the diplomatic means, and if that eliminates confrontations – we just have to accept it. And I think it would be a good problem to have.

.

Suffering is the human condition

Preventable suffering is preventable by definition.
I'm happy to debate just how much of our suffering is preventable, but first you have to concede that you've missed this one.

.

FYI

I'm pretty sure you mean it patronizingly – do you? The textual medium strips away much of the emotional context, so I have to check.

.

the existence of human suffering

You've misread it – I mentioned preventable suffering, not just any suffering.

.

Western philosophy tries to reason its way out of it.
Eastern philosophy tries to eliminate it via non-dualism.
Nihilists tell you it's all **** and there is nothing you can do about it. Where did that nihilistic movement begin? Your post quacks like a duck.

You seem to be putting me in the 3rd category, but I'm obviously in the first. I vote to reason our way out of it, hence this thread.

You know what's funny? Even with all your errors, on a relative scale it's still a great response, so thank you for that.

– But you still have to fix those errors, at least the ones where you were less than respectful toward me.

 

[Drawdown]

Most of our Constitution, including the Bill of rights, are based on either tactics England was using against the american rebels or things that happened in European feuds.

 

[Total Workup]

To refresh the narrative,
....in essence I propose to subscribe societal decision-making to science / reason / logic / evidence / due process
........– in other words I propose its ultimate improvement, which would probabilistically maximize all its other improvements –
....and this idea and its breakdown are obvious to me.
....But it doesn't seem obvious to others, and I'm anxiously looking for a path to make it obvious.

So far it doesn't seem like constructive input to that end is coming up, so I figure I might as well proceed with my preexisting material. Maybe we'll develop some better formatting later, but for now this is the best I've got.

1. no real goal
The problem we discover right away, without any investigation or rummaging, is that
....no one really tells you what FS is for,
and thus we have no meaningful grounds to assess whether FS is good or bad, and in what direction we should move it if it's bad.

I mean they might say it's the foundation for all the other freedoms, or that otherwise you will fall under tyranny, but those are meaningless without a goal in life. For example,
....if you're selfish, you might choose "I maximize my internal wellbeing";
....if you're altruistic – "I maximize everyone's internal wellbeing".
And then whatever options you consider for a society,
....you judge them in the metric of that goal,
....and if you don't have one, then you are correspondingly indifferent to those options.
But those orators offer you no such metric, and thus are already making their argument utterly pointless – intellectually if not yet artistically.

So the design of the founders has already run into a concrete wall, but we can't quit just yet – there's so much more to explore! So let's plug this hole for them, and to that end let's assume
....we are looking at the issue from the viewpoint of the entire society,
....and our goal is to maximize the wellbeing of that society –
........ultimately aiming to achieve fulfillment even for the worst-doing person,
........and in the meantime aiming to fulfill as many people as we can, to create a large base of prosperity from which to attack the remaining areas of misery.

For future reference let's denote this goal ↑WS for "maximize the wellbeing of society". And if you think it's a zero-sum game – it's only if you don't clean it up. Just say that
....▪ on the base level
........everyone should express their wishes for themselves unrestrictedly within their own domain,
....▪ and on the compound level
........when those wishes clash where domains intersect,
........everyone should maximize people's common wellbeing, with every person weighted equally.
You may or may not succeed in that maximizing, but what's important is that you sincerely try. Some people might not want to sign onto it, but then they're not on the side of good, and we shouldn't try to fulfill those votes.

 

[Glitch]

I would like to address the foundations of free speech = FS. They say it's one of the cornerstones of the western society...

"They" would be wrong. There is only one nation on this planet that acknowledges and actively protects free speech, and that is the US. The US is unique among nations in that regard. No other nation even acknowledges, much less protects, their citizen's individual inherent right to free speech.

 

[Jonsa]

"They" would be wrong. There is only one nation on this planet that acknowledges and actively protects free speech, and that is the US. The US is unique among nations in that regard. No other nation even acknowledges, much less protects, their citizen's individual inherent right to free speech.

er, no. its found all over the damn place enshrined in national founding documents and rule of law.

 

[Jonsa]

The goal of freedom of speech is enable the free expression and exchange of ideas and opinions and to call out those that rule us as appropriate.

Its price is sufferance of all kinds of crazy arsed hypotheses, wild religious cults, odious little pussballs of hatred, etc.

 

[Glitch]

er, no. its found all over the damn place enshrined in national founding documents and rule of law.

No, it is not. The UK alone arrests on average 9 people every day for what they post online. You will not find it in any other nation's constitution or founding documents, only in the US Constitution.

 

[Jonsa]

No, it is not. The UK alone arrests on average 9 people every day for what they post online. You will not find it in any other nation's constitution or founding documents, only in the US Constitution.

Canada, India. France. Seriously man.

 

[Glitch]

Canada, India. France. Seriously man.

Read their constitutions. You will find no acknowledgement of free speech or any protections. Canada, in particular has been enacting all kinds hate speech laws which is proof that they do not support free speech. Both India and France, like New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and everywhere else on the planet - except the US - also limits speech.

In India, Free Speech With Limits
What French Free Speech?

With regard to not just free speech, but the entire Bill of Rights, the US is unique among nations. The US is also the only nation that limits the powers of its federal government.

 

[TheParser]

No nation allows freedom of speech.

The United States allows a considerably larger amount of freedom of speech than do most other countries.

But during the last three years, that freedom has been curtailed further when it comes to social matters.

All Internet platforms have tightened their posting rules.

In my opinion, in the coming decades, there will be even less freedom of speech when it comes to social matters.

University students, for example, know that they had better self-censor themselves if they wish to avoid unpleasantness.

And this also goes for workplace conversation.

 

[Glitch]

No nation allows freedom of speech.

The United States allows a considerably larger amount of freedom of speech than do most other countries.

But during the last three years, that freedom has been curtailed further when it comes to social matters.

All Internet platforms have tightened their posting rules.

In my opinion, in the coming decades, there will be even less freedom of speech when it comes to social matters.

University students, for example, know that they had better self-censor themselves if they wish to avoid unpleasantness.

And this also goes for workplace conversation.

Freedom of speech is about preventing government censorship. In the US we do not punish the private sector if they chose to censor. Which is why forums, like this one, can make their own determination as to what is acceptable speech and what isn't. The US is the only government on the planet that not just recognizes the individual inherent right to free speech, but has established protections to ensure that right is not violated by the federal, State, or local governments.

No other nation can make that claim.

 

[Jason Warfield]

I think the author of this is over-thinking it.

Basically, the point of FS, as it relates to America (something I don't believe the author is considering; FS means different things in different places) is two-fold as it relates to the First Amendment.

First, the right to worship your faith, whatever it is and that the government cannot sponsor a state religion. Catholic vs. Protestant, the British Anglican church vs. everyone....the Founders grew up in a time where your religion determined your social and economic prospects...and in some cases if you even get to live...and if you went by what the state (or monarchy or whatever ruling body was) considered to be the proper faith, then it could not be used against you, but if you were not then your faith could determine your fate in a negative way. The Founders wished to get out from under that system and opted for a government that would both protect faith, but not endorse it either.

Second, and less complex, is the idea that you can criticize the government without punishment from the government. The key word here is government. The people who run this board can edit or censor to their heart's delight and your right to FS is NOT infringed upon. BUT...if the government were to come in and tell the people who run this board that only pro-Trump posts were allowed, then that IS an infringement. Even worse would be if a poster made a statement like, "The president is stupid." and the government acts on that statement and punishes the poster in some fashion (IRA audit, revocation of voting rights, denial of Social Security, whatever) then that IS also an infringement.

 

[bomberfox]

I dont think there needs to be a pre-defined goal for a free society to be free. With that said, free speech can and does often come with social consequences.

 

[RobertU]

I think the author of this is over-thinking it.

Basically, the point of FS, as it relates to America (something I don't believe the author is considering; FS means different things in different places) is two-fold as it relates to the First Amendment.

First, the right to worship your faith, whatever it is and that the government cannot sponsor a state religion. Catholic vs. Protestant, the British Anglican church vs. everyone....the Founders grew up in a time where your religion determined your social and economic prospects...and in some cases if you even get to live...and if you went by what the state (or monarchy or whatever ruling body was) considered to be the proper faith, then it could not be used against you, but if you were not then your faith could determine your fate in a negative way. The Founders wished to get out from under that system and opted for a government that would both protect faith, but not endorse it either.

Second, and less complex, is the idea that you can criticize the government without punishment from the government. The key word here is government. The people who run this board can edit or censor to their heart's delight and your right to FS is NOT infringed upon. BUT...if the government were to come in and tell the people who run this board that only pro-Trump posts were allowed, then that IS an infringement. Even worse would be if a poster made a statement like, "The president is stupid." and the government acts on that statement and punishes the poster in some fashion (IRA audit, revocation of voting rights, denial of Social Security, whatever) then that IS also an infringement.

The issue of free speech may extend beyond what government does. For example, if private death squads routinely assassinated people they disagreed with, would that nation really have free speech? Also, one might argue that since various near-monopoly platforms use the "public airspace" to control large portions of the internet, they are really de facto public utilities and thus should provide open, public access to all forms of expression that do not break the law.

 

[TheEconomist]

Read their constitutions. You will find no acknowledgement of free speech or any protections. Canada, in particular has been enacting all kinds hate speech laws which is proof that they do not support free speech.

The issue is more subtle than it looks in Canada.

Let me point to the first two sections of the Charter, which are the relevant ones here:

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms -- Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms -- Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association

While it is true that there are "hate speech" laws in Canada, it is also evident that they limit the exercise of the right guaranteed under section 2(b). The reason the laws are upheld nonetheless is because the Supreme Court has ruled that the government provided sufficient justification to apply the limitations it sought to apply. Note that any modification to those laws can be challenged on the ground that they violate section 2(b) and the fact that previous restrictions does not guarantee that new ones would be accepted. The government has to satisfy the court that the limitations it seeks to enforce are justifiable in a free and democratic society. There are precendents and detailed majority arguments that can severely limit the arguments that government can bring up without conflicting with previous cases.

So, it's not that speech is not protected in Canada. It's that the protection are less large in Canada than in the United States. It's also a country where disputes over cultural issues focus on very different things. There was a debate about freedom of speech involving Peterson and Dyson where Dyson tried to pull the race card and only very politicized people who like following American politics will react to those kinds of comments. We have historical disputes between linguistic groups and others involving members of First Nations, but we do not have a history of racial tensions between white people and black as in the United States.

 

[aociswundumho]

So, it's not that speech is not protected in Canada. It's that the protection are less large in Canada than in the United States.

I think it's larger than you're implying it is. I remember watching videos of Ezra Levant and the human rights commission and thinking that the very idea of that kind of thing would be absurd in America

 

[Moot]

I would like to address the foundations of free speech = FS. They say it's one of the cornerstones of the western society, and those in favor often use it to great oratorical effect, crafting an imposing story – a foundational myth if you will – with themselves as the heroes. Those ready to censor are of course the villains in that story, and those claiming to be in favor, but making excuses for censorship are the false friends.

There's something to be said for a good oratorical flow, and I enjoy it as much as anyone. But let's see if the story holds up when we check even slightly under the surface.

It appears FS is nowhere near as clever or useful as the common wisdom would have you think. FS is rooted in a fundamental lack of understanding of where to move or how to move there. From the very beginning it showed utter contempt for science / reason / logic / evidence and instead embraced willful stupidity, where no designer or supporter ever sincerely declared on the subject of FS: "Let's be intelligent." I hope you fine folks can prove me wrong, but tell me this: would our society have any sizable preventable suffering left if FS were well-conceived? After 200+ years of running, probably not.

I'm not sure if people will like this topic, so how about this: I'll give you a preview, and you tell me if it's interesting to you at all?

If you agree, here are the problems I find with FS in order of discovery:
....1. no real goal.......................=> no criteria for assessment
....2. bad results........................= no healthy discussion
....3. bad intent.........................= intentionally broken flow of good ideas from source to destination
....4. FS proponents are not real...= they are actually in favor of brutal censorship of the flow of ideas
....5. FS is not desirable..............= to maximize the flow of good ideas, we need science-regulated speech

I feel like these should be conducive to an exciting and productive discussion, but you tell me.

Thank you.

I think your conclusions are based on a false premise. Free speech as it was understood by the founders was "political speech" and the First Amendment is a protection for political speech from the government. The People are free to exercise their right to free political speech, and reap it's consequences, to their hearts desire.

Political speech has always been messy...people fight wars and alienate friends and family over such speech every day of the week. Monarchs and presidents have by decree tried to censure political speech all throughout the ages. Most recently, Trump has been trying to censure political speech since his first day in office by simply labeling it "fake news" whenever it's something he disagrees with. But make no mistake, his intent is to shut down the political speech discussion.

For a intelligent rational science based discussion...you would at the very minimum need to have some basic knowledge of scientific theory and procedure...and some knowledge of the terminology and subject you're trying to discuss. And frankly, I'm not seeing that you do.

 

[Glitch]

The issue is more subtle than it looks in Canada.

Let me point to the first two sections of the Charter, which are the relevant ones here:


While it is true that there are "hate speech" laws in Canada, it is also evident that they limit the exercise of the right guaranteed under section 2(b). The reason the laws are upheld nonetheless is because the Supreme Court has ruled that the government provided sufficient justification to apply the limitations it sought to apply. Note that any modification to those laws can be challenged on the ground that they violate section 2(b) and the fact that previous restrictions does not guarantee that new ones would be accepted. The government has to satisfy the court that the limitations it seeks to enforce are justifiable in a free and democratic society. There are precendents and detailed majority arguments that can severely limit the arguments that government can bring up without conflicting with previous cases.

So, it's not that speech is not protected in Canada. It's that the protection are less large in Canada than in the United States. It's also a country where disputes over cultural issues focus on very different things. There was a debate about freedom of speech involving Peterson and Dyson where Dyson tried to pull the race card and only very politicized people who like following American politics will react to those kinds of comments. We have historical disputes between linguistic groups and others involving members of First Nations, but we do not have a history of racial tensions between white people and black as in the United States.

It isn't subtle at all. Canada, like the rest of the UK, does not acknowledge or protect the individual right to free speech. Any nation that enacts "hate speech" laws vehemently opposes free speech. That is all that anyone needs to know about Canada.

 

[TheEconomist]

I think it's larger than you're implying it is. I remember watching videos of Ezra Levant and the human rights commission and thinking that the very idea of that kind of thing would be absurd in America.

The gap between how far the United States go to protect freedom of speech versus how far Canada goes to do the same isn't especially small. Besides, I don't think that what we're doing in Canada with "hate speech" laws is necessary, let alone useful by its own light. On a broader level, I think that trying to control speech on contentious issues is not a peculiarly good idea. To be fair though, problems related to hate speech laws are not the norm.


It is true that I could write an article in the US in which I call certain groups of people "monsters." It would be stupid, though legal as long as I do not enjoin people to commit crimes in the process.

 

[TheEconomist]

It isn't subtle at all. Canada, like the rest of the UK, does not acknowledge or protect the individual right to free speech. Any nation that enacts "hate speech" laws vehemently opposes free speech. That is all that anyone needs to know about Canada.

In Canada, you can criticize "hate speech" laws, the notion of "hate speech" itself and all judgements ever rendered on the issue perfectly legally. I could literally go to Ottawa, yell to Trudeau that he is a useless prick and that he can put his law on transgender pronouns deep in his a** and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about that. Sometimes, a provincial government or the federal government tries to impose restriction on speech. It is always challenged in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional on account that it violates section 2 (b) -- and sometimes more. The government somtimes looses. In other words, the government can restrict speech, but the government cannot restrict all speech however it pleases.

Clearly, there is a very large difference between my ability to say what I want in Canada versus to say what I want in most of the Middle East, China or North Korea.


You cannot make the argument the government can do whatever it wants to speech in Canada -- the Supreme Court would beg to differ. And you cannot make the argument that protection to the individual right to free speech is not recognized in Canada -- freedom of expression is a fundamental right under section 2 (b). And you can't say free speech is not protected in practice either. It's clearly no perfect, nor as strong as in the United States, but it's hell of a lot better than nothing.

 

[Glitch]

In Canada, you can criticize "hate speech" laws, the notion of "hate speech" itself and all judgements ever rendered on the issue perfectly legally. I could literally go to Ottawa, yell to Trudeau that he is a useless prick and that he can put his law on transgender pronouns deep in his a** and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about that. Sometimes, a provincial government or the federal government tries to impose restriction on speech. It is always challenged in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional on account that it violates section 2 (b) -- and sometimes more. The government somtimes looses. In other words, the government can restrict speech, but the government cannot restrict all speech however it pleases.

Clearly, there is a very large difference between my ability to say what I want in Canada versus to say what I want in most of the Middle East, China or North Korea.


You cannot make the argument the government can do whatever it wants to speech in Canada -- the Supreme Court would beg to differ. And you cannot make the argument that protection to the individual right to free speech is not recognized in Canada -- freedom of expression is a fundamental right under section 2 (b). And you can't say free speech is not protected in practice either. It's clearly no perfect, nor as strong as in the United States, but it's hell of a lot better than nothing.

Why are you still pretending that Canada has any respect for free speech or any individual right for that matter? It has obvious to the entire planet that they don't. You don't even have to say a word in Canada and you can still be arrested for "hate speech." Just having material that your fascist government considers "hateful" is sufficient to put someone in prison for up to 2 years. They have arrested pastors because they have declared the Christian bible as "hate speech." So now Canadians are not only anti-free speech, they have added religious persecution to their repertoire. Next comes arresting teachers who do not conform to the government's master plan.

The all-powerful Canadian government spits on the inherent rights of its citizens.

 

[Total Workup]

Regarding the discussion in this entire subthread,

1. positives
I think it is pretty good as far as it goes, with a lot of elucidation and detailing,
although some of the disagreement seems to be about terminology: do we confine FS to the legal sense, or extend it to the non-legal one?
....I think the non-legal aspect plays a major role in society,
....and my favorite commentators have been talking about it a lot, e.g. in regard to Twitter and Youtube,
....so I'm definitely including it.
....In fact, for now the non-legal aspect is a lot more significant, and the reasons should become apparent in section 4.

2. negative
But a bigger problem is that it doesn't go very far: it's theoretical, academic, without a plan to improve the world, or even a plan to make a plan.
And I'm not saying this to make you feel bad, but to give you a hope to the contrary, to tell you that things can be better.

3. exploring the reasons for the negative
Society conditions you to look to the governmental officials for large-scale improvements in the world,
....and when they're ineffectual, like e.g. Obama was, you probably transfer that difficulty to the endeavor itself,
....but you shouldn't, on both counts.
People in tightly-regulated organizations are actually some of the worst-suited people to initiate those improvements,
....regardless of their (people's) conventional types of power – financial, military, technological, etc.,
....and the reason comes from the nature of biocomputing – the part of decision-making that happens in people's minds – as opposed to electronic computing.

▪ ideal process
I've previously mentioned science / reason / logic / evidence / due process as the way we should organize biocomputing.
....The process itself has been around for quite a while – at least for a century.
....And we know what it does – we give it a question, and it returns the best approximation of objectively truthful answer.
....Or at least it should in principle, because its current implementations
........– most notably the scientific peer-review process and the non-kangaroo court procedure –
........have built-in biases that render the answers tainted:
............science:....doesn't eliminate false negatives
............court:.......money bias and selfishness bias
............both:........slow and cumbersome, not optimized for efficiency
....But once we fix those biases
........– which the people reading this may well be able to do, and I'm offering here a plan to that end –
........we'll get effectively the best possible decision-making process.
....It's about
........1. inviting all good-faith hypotheses,
........2. and then all good-faith criticism,
........3. and letting them battle it out, arbitrated by science;
........whatever's left standing in the end, if anything, is the answer we accept.

For brevity let's call it RoS = rule of science, by analogy with the rule of law.

▪ current process
Like I said, currently RoS is largely unused.
Instead people use heuristics, and the most relevant one to our conversation is
....OW = the Overton window = the domain of usual, conventional subjects, in other words the domain of acceptable discourse.

....▪ If you have an idea inside that window,
........you have a reasonable chance of finding an audience for it,
........and then it may or may not be taken on its merit, depending on how the rest of those heuristics work out for it.

....▪ But if an idea is outside that window,
........it's {rejected automatically even if it's good},
........and has no chance of being taken on its merit.

(continued)

 

[Total Workup]

(part 2 of 3)

▪ how the ideal process is rejected
Now, subscribing society to RoS is obviously a good idea
....– it's better to optimize our outcomes than not to optimize, by definition.
But this idea is also extremely unusual,
....and so realistically has no chance of being accepted into an unscientific discussion.

So with the current OW we have a catch-22:
....for a discussion to approve our "rule of science" idea, that discussion must already subscribe to RoS.
....But it can't do so until we get our idea approved.

So OW is the naturally-arising everlasting all-powerful villain of the story,
....which keeps ensuring the triumph of stupidity over intelligence,
....which survived even the advent of science and legal due process,
........and even of Perry Mason's brilliant courtroom repartee, e.g.
............Objection: incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial!
............The counselor is testifying!
............Objection: hearsay!
............Objection: assuming facts not in evidence!
............Objection: not best evidence!

4. offering a solution
At this point the situation may seem hopeless to you,
....since anyone near the top of administrative hierarchy has had to survive a long journey through OW
....and therefore has had any OW-defying spirit beaten out of them, if they ever had it in the first place.

But in a dark, perverse way it's also a positive.
....Because the administrative aspect of society is so profoundly subordinated to OW,
....if someone manages to switch OW over to RoS, the administrators will follow.

So all we need to do is make RoS into a trend.
....Introduce it into public consciousness,
....give people a taste of winning – for now only verbally, but even that alone should make the audience ecstatic,
........and a taste of resulting entertainment – which RoS will optimize too,
....achieve success in ratings as a result
....– and then every media outlet will want to copy that success.

(continued)